Ilko Stoyanov, Kristina Chakarova

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 4, Page 521 - 522

Kiran Desai

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 4, Page 536 - 542

Maria-Konstantina Lili-Kokkori

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 4, Page 525 - 528

Marianne Clayton, Maria Segura, Lara Manuel

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 3, Page 372 - 377

On 13 May 2020, the General Court of the EU rendered three judgments on the actions brought by Volotea, easyJet and Germanwings seeking the annulment of Commission Decision SA.33983. In this Decision, the Commission had inter alia concluded that the aid scheme ‘Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations’ entailed the grant of incompatible aid to several airlines that had concluded commercial agreements with airport operators for the development of the island as a tourist destination. The General Court analysed in these judgments each of the criteria of the notion of State aid on its own merits and provided particularly worth-noting reasoning on concepts such as imputability, indirect advantage, the application of the MEOP or the definition of aid scheme.

Maria Segura, Egill Olafsson, Marianne Clayton

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 1, Page 3 - 14

One of the many and still unresolved questions raised by the discussions surrounding Brexit is that of its implications on State aid rules. The consequences for the UK and for both the EU and the European Economic Area are still unknown. The options are diverse and still open to much speculation. In this article, we will focus on the EEA model. Because it is not that well-known, the scope of the EEA agreement and the way it functions will firstly be presented. Indeed, some specificities of the EEA framework, amongst which the principle of homogeneity, deserve explanations as a cornerstone for the application of State aid rules within the EU and the EEA. Finally, the actual different options regarding State aid control post-Brexit within the UK, EU and EEA will be discussed. To conclude, attention will be devoted to the concerns regarding the continuation of the EEA Agreement as it stands and the future homogeneous application of State aid rules. Keywords: State aid control; Brexit; Homogeneity principle.

Jan Bonhage

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 1, Page 29 - 36

Taking into account previous State aid in the MEOP assessment requires an in-depth analysis of the specifics of the individual case. The mere fact that economic interests derive from previous State aid does not rule out their relevance in the assessment of the economic rationality of further financial measures. State aid aims at a comprehensive analysis of all relevant factors at the time of the funding decision. Both the purpose of the MEOP and previous European case law support such comprehensive substantive approach in the MEOP State aid assessment of subsequent financial measures. In light of the rationale of the MEOP and previous decisions, the CJEU’s rather formal approach in the FIH case is not convincing. The comprehensive substantive approach of ING Groep, also concerning the relevance of previous State aid in the assessment of subsequent public measures, more adequately reflects all aspects that a private investor would take into account in a comparable situation. Keywords: FIH; ING Groep; Land Burgenland; MEOP; previous State aid; subsequent financial measures; substantive approach; comprehensive assessment; formal approach; public authority.

Adina Claici, Norbert Maier

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 1, Page 76 - 83

This article describes a recent State aid case that advances the boundaries in the analysis of the Market Economy Investor Principle beyond the level of complexity reached in previous cases. In 2017 the European Commission approved the aid to Paks II nuclear power station in Hungary following an in-depth investigation. We highlight the most original pieces of economic analysis and financial modelling that contributed to the decision. Among others, the Commission used multiple benchmarking methodologies to estimate the profitability of the investment and the parameters of the financial model. Furthermore, a complex probabilistic model ensured robustness of the results. Finally, we explain the reasoning provided by the Commission when rebutting some of the assumptions put forward by Hungary. Keywords: State aid; MEIP; Nuclear power; Hungary.

Edwin Schotanus

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 359 - 365

Under the Case law of the Court of Justice (CJ), aid measures are very quickly considered to affect competition and trade between Member States (inter-State trade). Nonetheless, in certain clear, specific situations, this will not seem to be the case. The European Commission is constantly seeking ways to dispose of such issues fast, in order to focus on more harmful types of State aid. This pragmatic approach by the Commission is at odds with the CJ’s principled application of the criteria ‘effect on competition’ and ‘effect on inter‑State trade’, and may sometimes result in inconsistent Decisions. Legal certainty would be furthered by a CJ ruling about the Commission’s pragmatic approach. Keywords: effect on inter-State trade; effect on competition; appreciability; State aid.

Federica Maldari

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 398 - 403

The Case deals with the decision of Portuguese authorities to put Banco Espirito Santo SA (BES) into resolution and to immediately create a ‘Bridge Bank’. The Portuguese authorities notified to the EC the proposal to grant €4.899 million of State aid to the ‘Bridge Bank’ by way of initial share capital. The EC concluded that the State aid at issue was compatible with the internal market. BPC Lux 2 Sàrl and the other subordinated creditors of BES initiated proceedings before national courts and ultimately to the Court of the Justice of the European Union. On 7 November 2018, the Court of Justice rejected the General Court’s Order to dismiss the action as inadmissible due to lack of interest. Consequently, the Court of Justice confirmed the principle that an interest in bringing annulment proceedings may arise where the annulment might benefit the applicant in pending proceedings before national courts. Keywords: State aid; Financial crisis; Subordinated creditors; Damages; Annulment proceedings; National legal basis.

Begoña Pérez Bernabeu

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 377 - 381

Without ruling on the merits of the Case, the General Court annulled the Commission’s Decision qualifying as State aid a tax regimen granted by Spain to the major Spanish professional football clubs Real Madrid, F.C. Barcelona, Athletic Club de Bilbao and Club Atlético Osasuna. Following the action for annulment from F.C. Barcelona, the General Court took the view that the Commission had not sufficiently proven that the tax regime had the effect of conferring an actual economic advantage on these four clubs. Keywords: State aid; Burden of proof; Standard of proof; tax advantage; tax rate.