Marianne Clayton, Maria Segura, Lara Manuel

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 3, Page 372 - 377

On 13 May 2020, the General Court of the EU rendered three judgments on the actions brought by Volotea, easyJet and Germanwings seeking the annulment of Commission Decision SA.33983. In this Decision, the Commission had inter alia concluded that the aid scheme ‘Compensation to Sardinian airports for public service obligations’ entailed the grant of incompatible aid to several airlines that had concluded commercial agreements with airport operators for the development of the island as a tourist destination. The General Court analysed in these judgments each of the criteria of the notion of State aid on its own merits and provided particularly worth-noting reasoning on concepts such as imputability, indirect advantage, the application of the MEOP or the definition of aid scheme.

Federico Macchi

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 3, Page 365 - 371

The judgment concerns a case of aid granted by national authorities to airlines, through airports operators which were found to be acting as mere intermediaries. In the reasoning of the Court, the first question to establish the presence of aid in favour of airlines was the presence of State resources and imputability to the State of the transfer made by the airports operators to the airlines. This note aims at providing some thoughts on the application of the criteria on State resources and imputability, and their interaction.

Niels Tack

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 1, Page 101 - 104

Lina Barauskaitė

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 352 - 358

On 15 May 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union (the CJEU or the Court) rendered a landmark state aid preliminary ruling where it assessed the Lithuanian public interest services (PIS) support measure provided to certain Lithuanian electricity producers. The measure was never notified to the European Commission and was subject to number of court disputes at the national level. The ruling confirms that the PIS support in the electricity sector constitutes State aid. In particular, the Court confirms that PIS funds can be regarded as State resources, since their life cycle (collection, administration and distribution) are strictly regulated and remains under the control of the Lithuanian State. PIS funds are also intended to finance certain services in the electricity sector, constituting a selective advantage. Moreover, due to characteristics of the Lithuanian electricity market, such as existing interconnectors and European Union electricity market liberalisation, PIS scheme is also liable to affect trade between the Member States and distort competition. Finally, the Court also expressed its doubts whether PIS should be defined as service of general economic interest (SGEI). According to the Court, the requirements for SGEI existence are not met. Keywords: Energy; Electricity; State resources; Imputability; Effect on trade; Distortion of competition; SGEI.

Theodoros Iliopoulos

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 1, Page 19 - 27

In September 2017, the time came for the momentous but also controversial PreussenElektra formula to be applied again. In ENEA, not only did the CJEU confirm the PreussenElektra dogma, but it also expanded on its previous case law. Thus, a narrow interpretation of the notion of aid ‘granted by State or through State resources’ seems to be re-established. Therefore, ENEA has the potential to prove an influential judgment that will determine the design of national aid schemes and will contribute to the development of State aid law. This article analyses the ENEA judgment in light of previous CJEU landmark cases and raises certain questions concerning its implications. Keywords: ENEA; PreussenElektra; State Resources; Imputability.