European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 2,

Barbara Brandtner, Daniele Vidoni

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 4, Page 475 - 482

The Commission requirement concerning the evaluation of State aid schemes is one of the pillars of the State Aid Modernisation (SAM) reform of 2014. The aim of the evaluations conducted under State aid rules is to provide evidence on both the direct impact of the aid on its beneficiaries and on its indirect impacts, positive and negative, as well as on the proportionality and appropriateness of the aid measure. This article provides an account of the state of play in the evaluation of State aid schemes. To this end, we analyse the legal framework of the evaluation requirements as outlined under the General Block Exemption Regulation and under different State aid guidelines, and synthesise the characteristics of the current 45 evaluation plans, and of the Commission decisions approving them. Finally we discuss the lessons learnt from the first final evaluation reports submitted and reflect on challenges ahead. Keywords: State aid Modernisation; State aid control; Evaluation plan.

Małgorzata Agnieszka Cyndecka

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 2, Page 192 - 203

One of the questions raised by the unprecedented state interventions in favour of banks that were hit by the financial crisis is whether the mere fact of having benefitted from aid in the past qualifies any future state measures granted to the same undertaking as aid. Given the number and importance of beneficiaries that received ‘crisis aid’ under article 107(3)(b) TFEU, this question merits a prompt answer. In terms of State aid law, it amounts to establishing the applicability of the Market Economy Operator Principle, MEOP. While the General Court (GC) ruled on consecutive state measures under Article 107(1) TFEU in the BP Chemicals case of 1998, recent case law has raised much controversy. This article attempts to clarify the implications of disregarding or misapplying BP Chemicals and the consequences of such practice to the MEOP while the CJEU is about to give its ruling in FIH, a highly debatable case on consecutive state measures in the banking sector. Keywords: Applicability and Application of the MEOP; Banking Sector; Consecutive State Interventions; BP Chemicals Formula; FIH Case.

Maria Rosaria Miserendino

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 2, Page 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.

Phedon Nicolaides

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 2, Page 259 - 263

Michael Honoré, Anne Louise Jespersen

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 3, Page 428 - 430

José Luis Buendía Sierra

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 2, Page 173 - 176

Juan Jorge Piernas López

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 2, Page 274 - 281

Keywords: Regional tax on large retail establishments; Freedom of establishment; Protection of the environment and town and country planning; State aid; Selective measure; Letter from the Commission stating that no further action will be taken on a complaint; Existing aid.

Wout De Cock, Julie Leroy

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 2, Page 298 - 304

It is well established that the financial situation of an (insolvent) aid beneficiary does not lead, in principle, to an absolute impossibility to recover unlawful and incompatible State aid. In the annotated case, a Member State argued that it should be entitled to suspend the insolvency proceedings in order to examine the possible relaunch of the insolvent beneficiary’s activities. In this annotation, we discuss the findings of the European Court of Justice with regard to this question and argue that the Court’s findings remain vague and unclear. Furthermore, we discuss the relevant date to assess the failure to recover aid from an insolvent beneficiary and the duty of loyal cooperation between Member States and the Commission. In general, it is argued that the judgment is, in contrast to (parts of) the Opinion of the Advocate General, a mere confirmation of former case law and somewhat disappointing.Keywords: Recovery of unlawful State aid; Financial situation (insolvent) beneficiary; Possibility to suspend recovery proceedings and relaunch activities - Article 108(2)(2) TFEU; Date for assessing failure to recover; Duty of loyal cooperation

Marianne Clayton, Egill Olafsson, Maria Segura

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 2, Page 282 - 289

On 15 March 2018, the General Court annulled a Commission Decision which considered that the Spanish authorities had not granted state aid in favour of Fred Olsen through some measures relating to the port of Puerto de Las Nieves in the Canary Islands. A competitor, who had complained to the Commission about the said measures, applied for annulment of the Commission’s Decision on the grounds that the Commission should have opened the formal investigation procedure resulting from the fact that it had encountered serious difficulties. Even though the Decision had been appealed on the grounds of procedure, by its nature, the Court had to go into the substance of the case. The line between procedure and substance can be a fine one. Keywords: Opening Formal Investigation; Serious Difficulties; Use of State-Owned Infrastructure.