Theodoros G. Iliopoulos

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 4, Page 555 - 560

The judgment in the Case C-405/16 P has culminated the struggle between Germany and the Commission over the German law for the promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources. Germany has argued that the legislation at issue followed the PreussenElektra model and does not constitute State aid, while the Commission and the General Court have adopted the opposite stance. In March 2019, the Court of Justice judgment in appeal held that there was no State aid involved and set aside the General Court judgment. Thus, a restrictive interpretation of the obfuscated ‘State resources’ criterion was reinstated, which takes State aid law theory back to its roots and makes the PreussenElektra doctrine actual again. The judgment can to a large extent shape how State aid law will apply in the next years and determine the possibility of Member States to circumvent the State aid law restrictions when enacting measures for the promotion of renewable energy sources, but also for other policy objectives. Keywords: State resources criterion; Support schemes for renewable energy sources; Feed-in and premium tariffs; EEG 2012.

Philipp Werner, Marcello Caramazza

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 4, Page 519 - 527

This article provides an overview of the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of the criterion of ‘State resources’ as an essential element for the definition of State aid provided under Article 107 (1) TFEU. In 2019, the CJEU issued four important judgments (ENEA, EEG, Tercas and Achema) towards clarifying when a measure can or cannot be considered as implemented using State resources, and the elements that the Commission can rely upon to prove the public nature of the resources. In light of earlier Case law in interpreting this criterion (in particular, the landmark Stardust Marine, PreussenElektra, and Pearle Cases), the authors analyse the new judgments and the CJEU’s efforts to strike a balance between the wide interpretation of the concept of ‘State resources’, encompassing public funds and contributions from private actors, and the Commission’s burden of proof in imputing monies to the State.

Lina Barauskaitė

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 352 - 358

On 15 May 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU or the Court) rendered a landmark state aid preliminary ruling where it assessed the Lithuanian public interest services (PIS) support measure provided to certain Lithuanian electricity producers. The measure was never notified to the European Commission and was subject to number of court disputes at the national level. The ruling confirms that the PIS support in the electricity sector constitutes State aid. In particular, the Court confirms that PIS funds can be regarded as State resources, since their life cycle (collection, administration and distribution) are strictly regulated and remains under the control of the Lithuanian State. PIS funds are also intended to finance certain services in the electricity sector, constituting a selective advantage. Moreover, due to characteristics of the Lithuanian electricity market, such as existing interconnectors and European Union electricity market liberalisation, PIS scheme is also liable to affect trade between the Member States and distort competition. Finally, the Court also expressed its doubts whether PIS should be defined as service of general economic interest (SGEI). According to the Court, the requirements for SGEI existence are not met. Keywords: Energy; Electricity; State resources; Imputability; Effect on trade; Distortion of competition; SGEI.

Theodoros Iliopoulos

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 1, Page 19 - 27

In September 2017, the time came for the momentous but also controversial PreussenElektra formula to be applied again. In ENEA, not only did the CJEU confirm the PreussenElektra dogma, but it also expanded on its previous case law. Thus, a narrow interpretation of the notion of aid ‘granted by State or through State resources’ seems to be re-established. Therefore, ENEA has the potential to prove an influential judgment that will determine the design of national aid schemes and will contribute to the development of State aid law. This article analyses the ENEA judgment in light of previous CJEU landmark cases and raises certain questions concerning its implications. Keywords: ENEA; PreussenElektra; State Resources; Imputability.

Phedon Nicolaides

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 16 (2017), Issue 4, Page 527 - 536

The boundaries of the concept of economic activity are constantly shifting. This paper examines the case of schools run by the church and funded by the State. The Court of Justice concluded that wholly State-funded education is not economic in nature. The paper criticises this approach of the Court. The source of funding should not have been the decisive criterion, for the simple reason that State aid to enterprises is also provided by the State. The decisive criterion should have been whether the purpose of the funding was to support an activity which was intended to be offered for remuneration. Keywords: Economic Activity; State Resources; Public Education.