Sweden gave data centers a
97% tax cut.
Then took it back.

SPV stands for Special Purpose Vehicle — a Swiss-registered company created exclusively to pursue the Projekt Datorhall litigation. It owns the assigned claims, manages the legal proceedings, receives any recovery, and distributes it to stakeholders according to their equity share. The SPV is ring-fenced from all other activities, which is standard practice in litigation funding.

Four categories: (1) Energy tax claims — discriminatory exclusion from the 97% reduction; (2) VAT recovery claims — non-refund of input VAT on mining and data center operations; (3) Claims against law firms and consultants who provided incorrect strategies; (4) Claims against landlords and local partners who seized equipment, locked facility access, or failed contractual obligations — pursued through Swedish courts. You may have claims in one or multiple categories.

Colocation operators, cryptocurrency mining operators, investors who funded data center projects based on the promised tax regime, companies that went bankrupt due to the tax changes, and anyone who suffered losses from bad advice by Swedish lawyers or consultants regarding data center tax structures. If you were affected between 2017 and 2023, you likely qualify.

EUR 10,000. Flat fee, same for all members regardless of company size. This covers shared legal counsel, EU filings, expert reports, and coordination. Major litigation costs are covered by the litigation funder — not by you.

The litigation funder absorbs all major legal costs. Your maximum exposure is the EUR 10,000 membership fee. No additional costs, no tax liabilities.

Our research identifies at least 10 cases where Skatteverket's position was overruled — including by the CJEU (Lexel, Hedqvist), the Swedish Supreme Administrative Court on the same Energy Tax Act (HFD 2022 ref. 5), and enforcement proceedings where the state was ordered to pay. Projekt Datorhall pursues five parallel legal pathways — EU Commission complaint, Energy Charter Treaty arbitration, bilateral investment treaty claims, Francovich damages, and förhandsbesked — so a setback in one forum does not end the case. Past outcomes do not guarantee future results, but the pattern of adverse rulings and the breadth of legal avenues support the strategy.

No. Swedish tort claims have a 10-year prescription period. The discrimination began in September 2018 — claims remain viable through at least 2028. The abolition occurred in July 2023 — those claims are viable through 2033. EU Commission complaints have no formal time limit. But earlier is better — act now.

No. This is one of the most important facts. Despite clear discrimination and documented damage, no formal EU state aid complaint has ever been filed and Skatteverket's 2018 position statement was never challenged in court. The Finance Minister herself acknowledged it "could be subject to court review." Projekt Datorhall would be first movers.

The litigation funder receives 60% equity in the SPV in exchange for funding all major litigation costs — hundreds of thousands of euros upfront with no guarantee. EU state aid litigation is complex, multi-jurisdictional, and takes 3–5 years. If the case fails, they absorb the loss entirely. The 60% share reflects high risk, long timelines, and substantial capital commitment. Without third-party funding, each investor would need EUR 20,000–50,000+ individually.

For context: one hour of EU state aid legal counsel costs EUR 400–800. An individual legal challenge costs EUR 50,000–200,000+. The annual energy tax loss for a 5MW colocation facility was EUR 200,000–600,000. EUR 10,000 gives you access to shared EU-level legal representation that would cost EUR 13,000–35,000+ independently — plus classified documents not available at any price.

Realistic timeline: pool formation in 3–6 months, EU Commission complaint filed within a year, ECT arbitration initiated within 12–18 months, preliminary tax ruling pursued in parallel, and primary resolution in 3–5 years. All five pathways run in parallel, not sequentially. Interest accrues on damages, so delayed resolution increases recovery.

The Energy Charter Treaty is an international investment treaty that protects energy-sector investors against unfair treatment by host states. Sweden ratified the ECT and, despite the EU’s collective withdrawal in 2025, the ECT’s 20-year sunset clause means its protections remain in force until 2045. Projekt Datorhall can initiate arbitration under Article 26 ECT, arguing that Sweden’s regulatory reversal constitutes a breach of fair and equitable treatment (FET), indirect expropriation, and discriminatory measures against foreign data center investors.

In May 2025, Sweden’s own Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen, T 555-24) confirmed that ECT arbitration remains valid for third-country (non-EU) investors, even where intra-EU claims are barred under CJEU Komstroy. This directly validates the Swiss SPV approach.

BITs are agreements between two countries that protect cross-border investors from unfair treatment. Sweden has an extensive BIT network — the UNCTAD Investment Policy Hub lists dozens of treaties. If a Projekt Datorhall claimant invested from a country that has a BIT with Sweden, they may have an independent arbitration claim for breach of investment protections. Projekt Datorhall evaluates each participant’s nationality and investment structure to identify applicable BITs, adding another parallel pathway to the EU and ECT tracks.

Absolutely. Small operators may have the strongest moral case — customers under 100kW were completely excluded. In a litigation pool, your costs are EUR 10,000 regardless of size. Your claim adds to aggregate damages, making the case more attractive to funders. Every participant strengthens the coalition.