Ilkka Aalto-Setälä, Sami Hartikainen

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 4, Seite 573 - 574

Fausta Todhe

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 3, Seite 249 - 263

In its recent State aid Decisions, the Commission claimed that an (autonomous) arm’s length principle, independent from the one originating in the OECD framework, is embedded in Article 107(1) TFEU as a tool to ensure the protection of the principle of equality. Considered a novelty, the Commission’s approach has been challenged not only by the appeals submitted from the interested parties but also from a number of practitioners and academics. Although the last words remain still with the Courts, the purpose of this article is to join the debate and bring a personal view on the matter. It therefore reviews the recent State aid Decisions on individual aid in order to determine the potential embedding of an (autonomous) arm’s length principle in European State aid law. Keywords: Fiscal State aid; Arm’s length principle; Tax rulings

Jan Bonhage

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 1, Seite 29 - 36

Taking into account previous State aid in the MEOP assessment requires an in-depth analysis of the specifics of the individual case. The mere fact that economic interests derive from previous State aid does not rule out their relevance in the assessment of the economic rationality of further financial measures. State aid aims at a comprehensive analysis of all relevant factors at the time of the funding decision. Both the purpose of the MEOP and previous European case law support such comprehensive substantive approach in the MEOP State aid assessment of subsequent financial measures. In light of the rationale of the MEOP and previous decisions, the CJEU’s rather formal approach in the FIH case is not convincing. The comprehensive substantive approach of ING Groep, also concerning the relevance of previous State aid in the assessment of subsequent public measures, more adequately reflects all aspects that a private investor would take into account in a comparable situation. Keywords: FIH; ING Groep; Land Burgenland; MEOP; previous State aid; subsequent financial measures; substantive approach; comprehensive assessment; formal approach; public authority.

Adina Claici, Norbert Maier

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 1, Seite 76 - 83

This article describes a recent State aid case that advances the boundaries in the analysis of the Market Economy Investor Principle beyond the level of complexity reached in previous cases. In 2017 the European Commission approved the aid to Paks II nuclear power station in Hungary following an in-depth investigation. We highlight the most original pieces of economic analysis and financial modelling that contributed to the decision. Among others, the Commission used multiple benchmarking methodologies to estimate the profitability of the investment and the parameters of the financial model. Furthermore, a complex probabilistic model ensured robustness of the results. Finally, we explain the reasoning provided by the Commission when rebutting some of the assumptions put forward by Hungary. Keywords: State aid; MEIP; Nuclear power; Hungary.

Małgorzata Cyndecka

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 2, Seite 180 - 185

When the State grants an economic advantage to an undertaking, it may avoid triggering Article 107(1) TFEU by complying with the Market Economy Operator Principle (MEOP). Yet, if the State invokes the MEOP in the course of the administrative procedure, it must establish unequivocally and on the basis of objective and verifiable evidence that it acted as a rational, profit-oriented, prudent and well-informed private market operator would have acted in similar circumstances under normal market conditions. If the State provides such information, the Commission is required to carry out an overall assessment, taking into account all relevant evidence in the case enabling it to determine whether the beneficiary would manifestly not have obtained comparable facilities from a private operator. While granting an economic advantage to an undertaking in financial difficulties does not necessarily amount to aid, the State must prove that it properly took into account the additional risk involved in a given measure when it decided to implement it. Ignoring such signs of a firm being in difficulty as increasing losses, diminishing turnover or mounting debt is not in line with the behaviour of a prudent private shareholder and it questions the economic rationality of the State’s conduct. This may entitle the Commission to qualify a given measure as aid. Keywords: MEOP; burden of proof; prudent shareholder; firm in difficulties; State guarantees.

Maria Segura, Egill Olafsson, Marianne Clayton

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 1, Seite 3 - 14

One of the many and still unresolved questions raised by the discussions surrounding Brexit is that of its implications on State aid rules. The consequences for the UK and for both the EU and the European Economic Area are still unknown. The options are diverse and still open to much speculation. In this article, we will focus on the EEA model. Because it is not that well-known, the scope of the EEA agreement and the way it functions will firstly be presented. Indeed, some specificities of the EEA framework, amongst which the principle of homogeneity, deserve explanations as a cornerstone for the application of State aid rules within the EU and the EEA. Finally, the actual different options regarding State aid control post-Brexit within the UK, EU and EEA will be discussed. To conclude, attention will be devoted to the concerns regarding the continuation of the EEA Agreement as it stands and the future homogeneous application of State aid rules. Keywords: State aid control; Brexit; Homogeneity principle.

Giulia Sonderegger

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 3, Seite 264 - 273

Rescuing and restructuring aid (R&R aid) is one of the most controversially debated categories of State aid and perceived very critically by the Commission. In the course of the State aid modernisation programme in 2014, the Commission has tightened the requirements to grant such aid by introducing a non-exhaustive list of balancing criteria. This counterfactual analysis increasingly shifts the focus to the economic effects of R&R aid and the incentives it creates. The modernised R&R aid therefore primarily aims at promoting a more reliable assessment of all the effects of an intervention whilst enhancing the predictability of decisions. Despite the efforts the Commission has put into improving R&R rules, this article asserts that due to R&R aid’s pervasive and distortive nature, it can hardly ever be justified and should consequently be replaced with other, less distortive market instruments, such as harmonised insolvency proceedings. Considering the fact that the EU consists of 28 countries with various national interests, the currently very restrictive practice of R&R aid could, however, be seen as a temporary compromise solution between Member States and the Commission. Keywords: Rescue and Restructuring Aid; State aid Modernisation; Justifiability of Rescue and Restructuring Aid

Lina Barauskaitė

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 3, Seite 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.

Marija Momic

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 18 (2019), Ausgabe 3, Seite 346 - 351

On June 18, 2019, the General Court rendered the judgment in the Micula Case, trying to put an end to the more-than-a-decade-long Micula saga. The judgment was expected to clarify the question of when an arbitral award for the compensation of damages can be regarded as State aid. The Case, however, was decided on a rationae temporis issue, and the General Court did not provide a more detailed guidance on that question. Since all the events relating to the State aid took place before Romania’s accession to the EU, the General Court concluded the Commission did not have the jurisdiction to review the legality of the State aid granted to Romanian investors. Considering that part of the compensation awarded to the applicants included the period after Romania’s accession, the General Court left open the possibility for the Commission to re-assess the compatibility of the compensation for the post-accession period. The Commission, however, has decided to challenge the ruling before the Court of Justice. Keywords: Award of Damages; Investor-State Arbitration; New Aid; Compensation.

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