Theodoros G. Iliopoulos

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 22 (2023), Ausgabe 2, Seite 188 - 192

On 8 November 2022, the Court of Justice (appellate body) published its judgment in Joined Cases C‑885/19 P and C‑898/19 P that dealt with the tax ruling that Luxembourg had granted to the group Fiat Chrysler Finance Europe. The judgment annulled the Commission’s 2015 decision that found that the granting of this tax ruling constitutes illegal State aid and required Luxembourg to recover the incompatible and unlawful aid. With this judgment, the concept of ‘selectivity’ in State aid, at least with regards to tax measures, is delineated, and it is revealed to be narrower than it seemed. The arm’s length principle does not form part of State aid law, unless national law gives a concrete expression to it, and the Commission can only rely upon the principle of non-discrimination to assess the national rules that establish and determine the application of the arm’s length principle. This is the judicial epilogue of the Fiat case and of the saga of the tax rulings – unless the exact delineation of the powers of the Commission opens a new chapter in the future.

Theodoros G. Iliopoulos

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 21 (2022), Ausgabe 4, Seite 425 - 429

Case C-179/20 is an exemplary illustration of how legislative and regulatory interventions by the national authorities in the field of energy can give rise to questions of compliance with EU energy law, but also to questions of compatibility with State aid law. Indeed, in the early 2010s, and in transposing Directive 2009/72 that established common rules for the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity, the Romanian State reformed her national legislation on energy, and she adopted an administrative decision on the operation of the electricity transmission system, which contained beneficial terms for two electricity companies. This decision gave rise to a legal dispute between the Romanian State and the beneficiaries, on the one hand, and another electricity generation company, which considered it was harmed, on the other. The CJEU examined whether granting to certain thermal power stations priority dispatch, guaranteed access to the grid, and the guaranteed provision of ancillary services at regulated prices constituted State aid that should have been notified to the Commission, as per Article 108(3) TFEU.

Theodoros G. Iliopoulos

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 4, Seite 555 - 560

The judgment in the Case C-405/16 P has culminated the struggle between Germany and the Commission over the German law for the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources. Germany has argued that the legislation at issue followed the PreussenElektra model and does not constitute State aid, while the Commission and the General Court have adopted the opposite stance. In March 2019, the Court of Justice judgment in appeal held that there was no State aid involved and set aside the General Court judgment. Thus, a restrictive interpretation of the obfuscated ‘State resources’ criterion was reinstated, which takes State aid law theory back to its roots and makes the PreussenElektra doctrine actual again. The judgment can to a large extent shape how State aid law will apply in the next years and determine the possibility of Member States to circumvent the State aid law restrictions when enacting measures for the promotion of renewable energy sources, but also for other policy objectives. Keywords: State resources criterion; Support schemes for renewable energy sources; Feed-in and premium tariffs; EEG 2012.