Barbara Brandtner, Daniele Vidoni

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 17 (2018), Ausgabe 4, Seite 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.

Philipp Melcher

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 17 (2018), Ausgabe 1, Seite 137 - 139

Emma Besselink

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 17 (2018), Ausgabe 1, Seite 132 - 133

Pamela Hansson, Malin Persson

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 17 (2018), Ausgabe 1, Seite 140 - 141

Marko Milenkovic

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 17 (2018), Ausgabe 1, Seite 66 - 79

Serbia’s EU integration process has only commenced after the political change in 2000. The cornerstone of the relations between the country and the EU is the Stabilisation and Association Agreement, which mandates the full alignment of State aid measures with the EU standards. Since 2006, subsequent governments have been working on aligning the substantive rules for the granting of State aid with the (ever-changing) EU framework, with a growing number of State aid measures and schemes being notified to and approved by the Commission for State Aid Control (CSAC). However, this period was also characterised by a severe economic crisis. By examining the legal framework, institutional structure for State aid control and overall experiences of the first phase of the implementation of the Law on State aid, this paper draws conclusions on the major challenges and obstacles encountered introducing the new regulatory regime in the context of a deep economic crisis, on-going enlargement fatigue and conflicting political legacies. Keywords: Serbia; Institutional Transformation; EU Conditionality; Enlargement Fatigue.

Phedon Nicolaides

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 17 (2018), Ausgabe 1, Seite 2 - 18

When Member States act as regulators, they need not maximise revenue from the granting of permits, licences or concessions rights. However, they must grant permits, licences or concession rights on the basis of procedures which are open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional. This article argues that qualitative selection criteria may not in fact support the effective achievement of the stated regulatory objectives and, as a result, they may confer an advantage and transfer State resources to the chosen undertakings. Since the concept of State aid does not depend on policy aims or intentions, the regulatory objectives of the authority that grants the exclusive permits, licences or concessions should be irrelevant. EU law does not prevent Member States from using procedures that can aim simultaneously at revenue maximisation and achievement of public policy objectives. Keywords: Competitive Selection; Regulation; Non-Discrimination.

Édouard Louis Jean-Baptiste Bruc

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 17 (2018), Ausgabe 1, Seite 54 - 65

The willingness to encourage private parties to seek compensation has emphasised the necessity to push forward economic analysis regarding antitrust cases. The question concerning a passing-on defence thus entered the sphere of public enforcement of EU State aid law via a judgment which highlighted the possibility to take a passing-on defence regarding the ‘undercharge’ passed on to the consumer through the entrustment (lowering prices). However, the ECJ quashed the judgment, preferring a more deterrent approach, implicitly stressing that it can only be a‘Pyrrhic victory’ because it would require predictions as regards the behaviour of the benefiting undertaking and its results. In the author’s view, this rollover is an opportunity to underline the difference between public and private enforcement aims, and to understand the role of private enforcement under State aid law which in fact requires a passing-on analysis. Keywords: Passing-on, Private Enforcement; Unlawful State aid; Recovery.

Theodoros Iliopoulos

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 17 (2018), Ausgabe 1, Seite 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.

George Peretz QC

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 17 (2018), Ausgabe 1, Seite 80 - 84

Małgorzata Agnieszka Cyndecka

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