Guilherme Galdino

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 4, Seite 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, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 4, Seite 575 - 577

Ilkka Aalto-Setälä, Sami Hartikainen

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 4, Seite 573 - 574

Fausta Todhe

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 3, Seite 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

Jan Bonhage

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 1, Seite 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, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 1, Seite 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.

Maria Segura, Egill Olafsson, Marianne Clayton

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 1, Seite 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.

Giulia Sonderegger

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 3, Seite 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

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 17 (2018), Ausgabe 2,

Maria Rosaria Miserendino

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 17 (2018), Ausgabe 2, Seite 204 - 211

The object of this work is the analysis of the issues which arose after the coming into force of the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) and the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (SRM); in particular, the (new) role of the European Commission (EC) on State aid for the Banking Sector. This work analyses the complex procedure of resolution created after the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation and the cooperation between the Commission and the SRB on State Aid in that procedure, with a focus on precautionary recapitalisation.Keywords: State aid; Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation; BRRD; Resolution procedure; Precautionary recapitalisation.