Lorenzo Panci

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 17 (2018), Ausgabe 3, Seite 353 - 367

The notion of material selectivity is key to defining the reach of State aid control. I will argue that the ECJ progressively endorsed an increasingly extensive interpretation of the selectivity requirement (which culminated in the Gibraltar judgment), making it easier for the European Commission to demonstrate its fulfilment. One of the consequences of this evolution was that State aid control became easier to use to pursue policy objectives. This was especially true in the context of taxation, despite the lack of harmonisation in this field. However, at the outset of the Gibraltar judgment, the General Court appeared to have taken a position that preserves the policy choices made at national level and this was possible by interpreting the selectivity condition as more difficult to fulfil. On the other hand, it appears that the Commission reacted to the Gibraltar judgment by using State aid control to pursue its policy objectives, in particular to contrast harmful tax competition among MS. Will the European Court of Justice endorse the approach taken by the Commission? Keywords: Selectivity; Gibraltar; Tax Rulings; Tax Competition.

Saturnina Moreno González

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 16 (2017), Ausgabe 3, Seite 340 - 353

This work illustrates the Commission’s initial position and the evolution of EU case law regarding “regional, geographical or territorial” selectivity in tax matters, the issues raised by said case law and the interpretation and application made by Spanish judicial courts in this respect. Keywords: Regional Selectivity; Tax Benefit; Symmetrical and Asymmetrical Distribution of Tax Competences; Right of Proof.

Maarten Aalbers

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 16 (2017), Ausgabe 3, Seite 495 - 499

The material selectivity test resembles a non–discrimination analysis, under which the Commission can assess whether undertakings, which operate under comparable legal and factual situations, are treated unequally by general measures. The Commission has to establish whether measures confer “an advantage of general application” and if so, whether this advantage effectively results in unequal treatment. This contribution, celebrating the 15th jubilee of ESTAL, highlights the effect-based approach of the Gibraltar-judgment, as was commentated by Rossi-Maccanico (EStAL 2012/2), and places developments in case law on the notion of material selectivity in the context of this landmark judgment. Keywords: Material Selectivity; Non-Discrimination; Gibraltar Case-Law; Effect-Based Approach.