Cees Dekker

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 2, Page 193 - 198

It is settled case law that the Commission may adopt guidelines and notices setting out how it will exercise its discretion under the State aid rules. These guidelines and notices limit the way in which the Commission exercises its powers. In the present case, the Court of Justice also assumes that role in relation to the Commission's Guarantee Notice. However, unlike other cases in which the Union Courts have ruled on the role of the Guidelines, which concerned the Commission's application of Article 107(3) TFEU, the present case concerns the application of Article 107(1) TFEU. It is also settled case law that the Commission does not have a wide margin of discretion in the application of Article 107(1) TFEU, as the concept of aid is legal in nature. The question is, therefore, whether the Commission can impose restrictions on itself in its assessment under Article 107(1) TFEU. The Court of Justice ignores this question.

Jacob Kornbeck

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 4, Page 412 - 414

Doortje Ninck Blok, Gerard van der Wal

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 2, Page 284 - 291

The General Court handed down a judgement in 2020 in which it annulled the Commission’s Decision regarding State aid granted to Valencia Club de Fútbol through a €75 million (regional) government guarantee. The Commission qualified the guarantee granted by a financial entity under the supervision of the Regional Government of Valencia, intended to cover the bank loans to Fundación Valencia to enable Fundación Valencia to acquire shares in Valencia Club de Fútbol (the beneficiary according to the Commission and General Court), as unlawful state aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. This annotation elaborates on two pleas brought forward by Valencia Club de Fútbol: (i) manifest errors of assessment in the characterisation of an advantage and (ii) manifest errors of assessment when calculating the amount of aid. The General Court considered that the Commission made an error of assessment when applying the market economy operator principle, where the Commission did not carry out an overall assessment. Furthermore, the Commission did not sufficiently support the finding that there was no market price for a similar non-guaranteed loan. In their conclusion, the annotators address the application of the Guarantee Notice by the Commission.

Jacob Kornbeck

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 1, Page 120 - 138

Five judgments handed down by the General Court (GC), in 2019-20, and by the Court of Justice, in 2021, have clarified aspects of three Commission State aid decisions regarding Spanish professional football clubs, through preferential tax rates applicable to non-profit organisations (Real Madrid, FC Barcelona, Athletic Bilbao, Atletico Osasuna) and land transactions between municipal and regional authorities and private entities (Real Madrid) and financial guarantees offered by public authorities to private entities (Hércules CF, Valencia CF, Elche CF). Not only questions of substance were clarified but also procedural ones. Two GC rulings were appealed to the Court. The specificity of sport (Article 165 TFEU) does not appear to have been instrumental in shaping any of the judgments annotated.

Begoña Pérez Bernabeu

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 4, Page 549 - 554

Football is the most famous sport all around the globe and is also of great social and cultural significance. For this reason, State authorities may be tempted to provide additional support to professional football clubs which find themselves in an acute financial crisis through direct or indirect (like guarantees, tax or levies exemptions, loans on more favourable terms, transactions under non-market conditions) support measures. However, the football sector is not special for competition rules and the Commission has recently begun to enforce State aid rules in football. In the Hércules CF judgment, the General Court studies a situation that perfectly fits in the above-described situation since it analyses the grant of a public guarantee to a professional football club which is in a difficult financial position. Finally, the General Court annulled the Commission’s Decision on formal grounds on the basis of a comprehensive approach of the proof assessment carried out by the Commission. Keywords: Football; Indirect financial support; Guarantee; Loan; Lack of motivation.

Begoña Pérez Bernabeu

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 4, Page 447 - 457

The General Court annulled the Commission’s Decision qualifying as State aid a tax regime granted by Spain to certain Spanish professional football clubs (namely, FC Barcelona, Real Madrid FC, Athletic Bilbao and Club Atlético Osasuna). The General Court took the view that the Commission had not proven that the tax regime had the effect of conferring an actual economic advantage on these four clubs. This judgment is highly significant because, without ruling on most of the substantive issues of the Case, it is the first time that criteria on the burden and standard of proof incumbent on the Commission are so clearly stated, particularly in the field of State aid. Moreover, this General Court’s approach is supported by recent and later Case law under which the Commission is required to carry out a complete analysis of all the factors that are relevant to the measure at issue. Keywords: Burden of proof; Standard of proof; Tax advantage; Football; Sports.