Weiter zum Inhalt
  • «
  • 1
  • »

Die Suche erzielte 7 Treffer.

Must the Commission Prohibit State Aid That Harms the Environment? Journal Artikel

Phedon Nicolaides

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 22 (2023), Ausgabe 1, Seite 17 - 28

This article investigates the compatibility with the internal market of State aid that may directly or indirectly harm the environment and climate. It examines the case law on State aid and compliance with Article 107(3) TFEU and concludes that the Court of Justice has not laid down any general obligation for the European Commission to prohibit any State aid measure that may have a harmful effect. The European Commission is only required to prohibit aid whose objective is inextricably linked to a contravention of EU environmental law. Keywords: environmental protection; green transition; Article 107(3)(c); inextricable contravention of EU law


Inextricably Linked? The Limits of a State Aid Inquiry · Case T-101/18 Republic of Austria v European Commission (Paks II) · Annotation by Tamás Kende and Gábor Puskás Journal Artikel

Annotation on the Judgment of the General Court of 30 November 2023 in Case T-101/18 Republic of Austria v European Commission (Paks II)

Tamás Kende, Gábor Puskás

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 22 (2023), Ausgabe 2, Seite 205 - 211

Article 107(3)(c) TFEU requires a delicate balancing of the positive effects of the aid aiming the development of certain economic activities and the negative effects thereof. The Paks II judgment provides clarifications as to the limits of this balancing process and the European Commission’s obligations to take into account primary and secondary EU laws other than those related to State aid, as well as fundamental goals of the EU Treaties like the protection of environment. The Paks II judgment also confirms that State aid rules are also applicable concerning activities falling under the EURATOM Treaty and clarifies the relationship between State aid and public procurement and an infringement procedure and a State aid procedure. The Paks II judgment also shows that Member States have a hard time with challenging the Commission’s State aid decisions if they rely on an alleged err in law or they attack the Commission’s discretionary powers and the proper application thereof.



State Aid for New Nuclear Power Plants under the Plethora of EU Environmental Regulations Journal Artikel

Sebastian J Kasper

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 21 (2022), Ausgabe 3, Seite 251 - 265

Climate change has become one of the critical matters of European Union (EU) Law. Hence, the EU Member States are about to transform their respective energy supplies from mainly fossil fuels to climate-neutral sources. This transformation process requires time, as the security of energy supply must be ensured (see Article 194(1)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). An approach favoured mainly by France and argued by several parties across Europe is to rely heavily on nuclear power and to invest in (new) nuclear reactors until 2050. Against this background, the question arises whether the EU Member States can support the transformation process by granting State aid for nuclear power plants despite the commonly known risks. Since the European Commission’s recently published Guidelines on State aid for climate, environmental protection and energy 2022 exclude nuclear energy from its scope, a broader review of the European Treaties, including the Euratom Treaty, as well as secondary and tertiary instruments, must be conducted to answer this question. Considering that nuclear energy has, following the Joint Research Centre’s risk assessment, recently been included in the Taxonomy Regulation for a transitionary period, granting State aid for nuclear reactors is likely to be still compatible with EU law upon the European Commission’s discretion, but not for long. Keywords: nuclear power; Taxonomy Regulation; Hinkley Point C; environmental protection; Euratom Treaty


Environmental Protection: Contributions Channeled by Eco-Body Should not Involve the Transfer of State Resources · Case C-556/19 ECO TLC · Annotation by Sylvain Petit Journal Artikel

Annotation on the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (First Chamber) of 21 October 2020 in Case C-556/19 ECO TLC contre Ministre d’État, ministre de la Transition écologique et solidaire, Ministre de l’Économie et des Finances

Sylvain Petit

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 20 (2021), Ausgabe 1, Seite 139 - 143

On 21 October 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) handed down a preliminary ruling on the notion of ‘State resources’ regarding the French increased responsibility scheme for producers of waste from textile products, household linen and footwear products (TLC products). The CJEU ruled that a system set up by the State whereby producers of TLC products pay financial contributions to an eco-body which then enters into an agreement with sorting operators and provide them financial support for the recycling and treatment operations of the waste, may not constitute an intervention through State resources. This ruling emphasizes that the notion of ‘public control’ lies in the details: a range of circumstantial evidences is required to determine the extent of the public oversight over the funds channelled between private operators.


Implementation of the Green Deal: Journal Artikel

Integrating Environmental Protection Requirements into the Design and Assessment of State Aid

Simone Lünenbürger, Clemens Holtmann, Juliette Delarue

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Jahrgang 19 (2020), Ausgabe 4, Seite 418 - 429

The Commission has announced its intention to revise a series of State aid rules (GBER and a number of guidelines) in light of the Green Deal by the end of 2021. At the same time, the Commission is examining how competition policy can be more effective to combat climate change and contribute to the protection of the environment. This article demonstrates that environmental protection requirements can and must be integrated into the definition and implementation of the Union's State aid policy, not only when it comes to environmental aid. Article 11 TFEU provides for a legal obligation on the Commission to integrate environmental protection requirements into the definition and implementation of Union policies, including State aid policy. It is shown how this obligation can be integrated into the traditional assessment scheme, notably under Article 107 (3)(c) TFEU and how it can be broken down into concrete compatibility assessment criteria. Keywords: Green Deal; environmental protection; Article 11 TFEU; State aid policy; guidelines


Applicability of the EU State Aid and Environmental Rules in the Nuclear Energy Sector · Case C‑594/18 P Republic of Austria v Commission ('Hinkley Point')· Annotation by Alicja Sikora Journal Artikel

Annotation on the Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 22 September 2020 in Case C‑594/18 P Republic of Austria v Commission

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.

  • «
  • 1
  • »