Tamás Kende, Gábor Puskás

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 2, Page 205 - 211

Article 107(3)(c) TFEU requires a delicate balancing of the positive effects of the aid aiming the development of certain economic activities and the negative effects thereof. The Paks II judgment provides clarifications as to the limits of this balancing process and the European Commission’s obligations to take into account primary and secondary EU laws other than those related to State aid, as well as fundamental goals of the EU Treaties like the protection of environment. The Paks II judgment also confirms that State aid rules are also applicable concerning activities falling under the EURATOM Treaty and clarifies the relationship between State aid and public procurement and an infringement procedure and a State aid procedure. The Paks II judgment also shows that Member States have a hard time with challenging the Commission’s State aid decisions if they rely on an alleged err in law or they attack the Commission’s discretionary powers and the proper application thereof.

Ilkka Aalto-Setälä, Henrik J. Koivuniemi

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 4, Page 449 - 452

The Finnish State aid saga in the bus transport sector has become to a provisional end, as the General Court found in Cases T-597/19 and T-603/19 that certain measures taken by the City of Helsinki constituted unlawful State aid. The judgement showcases various interesting aspects of State aid law, particularly procedural rights of interested parties in the context of economic continuity. This annotation introduces the procedural matters at issue in Case T-603/19 and walks through the Court’s reasoning.

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.