Leigh Hancher, Antonios Bouchagiar

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 20 (2021), Ausgabe 4, Seite 529 - 545

The judgment of the Court of Justice in the Hinkley case provides food for thought on several fundamental questions of EU State aid law. The present article discusses two of them. First, the authors analyse the role (if any) of objectives of common interest in the assessment of compatibility of aid under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU, as well as the manner in which the Commission should balance the positive against the negative effects of such aid. Second, the authors explore how strong the link of relevance should be between an aid measure and an alleged breach of other EU law (outside the field of State aid) for such a breach to affect the compatibility assessment of the aid. The authors analyse whether the Hinkley judgment has lowered the threshold for finding such a link in comparison to the previous case-law requiring an 'indissoluble link', which could have significant institutional implications. Keywords: Hinkley; objective of common interest; indissoluble link; energy Milestones Preview: this article is based on a chapter of the upcoming second edition of the book 'Milestones in State Aid Case Law' (Lexxion 2022).

Phedon Nicolaides

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 20 (2021), Ausgabe 1, Seite 4 - 14

The article argues that the judgment of the Court of Justice in case C-594/18 P Austria v Commission, which appeared to limit the criteria that the Commission uses to determine the compatibility of State aid, may have a positive impact on State aid control if it makes the assessment of the Commission more transparent. There is a need for greater transparency in the ‘weighing’ of the positive and negative effects of State aid and the ‘balancing’ of those effects. The weighing and balancing of the effects of State aid are not easy tasks. But it will be necessary for the Commission to be more explicit about the model it relies on to conclude that aid is compatible or not. Keywords: Article 107(3)(c) TFEU; compatibility with internal market; common interest; affectation of trade; distortion of competition; Hinkley Point C

Alicja Sikora

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 19 (2020), Ausgabe 4, Seite 515 - 520

In its judgment of 22 September 2020 in Case C-594/18 P Austria v Commission (the Hinkley Point judgment), the Court of Justice addressed a number of issues pertaining to the applicability of the EU State aid and environmental rules to the nuclear energy projects under the Euratom Treaty. Although it is not strictly speaking revolutionary for the State aid regime, the Hinkley Point judgment significantly contributes to the wider development of Union law. First, it brings further clarity regarding the links between the Euratom Treaty and the other Treaties on which the Union is founded. Secondly, it addresses a long-standing issue of relationship between the environmental protection and the objective of safeguarding trade and competition within the internal market, even though without bringing a clear-cut definitive answer to all related questions.

Stig Eidissen

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 19 (2020), Ausgabe 4, Seite 452 - 463

According to long-standing Commission practice, State aid must aim at or contribute to an objective of common interest to qualify as compatible with the internal market. In the recent judgment Hinkley Point C, the Court of Justice rejected the pursuit of an objective of common interest as a condition for compatibility pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. This article takes a closer look at the origin and content of the common interest condition. Further, it discusses whether the Hinkley judgment establishes a precedent to reject a common interest condition entirely, and the possible consequences of such a precedent for State aid law and policy going forward. Keywords: State aid; compatibility; compensatory justification; common interest; judicial review