Kerstin Rohde, Adrian Roseanu

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 1, Page 29 - 41

On 8 February 2022, the Commission adopted the Communication ‘A Chips Act for Europe’. It announces the case-by-case assessment directly under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU for semiconductor cases and sums up principles for the compatibility assessment. On 5 October 2022, the Commission approved State aid for STMicroelectronics. It is the first Decision based on Article 107(3)(c) TFEU and the principles of the Chips Act Communication. State aid practitioners are divided on the nature of the Chips Act Communication. It appears like a deviation from the typical soft law instruments that were adopted since SAM. Against this background, this paper deals with the question whether the Chips Act Communication represents a departure from the Commission's practice for its compatibility assessment and therefore favours the semiconductor industry. In this regard, it will assess whether the announced case-by-case assessment directly under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU complies with the Commission’s practice and whether the Chips Act Communication due to its nature is directly applicable. It will then examine the existence of a rule of practice to comprehensively limit the Commission’s discretion by a detailed set of assessment criteria and the admissibility of sector-specific soft law. Keywords: Chips Act Communication; compatibility assessment; limitation of discretion

Cees Dekker

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 2, Page 193 - 198

It is settled case law that the Commission may adopt guidelines and notices setting out how it will exercise its discretion under the State aid rules. These guidelines and notices limit the way in which the Commission exercises its powers. In the present case, the Court of Justice also assumes that role in relation to the Commission's Guarantee Notice. However, unlike other cases in which the Union Courts have ruled on the role of the Guidelines, which concerned the Commission's application of Article 107(3) TFEU, the present case concerns the application of Article 107(1) TFEU. It is also settled case law that the Commission does not have a wide margin of discretion in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU, as the concept of aid is legal in nature. The question is, therefore, whether the Commission can impose restrictions on itself in its assessment under Article 107(1) TFEU. The Court of Justice ignores this question.

Wolfgang Weiß

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 2, Page 132 - 142

In May 2021 the European Commission tabled a draft Third Country Subsidies Regulation which stands between trade and competition policy. This new instrument establishes a review of third country subsidies with a view to addressing the competition distortion resulting from foreign subsidies granted to undertakings economically active in the EU internal market. As the new tool complements EU State aid scrutiny with a view to foreign subsidies, the present contribution compares the general procedures and provisions of the new regulation with EU State aid law. It will be shown that despite many similarities with State aid law, considerable differences remain which can be explained by looking at the different procedural and substantive context. Keywords: third country subsidies; ex officio review; Commission discretion; procedural powers; rights of defence

François-Guillaume de Lichtervelde

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 382 - 390

As the first State aid case involving tax rulings to reach the General Court, the judgment regarding the Belgian ‘excess profit exemption’ regime was highly anticipated. Instead of investigating separately the tax rulings granting the exemption, the Commission had intended to frame the case at the higher level and went after an ‘aid scheme’. The Court did not follow this qualification and set aside the Commission’s Decision. While the judgment inflicted a blow to the enforcer’s approach, the Court did not take a position on the most sensitive questions raised by this case. The boundaries of EU State aid control with respect to tax rulings thus still remain unclear. However, the judgment established that Belgium enjoyed a margin of discretion in adopting the rulings that granted the excess profit exemption. This finding, which was fatal to the Commission’s scheme-based theory, may now support the Commission’s case that the rulings are ‘selective’ and could therefore amount to State aid. In that sense, the judgment may ultimately have done more harm than good to Belgium’s case against the Commission’s investigation. Keywords: Excess Profit Exemption; Tax Rulings; Aid Scheme; Individual Aid; Belgium; Discretion; Selectivity.