P. Kamil Rosiak, Ewa Przybyszewska-Kieniewicz

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 1, Page 112 - 113

Vasiliki Dolka

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 1, Page 87 - 92

On 25 January 2022, the Court of Justice (CJ) overturned the judgment of the General Court (GC) that had annulled a 2015 European Commission (Commission) State aid decision declaring the payment of compensation granted by an arbitral award for violation of the 2003 Romania-Sweden Bilateral Investment Treaty, as unlawful and incompatible State aid. The GC annulled the Commission Decision for lack of competence ratione temporis to assess the measure as it considered the aid to have been granted before Romania’s accession to the EU. To the contrary, the CJ considers that the critical date at which the right to receive the aid is conferred to the beneficiary coincides with the granting of the right to compensation. On this ground, the CJ reinstates the Commission’s competence to review the aid. It also confirms the relevance of the Achmea ruling, by concluding that any consent that may have been given by an EU Member State to participate in international investment arbitration proceedings before its accession to the EU lacks any legal force post accession. The CJ has remanded the case back to the GC to decide on the merits.

Benjamin Linke, Benjamin Linke

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 1, Page 109 - 112

Julie Leroy

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 3, Page 325 - 336

This article, like my PhD thesis on which it is based, focuses on the recovery of unlawful fiscal State aid in Belgium. Currently, Belgium has no general legal framework for recovery procedures: neither for non-fiscal, nor for fiscal State aid. To the contrary, for the recovery of fiscal State aid, ad hoc-legislation was adopted in the past. On the one hand, the research evaluates if there is a need for a new legal framework for the recovery of unlawful fiscal State aid in Belgium, in the execution of a recovery decision from the European Commission. In order to make this evaluation, the existing ‘tax law route’ and ‘civil law route’ for fiscal recovery procedures are charted. Those routes are tested against ten evaluation criteria, which are deducted from EU law and national law. This evaluation clearly shows that there is a need for a new legal framework for the recovery of unlawful fiscal State aid in Belgium. Consequently, on the other hand, this research makes recommendations regarding the content and design of the new proposed framework. It is, amongst others, recommended to adopt general legislation that applies to all future fiscal recovery procedures in Belgium. Despite its focus on Belgium, several aspects of the research are also interesting for other EU Member States. Keywords: EStAL PhD Award; PhD research; recovery of unlawful (fiscal) State aid; Belgium; current framework; recommendations for new framework.

Katrine Lillerud

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 3, Page 337 - 358

This article provides an overview of the position of quasi-legislative measures also referred to as ‘soft law’ before and after the State aid Modernisation (SAM). The main intention of the article is to illustrate the symbiotic relationship between the revised horizontal and sectorial guidelines with the general block exemption regulation (GBER) after SAM. It demonstrates how a selected handful of horizontal and sectorial guidelines have been transformed to facilitate better use of the block exemption to enhance the Commission’s own policy objectives, in a nice hand in glove fit with the GBER to nudge States into block exempted expenditure. The empirical study compares Norway, Sweden and Finland’s use of the GBER and guidelines. It shows that the framework is now more than ever nudging aid expenditure. The micro study reveals a drastic change in use before and after SAM in the three Nordic countries – underling the nudging power of the reform. Keywords: EStAL PhD Award; soft law; guidelines; GBER; horizontal; SAM; nudging; Nordics.

Marijana Liszt

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 4, Page 586 - 589

Roberto Caranta, Benedetta Biancardi

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 2, Page 185 - 192

In a case concerning a direct award of passenger railways services to the old State owned monopolist, the Court of Justice opts for a literal interpretation of Regulation (EC) 1370/2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road limiting transparency and competition in the choice of the service provider.

José Damián Iranzo Cerezo

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 3, Page 392 - 395

Begoña Pérez Bernabeu

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 3, Page 329 - 338

In its long-awaited ruling on 18 June 2019, the General Court (GC) annulled the Commission's State aid Decision in the Micula case where the Commission considered that the damages payment by Romania of an ICSID award constituted State aid. In the GC's opinion, the payment of the adverse arbitration award by a Romania does not constitute illegal State aid. Unfortunately, the GC's reasoning is tied to the timing of the measure taken by Romania, which took place before Romania acceded to the EU, and the rest of the compelling substantive pleas were not assessed. Moreover, the GC did not rule on whether the compensation of the withdrawal of the tax incentives for the post-accession period constitutes State aid given that the Commission failed to distinguish between compensation for the period predating accession and post-accession. For this reason, this judgment does not put an end to the Micula saga as long as the Commission has lodged an appeal before the Court of Justice. Keywords: arbitral award, Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT), repeal of tax incentives, damages compensation, enforcement

Wout De Cock

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 4, Page 571 - 573