Uzasadnienie
OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL
BIONDI
delivered on 21 May 2026 (1)
Case C‑459/24 P
Ideella föreningen Svenska Bankföreningen med firma Svenska Bankföreningen, Näringsverksamhet
v
European Commission
( Appeal – State aid – Swedish tax law – Risk tax – Decision of the European Commission not to raise objections – Selectivity – Objective of the measure )
I. Introduction
1. When it comes to State aid and taxation, the issue of selectivity inevitably ‘presents considerable difficulties’, to quote Advocate General Kokott’s prime example of the art of understatement. (2)
2. It is indeed self-evident that taxation is not merely an instrument for raising revenue to finance public expenditure. It also serves a range of broader objectives, including income redistribution, the promotion of international competitiveness, debt management, and, regrettably, at times the conferral of undue advantages on particular categories of taxpayers. In that context, the application of selectivity as a means of upholding the principle of non-discrimination becomes particularly important –and inherently challenging –when it comes to national regulations, which by their very nature involve making distinctions and exercising discretion.
3. These difficulties should not however unduly impede the operation of well-established principles of EU State aid law. As early as the judgment in Italy v Commission – to the best of my recollection, the first case addressing a fiscal measure in the context of State aid – the Court articulated two foundational tenets of State aid control. First, the concept of aid is objective in nature and does not vary according to the sphere of national regulatory competence in which it arises. Second, the existence of national competence in a given domain, including taxation, does not insulate its exercise from scrutiny for compatibility with EU law. (3)