Micula and Others v Romania ∙ [2017] EWHC 31 (Comm) ∙ Annotation by Kai Struckmann, Genevra Forwood, Aqeel Kadri and Adam Wallin Journal Artikel Annotation on the Judgment of the High Court of England and Wales of 20 January 2017 in Micula and Others v Romania [2017] EWHC 31 (Comm) Kai Struckmann, Genevra Forwood, Aqeel Kadri, Adam Wallin European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 16 (2017), Ausgabe 2, Seite 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.
Book Review: State Aids, Taxation and the Energy Sector Edited by Marta Villar Ezcurra Journal Artikel María del Carmen Cámara Barroso European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 16 (2017), Ausgabe 2, Seite 327 - 330
Book Review: EU State Aid Control – Law and Economics Edited by Philipp Werner and Vincent Verouden Journal Artikel Pablo Ibáñez-Colomo European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 16 (2017), Ausgabe 2, Seite 330 - 331
Book Review: European Union Law of State Aid Edited by Kelyn Bacon QC Journal Artikel Matt Evans European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 16 (2017), Ausgabe 2, Seite 332 - 333
EStAL 4/2017 (Vol. 16) Journal Artikel European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 16 (2017), Ausgabe 4,
Book Review: The Concept of State Aid under EU Law – From Internal Market to Competition and Beyond By Juan Jorge Piernas López Journal Artikel Luca Rubini European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 16 (2017), Ausgabe 4, Seite 643 - 644
Not Even the Church Is Absolved from State Aid Rules: The Essence of Economic Activity Journal Artikel Phedon Nicolaides European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 16 (2017), Ausgabe 4, Seite 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.
The Sword in the Stone Journal Artikel Caroline Buts, José Luis Buendía Sierra European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 16 (2017), Ausgabe 4, Seite 509 - 511
Is There a Role for Economic Analysis When Deciding on State Aid to Public Broadcasters? Journal Artikel Caroline Buts, Mychal Langenus, Karen Donders European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 16 (2017), Ausgabe 4, Seite 537 - 558 By means of text analysis, this article examines the use of economic concepts and tools in State aid decisions regarding public broadcasters. We find that broad and general concepts are most frequently used and that more specific economic terms that can be found in the Broadcasting Communication surface rather seldomly in the public version of decision texts. Furthermore, we do not observe a substantial difference between the use of these terms before and after the adoption of the v2009 Broadcasting Communication suggesting that economic concepts are not more frequently used in recent years. We believe that economic analysis could bring additional clarity and support in several of the studied decisions, especially in cases where, for example, it is quite debatable which tasks fall under a public service obligation and which do not. Economic analysis would foster the evolution to a stricter and more rational State aid control in this exceptional sector preventing potential spillover-effects of aid into new activities. Keywords: State Aid; Media; Public Service Broadcasting; Economic Analysis.
Judgment By Formula: Regulatory Form and the Differentiation of Fiscal Measures and Non-Fiscal Measures in EU State Aid Law Christopher McMahon