Skip to content

Once an Aid Recipient, Always an Aid Recipient? The Post-Crisis State Interventions in the Banking Sector and Beyond

Małgorzata Agnieszka Cyndecka


Keywords: Applicability and Application of the MEOP, Banking Sector, Consecutive State Interventions, <i>BP Chemicals</i> Formula, <i>FIH</i> Case

One of the questions raised by the unprecedented state interventions in favour of banks that were hit by the financial crisis is whether the mere fact of having benefitted from aid in the past qualifies any future state measures granted to the same undertaking as aid. Given the number and importance of beneficiaries that received ‘crisis aid’ under article 107(3)(b) TFEU, this question merits a prompt answer. In terms of State aid law, it amounts to establishing the applicability of the Market Economy Operator Principle, MEOP. While the General Court (GC) ruled on consecutive state measures under Article 107(1) TFEU in the BP Chemicals case of 1998, recent case law has raised much controversy. This article attempts to clarify the implications of disregarding or misapplying BP Chemicals and the consequences of such practice to the MEOP while the CJEU is about to give its ruling in FIH, a highly debatable case on consecutive state measures in the banking sector.
Keywords: Applicability and Application of the MEOP; Banking Sector; Consecutive State Interventions; BP Chemicals Formula; FIH Case.

Małgorzata Agnieszka Cyndecka, PhD, Postdoctoral researcher at The Faculty of Law, University of Bergen. For correspondence: <>.


Lx-Number Search

(e.g. A | 000123 | 01)

Export Citation