Skip to content

Keyword: Recovery

The search returned 37 results.

Direct Concern in State aid Direct Actions · Joined Cases C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P Scuola Montessori v Commission · Annotation by Luca Carmosino journal article

Annotation on the Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 November 2018 in Joined Cases C-622/16 P to C-624/16 P Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl v European Commission, European Commission v Scuola Elementare Maria Montessori Srl and European Commission v Pietro Ferracci

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.

The Commission’s New Recovery Notice journal article

A Handbook for the Recovery of Unlawful and Incompatible Aid

Simone Donzelli

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 4, Page 528 - 539

In July 2019, following a public consultation, the European Commission adopted a new notice on the recovery of unlawful and incompatible aid, replacing the previous 2007 Notice. The new Recovery Notice represents the state of the art of the existing legislation and Case law about recovery policy. This article introduces the key topics of the Recovery Notice, from the general principles to infringement proceedings, passing through some crucial issues such as the identification of the beneficiaries, the quantification of the aid and recovery in the context of insolvency proceedings. Selected comments from the public consultation are also presented, analysed and discussed. The article, in line with the Recovery Notice, stresses the central role of cooperation between the Commission and the Member States to implement recovery Decisions and concludes that the Recovery Notice is a comprehensive tool to enforce State aid rules in line with the current regulatory framework and Case law of the Union Courts. Keywords: Recovery; Unlawful aid; Incompatible aid; Infringement; Insolvency.

The Individual Identification of Beneficiaries of State Aid and the Financing Mechanism · Case C-505/18 Copebi SCA v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer · Annotation by Federica Maldari journal article

Annotation on the Judgment of the Court of Justice (Fifth Chamber) of 13 June 2019 in Case C-505/18 Copebi SCA v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer.

Federica Maldari

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 4, Page 567 - 570

The Case deals with a legal dispute concerning the recovery of unlawful State aid in the fruit and vegetable sector under a Decision of the European Commission (EC), between Copebi SCA, one of the beneficiaries of the involved funds, and the French Republic. The dispute concerns the scope of the Decision of the EC, in so far as Copebi considered that the funds used were not covered by the Decision, which did not specifically mention the economic committee which paid them to Copebi. The beneficiary also argued the measure could not be covered by the Decision, since the financing mechanism of the funds was different from that described in it. The issues were referred to the Court of Justice (CJ) for a preliminary ruling, which concluded that the Decision must be interpreted as covering the funds paid to Copebi despite the fact that it didn’t mention the grantor of funds nor exact financing mechanism. Keywords: Recovery order; Contingency plans; Scope of Decision; Identification; Financing mechanism.

A New Boost to National Recovery? · Case C‑349/17 Eesti Pagar · Annotation by Svein Terje Tveit journal article

Annotation on the Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 March 2019 in Case C‑349/17 Eesti Pagar AS v Ettevõtluse Arendamise Sihtasutus, Majandus- ja Kommunikatsiooniministeerium.

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.

News


Current Issue

Issue 3 / 2023