Weiter zum Inhalt
  • «
  • 1
  • »

Die Suche erzielte 2 Treffer.

Economic or Non-Economic, that is the Question · Case T-747/17 UPF · Annotation by Jakub Kociubiński Journal Artikel

Annotation on the Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 30 April 2019 in Case T-747/17 Union des Ports de France v European Commission

Jakub Kociubiński

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 3, Seite 366 - 371

The Case T-747/17 Union des Ports de France (UPF), an annulment action brought against the European Commission (EC, the Commission) Decision declaring the tax exemption in favour of French ports constitutes a State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, deserves attention primarily for the Court’s view of the differentiation between beneficiaries’ economic and non-economic activities according to which there is no threshold of non-economic activities carried out by one entity required to categorize it as entirely non-economic. The Case also involves distinguishing between individual aid and aid scheme; an assessment of the effect on competition and trade between Member States and the application of principles of proportionality and sound administration. The admissibility hinges on whether the EC Decision addressed to France could be of ‘direct and individual’ concern to a professional association – UPF. Keywords: Taxation, Economic Activity, Non-Economic Activity, State Prerogatives


Comparing the Incomparable Journal Artikel

A Critical View of the Applicability of the Market Economy Investor Principle to Large Infrastructure Projects

Jakub Kociubiński

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 17 (2018), Ausgabe 1, Seite 43 - 53

The Market Economy Investor Principle (MEIP) is used to determine whether State intervention is an economically rational investment, carried out under normal market conditions, or whether it constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. It consists of testing whether a hypothetical, rational private investor would have used its resources in the same manner as the State did. The author is of the opinion that this principle is deficient in assessing large infrastructural projects, and therefore would like to propose its revision. The argument runs that these projects have unique features, making any investment comparison, not only theoretical but also unrealistic and fictitious. Keywords: MEIP; Comparability; Large Infrastructure Projects; Investment Aid.

  • «
  • 1
  • »