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.

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.

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.

Phedon Nicolaides

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

Michele Giannino, Federich Romby

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 3, Page 338 - 352

The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive review of the European Commission’s approach in assessing whether compensation awarded to airports for the provision of Services of General Economic Interest (SGEIs) complies with the EU State aid rules. The article analyses the defensive strategies open for national authorities to claim that airports public service compensation packages are compatible with the internal market. In that regard, the article considers the Altmark doctrine and the compatibility conditions for the application of the SGEI exception in Article 106 TFEU. Then it critically compares the strong and weak points of each of these strategies and also dwells on which factors national authorities have to adduce to prove the compatibility of airport aid. Bearing in mind the difficulties for national authorities to satisfy all the conditions for the application of the Altmark doctrine, the article suggests that the SGEI exception should be the optimal strategy to obtain regulatory clearance of public service compensation to airport.

Sarah Beeston, Pim Jansen, Kiek Brink

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 3, Page 328 - 337

The European Commission sees the ports sector as a driving force for economic growth and regional development in Europe. It has recently developed various policy initiatives in this sector and taken measures whereby State aid control forms the key element. The Commission has opted for an approach based on two interlinked pillars. First, the Commission intends to create a (more) level playing field among European Union Member States, by using State aid rules to curb tax benefits for (public) companies in the ports sector. Second, further to the State Aid Modernisation Programme, the Commission is, to an increasing extent, pursuing an active European economic policy in the ports sector by means of exemptions from the prohibition of State aid. As a result, certain aid measures targeting market failures and objectives of a common European interest are permissible. In this article we will provide an analysis of recent developments and place them in their legal and policy-related context. We will specifically discuss the impact of these developments on seaports in the Netherlands.

Phedon Nicolaides

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 3, Page 368 - 374

The amount of State aid in a loan or guarantee is not necessarily equal to the principal of the loan or the guaranteed amount. Moreover, the liability of the State and the risk borne by the State depend on the rights or collateral that the State secures before it grants a loan or guarantee. For this reason, State aid law needs a third concept to describe the behaviour of the State apart from that of ‘public authority’ or ‘private investor’. That third concept is labelled here as ‘ex-ante creditor’. It applies to those sums over which the State can exercise a claim without expecting ex-ante to receive a profit. Past loans or guarantees that contain State aid should be ignored, as prescribed by the Court of Justice, only when the State has no prospect of recovering any amount that is due to it or when it has no claim to exercise against the borrower who is the aid recipient. Keywords: Private investor; Private creditor; Loans; Guarantees; Past State aid.

José Luis Buendía Sierra

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

Kai Struckmann, Genevra Forwood, Aqeel Kadri, Adam Wallin

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 16 (2017), Issue 2, Page 316 - 321

While the General Court considers the validity of the European Commission’s decision in the Micula case finding that “the payment of the compensation awarded by” an ICSID arbitral tribunal constitutes incompatible State aid, national courts in the EU (and the US) are also wrestling with different, but related, issues in proceedings to enforce the underlying arbitral award. The key question in these proceedings is whether the Commission Decision stands in the way of enforcement in a (Member) State which is not the addressee of the decision. In the judgment discussed here, the High Court found that the arbitral award constituted res judicata and that it had not been satisfied. However, the High Court also considered that it could not decide a number of issues (including the interpretation of the CJEU’s jurisprudence in Kapferer, the application of Article 351 TFEU and the concept of imputability) without risking a conflict with questions currently pending before the General Court. Consequently the High Court decided to stay the enforcement proceedings, pending the outcome of annulment action before the General Court. The High Court reached few firm conclusions. Underlying this case is the tension between international obligations owed under the multilateral ICSID Convention and the EU Treaties, and which take precedence. One of the most striking features of the High Court judgment is its acceptance of the contentions of Romania and the Commission that essentially any substantive finding of EU law would give rise to a significant risk of conflict with ongoing proceedings in the EU Courts to annul the Final Decision. Keywords: State Aid and Arbitration; Article 351 TFEU; Res Judicata; Article 4 TEU – Duty of Sincere Cooperation.

Caroline Buts, Phedon Nicolaides

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 16 (2017), Issue 2, Page 272 - 275

While many islands can be attractive tourist destinations, other parts of the economy often face serious challenges that are the direct result of natural and permanent handicaps. Small islands encounter difficulties in attracting and maintaining manufacturing activities. Additional transport costs as well as the absence of economies of scale and low connectivity can result in investment decisions on the mainland, rather than the island. Multiple policies exist to help islands balance out the disadvantage of being remote, small or sparsely populated. Nevertheless, the State aid rules treat small and remote islands differently, depending on whether they are a region or a Member State. After briefly reviewing the main difficulties encountered by islands, we study the case of Malta. Next, the relevant State aid rules are evaluated, revealing inconsistencies and the need for revisions with important consequences for Malta and Cyprus. Keywords: Regional State Aid; Peripheral Islands; Island States; Transport Costs; Industrial Base.