Sara Gobbato

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 1, Page 110 - 111

Philipp Melcher, Julia Förster

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 2, Page 217 - 219

Jorge Risueño

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 3, Page 337 - 342

This case note concerns Região Autónoma da Madeira’s (RAM) action for annulment of the Commission decision relating the aid scheme SA.21259 (2018/C) implemented by Portugal in favour of the free trade zone of Madeira.1 The General Court’s judgment presents a unique opportunity to analyse some key State aid concepts, including procedural aspects, such as the admissibility of infra-State bodies; concepts relating to the notion of State aid, such as the selectivity criterion; and concepts relating to the phase of recovery of unlawful aid, including the principles of legitimate expectations, legal certainty and proportionality and the limitation period. This note also addresses the Court’s assessment of whether aid is new or existing.

Georgios K. Krouskos

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 2, Page 198 - 202

Sami Hartikainen

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 3, Page 316 - 320

In State aid law, the question of economic continuity often arises when assets of a failing company are sold to a third party. The crucial question is whether the recovery of illegal aid shall be extended to the new owner, if the latter has paid market price for the assets. While the answer still depends on the actual circumstances of a case, the latest judgment in case Fortischem suggests that economic continuity is rather rule than an exception and that a new owner can not easily avoid the obligation to repay illegal aid, especially if the assets are used in a similar manner as by the previous owner. However, the Court of Justice does not go as far as the General Court in ignoring the significance of market price in the assessment.

Julie Leroy

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 4, Page 384 - 396

A Member State which violates the standstill-obligation under Article 108(3) TFEU is not directly held responsible for his failure to comply with his obligations under EU law, as it is the aid beneficiary who will be obliged to repay the unlawful (and incompatible) State aid. This contribution evaluates if the aid beneficiary can nevertheless hold the Member State somehow responsible, through a damage claim based on the latter’s extra-contractual liability for the violation of EU law. The Belgian case study shows that such a claim can be successful, as the conditions of Articles 1382-1383 Old Civil Code might be fulfilled. However, the aid beneficiary is in a difficult position. One the one hand, this undertaking bears the ‘risk of proof’. On the other hand, a full compensation will be rare as, amongst others, the aid beneficiary’s own fault might lead to a liability apportionment. Finally, the obligation to repay the unlawful State aid (with interest) as such will never qualify as a damage that is eligible for a compensation, as this would undermine the effectiveness of EU law. Keywords: Article 108(3) TFEU; standstill-obligation; recovery of unlawful (and incompatible) State aid; liability of Member States; Belgium

Stig Eidissen

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 4, Page 415 - 418

The preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-102/21 and C-103/21 addressed the expiry date of a Commission decision to authorise aid, and the obligation of Member States to recover illegally granted State aid. The Court of Justice reiterated its previous case-law setting out the duty of public authorities to recover illegally granted State aid on their own initiative. The judgment sets out the fundamentals of both the Commission’s and national authorities’ duty to recover State aid granted in violation of the standstill obligation clearly and concisely. Perhaps more novel, the judgment holds that Member States may consider GBER exemptions to limit the recovery sum.

Sara Gobbato

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 3, Page 449 - 450

Caroline Buts, Malgorzata Agnieszka Cyndecka, José Luis Buendía

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

Caroline Buts, Péter Staviczky

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 4, Page 546 - 559

Eesti Pagar constitutes a milestone in State aid law. This article provides an overview of the judgment and discusses, in chronological order, the topics of the five questions dealt with by the Court. First, we review the importance of the criterium incentive effect and more specifically the timing of the aid application in relation to the start of the project. Second, we analyse the obligation of a national authority to recover unlawful aid, also in the absence of a Commission decision. Third, we investigate whether actions by national authorities (in breach of EU law) can cause legitimate expectations for an aid beneficiary. Fourth, regarding recovery procedures without a Commission decision, we reflect on the pertinent limitation period. Finally, we examine the applicable recovery interest rate. Keywords: incentive effect; complaints; recovery; (recovery) interest rate/reference rate; limitation period, GBER, illegal aid, obligation of national granting entities Milestones Preview: this article is based on a chapter of the upcoming second edition of the book 'Milestones in State Aid Case Law' (Lexxion 2022).