Review of EU Case Law on State Aid – 2018 journal article European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 313 - 338
Direct Concern in State aid Direct Actions · Joined Cases C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P Scuola Montessori v Commission · Annotation by Luca Carmosino journal article Annotation on the Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 in Joined Cases C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl v European Commission, European Commission v Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl and European Commission v Pietro Ferracci Luca Carmosino European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 1, Page 71 - 75 On 6 November 2018, the Court of Justice rendered a judgment in a proceeding that opposed the Commission and the competitor of a beneficiary of an aid set up by Italy. One of the most interesting issues that the case presents is the question of regulatory acts, and the application of the notion of regulatory acts to State aid decisions. The case explores three elements in relation to admissibility: (i) State aid measures are not sui generis; (ii) State aid decisions further the general application nature of a national measure; and (iii) the assessment of direct concern requires some factual analysis already at the admissibility stage of the procedure. On the substance, the case is interesting since it defines the extent of the Commission’s duties in assessing whether to order the recovery of an illegal State aid.
A New Boost to National Recovery? · Case C‑349/17 Eesti Pagar · Annotation by Svein Terje Tveit journal article Annotation on the Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 March 2019 in Case C‑349/17 Eesti Pagar AS v Ettevõtluse Arendamise Sihtasutus, Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium. Svein Terje Tveit European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 2, Page 186 - 191 On 5 March 2019, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJ) issued an important ruling clarifying the scope of the national authorities’ obligation to recover unlawful State aid and the test for ‘incentive effect’ — a requirement for an aid measure to benefit from the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER). The CJ confirms that national authorities must recover unlawful State aid also in cases where the aid is granted (wrongfully) under the GBER as regional investment aid and the Commission has not adopted any Decision. The aid beneficiary may not rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations even if the granting authority had recommended the aid beneficiary to apply for aid knowing that work on the project had begun before the aid application was submitted. In cases where the EU rules on limitation period and interests are not directly applicable, national rules apply, so that the national authorities must seek full recovery of the unlawful aid and thereby ensure the effectiveness of State aid rules. Keywords: GBER; Recovery; National enforcement; Unlawful aid; National legal basis.
France ·Thomas Gourdeau journal article Thomas Gourdeau European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 432 - 434
Finland ·Ilkka Aalto-Setälä journal article Ilkka Aalto-Setälä European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 427 - 428
Judicial Control and the Recovery Phase journal article José Luis Buendía Sierra European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 2, Page 173 - 176
Italy ∙ Francesco D’Amario journal article Francesco D’Amario European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 2, Page 319 - 323
Spain ∙ Juan Jorge Piernas López journal article Juan Jorge Piernas López European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 1, Page 136 - 137
The Netherlands ∙ Emma Besselink journal article Emma Besselink European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 1, Page 132 - 133
Judgment By Formula: Regulatory Form and the Differentiation of Fiscal Measures and Non-Fiscal Measures in EU State Aid Law Christopher McMahon