Luca Carmosino

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 1, Page 71 - 75

On 6 November 2018, the Court of Justice rendered a judgment in a proceeding that opposed the Commission and the competitor of a beneficiary of an aid set up by Italy. One of the most interesting issues that the case presents is the question of regulatory acts, and the application of the notion of regulatory acts to State aid decisions. The case explores three elements in relation to admissibility: (i) State aid measures are not sui generis; (ii) State aid decisions further the general application nature of a national measure; and (iii) the assessment of direct concern requires some factual analysis already at the admissibility stage of the procedure. On the substance, the case is interesting since it defines the extent of the Commission’s duties in assessing whether to order the recovery of an illegal State aid.

Alessandra Franchi

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 391 - 397

This judgment continues the ‘saga’ related to the litigation between Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo and the Italian State concerning the unlawful State aid granted to Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA as compensation for public service obligations from 1976 to 1980 and shows the complexity of the assessments by national courts on damages related to the granting of unlawful State aid. The CJ provides guidance on the notion of existing aid, clarifying that State aid measures which were granted in a period when the maritime cabotage market was not yet liberalized at Union level cannot be classified as existing aid because of the merely formal absence of liberalisation of that market, to the extent that those subsidies were liable to affect trade between Member States and distorted or threatened to distort competition. The CJ also emphasises the cooperation obligation of the national courts and their role in awarding damages related to the distortion of competition created by unlawful State aid. Member State cannot invoke the principle of legitimate expectation in case of breach of the notification obligation set in Article 108 (3) TFEU. Finally, the CJ clarifies that the ten-year limitation period set out in Article 15, paragraph 1, of Regulation 659/1999 (repealed by Regulation 2015/1589), only applies to Commission investigation under Article 108, paragraph 3, TFEU and only refers to the Commission’s power and time limit for recovery of illegal aid, but does not apply in damages proceedings before the national jurisdictions. Keywords: Existing aid; Recovery; National enforcement; Prescription; Damages.

Thomas Gourdeau

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 432 - 434

Ilkka Aalto-Setälä

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 427 - 428

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 313 - 338

Svein Terje Tveit

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 2, Page 186 - 191

On 5 March 2019, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJ) issued an important ruling clarifying the scope of the national authorities’ obligation to recover unlawful State aid and the test for ‘incentive effect’ — a requirement for an aid measure to benefit from the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER). The CJ confirms that national authorities must recover unlawful State aid also in cases where the aid is granted (wrongfully) under the GBER as regional investment aid and the Commission has not adopted any Decision. The aid beneficiary may not rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations even if the granting authority had recommended the aid beneficiary to apply for aid knowing that work on the project had begun before the aid application was submitted. In cases where the EU rules on limitation period and interests are not directly applicable, national rules apply, so that the national authorities must seek full recovery of the unlawful aid and thereby ensure the effectiveness of State aid rules. Keywords: GBER; Recovery; National enforcement; Unlawful aid; National legal basis.

Wout De Cock, Julie Leroy

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 2, Page 298 - 304

It is well established that the financial situation of an (insolvent) aid beneficiary does not lead, in principle, to an absolute impossibility to recover unlawful and incompatible State aid. In the annotated case, a Member State argued that it should be entitled to suspend the insolvency proceedings in order to examine the possible relaunch of the insolvent beneficiary’s activities. In this annotation, we discuss the findings of the European Court of Justice with regard to this question and argue that the Court’s findings remain vague and unclear. Furthermore, we discuss the relevant date to assess the failure to recover aid from an insolvent beneficiary and the duty of loyal cooperation between Member States and the Commission. In general, it is argued that the judgment is, in contrast to (parts of) the Opinion of the Advocate General, a mere confirmation of former case law and somewhat disappointing.Keywords: Recovery of unlawful State aid; Financial situation (insolvent) beneficiary; Possibility to suspend recovery proceedings and relaunch activities - Article 108(2)(2) TFEU; Date for assessing failure to recover; Duty of loyal cooperation

Francesco D’Amario

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 2, Page 319 - 323

Juan Jorge Piernas López

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 1, Page 136 - 137

Emma Besselink

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 1, Page 132 - 133