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.

Maria Rosaria Miserendino

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

José Luis Buendía Sierra

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 17 (2018), Ausgabe 2, Seite 173 - 176

Francesco Maria Salerno, Federico Macchi

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 17 (2018), Ausgabe 2, Seite 311 - 315

The case in comment illustrates the application of State aid rules by a national court. Moreover, the case deserves to be brought to the attention of a wide readership because it concerns a rare case of award for damages to the beneficiary of the aid. By adjudicating in favour of the beneficiary, the Italian court recognized the peculiarities of the case at issue. At the same time, the ruling raises general questions of consistency with EU law, which are likely to become even more salient as the cooperation between Commission and national courts in the enforcement of State aid rules increases. Keywords: National courts; Damages; State liability; Legitimate expectations.

Philipp Melcher

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

György Wellmann, Anikó Keller

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 17 (2018), Ausgabe 1, Seite 130 - 132

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

Juan Jorge Piernas López

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