Marie-Louise Holle, Grith Skovgaard Ølykke

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 1, Page 55 - 68

This article explores the tradition of awarding of royal warrants in monarchies in the EU. A royal warrant is an entitlement for an undertaking to utilise the fact that it is supplying a royal court with goods or services in its marketing, as a quality assurance. To determine the legality of awarding royal warrants under EU law, it is examined whether the EU State aid rules apply. To determine whether this is the case, it is decisive whether the monarch is the ‘State’ for the purpose of Article 107(1) TFEU. Therefore, EU law and national public law is analysed. The analysis shows that legal analysis of royal warrants rests on the public/private divide. It is analysed how the various national legal conceptualisations of the monarch fits in the EU concept of State, encompassing all entities which may reasonably be said to act on behalf or under influence of the State. No hard conclusion can be drawn, but it is found that the monarch’s resources are State resources and that the awarding of royal warrants arguably must be considered as imputable to the State. Further, royal warrants confer an economic advantage on beneficiaries, and the monarch does not (formally) receive any (market-like) remuneration. Thus, it is concluded that the award of a royal warrant grants State aid to the benefitting undertaking. Keywords: concept of State; royal warrants; monarch; State resources; economic advantage

Cees Dekker, Ekram Belhadj

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 1, Page 95 - 100

Even where the government acts as the purchaser of services, an assessment of whether it has acted in accordance with the market economy operator principle requires an examination of all the relevant facts. The fact that the government acted through private companies, that the government pursued public policy objectives or that there was no tender procedure is not a reason to exclude the application of the market economy operator principle, the Court of Justice ruled in this case. The Court of Justice confirmed that the burden of proof as to whether the MEOP has been complied with and whether an advantage has been conferred on a company lies with the Commission.

Anikó Keller, Sam Baldwin, Benedek Ádám

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 4, Page 425 - 427

Christopher McMahon

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 3, Page 427 - 433

A recent decision of the General Court to annul the Commission’s decision not to raise objections to individual aid for the development of a youth hostel raises important questions about the burden that the Commission must bear in establishing that there are no serious doubts as to the compatibility of the contested measures with the internal market. The case related to a contract between the regional government of Berlin and a non-profit organisation allowing the latter to occupy a site rent-free provided that it developed and operated a youth hostel there. A competing provider of low-cost tourist accommodation that made a complaint regarding the contract applied for the annulment of the Commission’s decision not to raise objections after a preliminary assessment. After dismissing a number of speculative arguments on the admissibility of the action, the General Court annulled the decision due to the Commission’s failure to rule out the existence of serious doubts as to compatibility with the internal market. The decision will require the Commission to tread carefully in refusing to rule on the existence of aid as part of the preliminary assessment, particularly where this relates to uncertainty on the condition of economic advantage. This may limit the ability of the Commission to conserve resources by refraining from identifying and quantifying any economic advantage.

Caroline Buts, Malgorzata Agnieszka Cyndecka, José Luis Buendía

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 3, Page 397 - 426

Raymond Luja

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 4, Page 578 - 584

The Andres judgement has often been seen as a Milestone on selectivity, but in essence it is not. It rather deals with the absence of an advantage. In this contribution the author revisits Andres and concludes that, from a transactional perspective set forth in Sigma Alimentos Exterior, the outcome could well have been different. He also points out that Andres opened up a loophole to the state aid regime that could be exploited by providing targeted relief to over-inclusive anti-abuse measures. He concludes that it is primarily up to national legislators and domestic courts to guard against disproportional tax measures. Milestones Preview: this annotation is based on a chapter of the upcoming second edition of the book 'Milestones in State Aid Case Law' (Lexxion 2022).

Andreas Bartosch

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 4, Page 507 - 511

A recent line of jurisprudence as to the dichotomy of what is an economic versus a non –economic activity has, bizarrely so, gone completely unnoticed by commentators. This article seizes the opportunity to present the author´s view why, whilst formally repeating an all-too-well-known line of jurisprudence, the way the Courts have carried out their analysis in fact brings quite some degree of common sense when looking at this very analysis. Keywords: jurisprudence; economic advantage; State aid conditions; State control

Ilkka Aalto-Setälä, Henriikka Piekkala

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 2, Page 304 - 304

Doortje Ninck Blok, Gerard van der Wal

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 2, Page 284 - 291

The General Court handed down a judgement in 2020 in which it annulled the Commission’s Decision regarding State aid granted to Valencia Club de Fútbol through a €75 million (regional) government guarantee. The Commission qualified the guarantee granted by a financial entity under the supervision of the Regional Government of Valencia, intended to cover the bank loans to Fundación Valencia to enable Fundación Valencia to acquire shares in Valencia Club de Fútbol (the beneficiary according to the Commission and General Court), as unlawful state aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. This annotation elaborates on two pleas brought forward by Valencia Club de Fútbol: (i) manifest errors of assessment in the characterisation of an advantage and (ii) manifest errors of assessment when calculating the amount of aid. The General Court considered that the Commission made an error of assessment when applying the market economy operator principle, where the Commission did not carry out an overall assessment. Furthermore, the Commission did not sufficiently support the finding that there was no market price for a similar non-guaranteed loan. In their conclusion, the annotators address the application of the Guarantee Notice by the Commission.

Jean-Alexandre Vaglio

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 1, Page 108 - 113

The General Court finally closed the IFPEN saga with its judgment delivered on 5 October 2020 and which raised many interesting points. First, IFPEN was peculiar in the sense that, contrary to EDF and La Poste, it was an EPIC undertaking pursuing mainly non-economic activities. Second, this judgment enables the General Court to refine and illustrate the simple presumption defined by the Court of Justice in the La Poste judgment on its EPIC status. Finally, this case provides another reminder of the burden of proof resting on the Commission when it demonstrates the existence of an advantage and defines the conditions of compatibility of a State aid measure.