Fausta Todhe

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 249 - 263

In its recent State aid Decisions, the Commission claimed that an (autonomous) arm’s length principle, independent from the one originating in the OECD framework, is embedded in Article 107(1) TFEU as a tool to ensure the protection of the principle of equality. Considered a novelty, the Commission’s approach has been challenged not only by the appeals submitted from the interested parties but also from a number of practitioners and academics. Although the last words remain still with the Courts, the purpose of this article is to join the debate and bring a personal view on the matter. It therefore reviews the recent State aid Decisions on individual aid in order to determine the potential embedding of an (autonomous) arm’s length principle in European State aid law. Keywords: Fiscal State aid; Arm’s length principle; Tax rulings

Phedon Nicolaides

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 226 - 238

In order to determine whether a tax measure is selective, it is necessary to determine first the reference tax system. The General Court has recently ruled that the reference system is that which is defined by Member States and includes such components as the tax base, the tax rates, and the various bands of taxable income, profit, or revenue. The Commission may not identify a hypothetical or artificial reference system. The General Court has also ruled that differentiation of tax payers is not necessarily selective as long as it follows from the objective of the system and that the progressivity of tax rates is a form of differentiation that is not necessarily selective. In this connection, progressive tax rates on profit can be justified according to the ability to pay. This article argues, however, that progressive taxes on turnover are unlikely to correspond to ability to pay. It also warns that Member States may be tempted to target company size under the pretext of levying progressive taxation. Keywords: State aid; Turnover; Taxation; Progressive rates; Selectivity

Katrine Lillerud

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 239 - 248

National registers on individual aid grants above €500 000 became mandatory from 1 July 2016. The European Commission hopes the registers will promote compliance, raise awareness on aid granted and function as a disciplinary measure. They count on the registers to ensure better control at the national level, by incentivising beneficiaries to comply and by providing enough information for competitors to check whether aid was lawfully granted. This article provides a case study of how the national registers function in Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. The three European Economic Area States are an interesting case study as they are the only countries that have opted for their own national transparency registers, whilst the EU Member States all use the Commission’s portal. The findings show that the transparency registers currently do not provide the information required for competitors to assess the compatibility of an aid measure with the internal market. Almost all the published aid measures lack a link to the national legal basis or the granting authorities’ decision on the individual aid measure. These shortcomings are easily corrected. However, if left unattended, they arguably render block exempted aid unlawful. Currently, the effect of the national registers appears to be that they induce competitors to apply for aid rather than litigate on it. Keywords: Ex post evaluation; Block exemptions; National transparency registers; Individual aid; Privatization of State aid enforcement; Transparency communication

Giulia Sonderegger

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 264 - 273

Rescuing and restructuring aid (R&R aid) is one of the most controversially debated categories of State aid and perceived very critically by the Commission. In the course of the State aid modernisation programme in 2014, the Commission has tightened the requirements to grant such aid by introducing a non-exhaustive list of balancing criteria. This counterfactual analysis increasingly shifts the focus to the economic effects of R&R aid and the incentives it creates. The modernised R&R aid therefore primarily aims at promoting a more reliable assessment of all the effects of an intervention whilst enhancing the predictability of decisions. Despite the efforts the Commission has put into improving R&R rules, this article asserts that due to R&R aid’s pervasive and distortive nature, it can hardly ever be justified and should consequently be replaced with other, less distortive market instruments, such as harmonised insolvency proceedings. Considering the fact that the EU consists of 28 countries with various national interests, the currently very restrictive practice of R&R aid could, however, be seen as a temporary compromise solution between Member States and the Commission. Keywords: Rescue and Restructuring Aid; State aid Modernisation; Justifiability of Rescue and Restructuring Aid

Caroline Buts, Phedon Nicolaides, Hans Pirlet

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 4, Page 489 - 509

Despite the improvement of the State aid rules on Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) during the past decade, stakeholders have claimed that the current rules are at points ambiguous, which results in a negative impact on innovation. By means of an exploratory case study and participatory action research, this article aims to identify the ambiguities in the RDI rules. While the rules are detailed and overall well explained, we detect three themes where ambiguities arise, ie non-economic activities, price calculation of goods or services provided by research organisations, and ancillary activities of research organisations together with the 20% threshold. For each of these categories, we discuss what constitutes a ‘safe’ interpretation of the concepts involved. This entails an interpretation that is in line with the case law as well as with the spirit of State aid control. Where appropriate and possible, we provide examples as well as suggestions for their practical implementation. Next to providing guidance regarding the detected ambiguities, this article aspires a contribution to the forthcoming revision of the State aid rules for RDI. Keywords: State aid policy; Research, Development and Innovation; GBER; RDI Framework.

Guilherme Galdino

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 4, Page 510 - 518

Given that special charges have not been addressed properly, one intends to answer whether it is better to consider the aid as the non-imposition or the tax exemption, or as the tax itself. To address this issue, the cumulative application of free movement of rights and State aid rules is examined, mainly, in light of the possible consequences. Not only is the concept of negative State aid discussed, but also the legal reasoning and consequences appropriate to its application are analysed. The author argues that State aid rules should, by analogy, be applied to special charges, considering the tax itself the aid because: the selective analysis is maintained; it is possible to define an appropriate remedy; and it can be applied to situations involving also free movement rights. Keywords: Special Charges; Negative State aid; Asymmetrical taxes.

Dragan Gajin

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 4, Page 575 - 577

Ilkka Aalto-Setälä, Sami Hartikainen

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 4, Page 573 - 574

Birgit Haslinger, Elisabeth Hoffberger-Pippan

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 1, Page 115 - 119

György Wellmann, Anikó Keller

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 1, Page 130 - 132