Wout De Cock

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 2, Page 194 - 195

Łukasz Stępkowski

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 4, Page 397 - 411

This article addresses the principle of res judicata in the context of rules on State aid, including the case-law of the Court of Justice and the 2021 Commission Notice on the enforcement of State aid rules by national courts. The limits of the principle at issue required by Article 108(3) TFEU and the powers of national courts to recover unlawful aid (with or without a recovery decision from the Commission) are discussed. The law is stated as it stood on 1 January 2022 (with some later developments). The case-law on res judicata referred to here includes the decisions of the Court in Lucchini, Klausner Holz, and CSTP/Buonotourist, with commentary on the practical effect of the Court’s approach. Keywords: Lucchini; Klausner Holz; res judicata; Article 108(3) TFEU; national courts

Leonardo Armati, Federico Macchi

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 1, Page 3 - 19

The European Commission has adopted a new notice on the enforcement of State aid rules by national courts. The New Enforcement Notice replaces the 2009 Enforcement Notice, providing updated practical guidance for national judges facing private claims to remedy the unlawful granting of State aid, ie without a prior Commission approval or an exemption from notification. This article illustrates the main aspects of the New Enforcement Notice, from the general principles to certain topics, such as the interplay between the Commission and national courts’ proceedings, the role of national courts regarding aid covered by the GBER and damages actions, that appear particularly relevant in the light of the innovation they bring compared to the 2009 Notice. The article, in line with the spirit of the Enforcement Notice, stresses the importance of private enforcement before national courts for an effective development and application of EU State aid rules. Keywords: private enforcement; enforcement notice; national courts; standstill obligation; damages actions

Floris Fonteyn, Wout De Cock

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 4, Page 585 - 586

Rene Brunner

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 413 - 417

On 25 July 2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union handed down a ruling on the admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling on the validity of a Commission Decision where the applicants in the main proceedings did not bring an action for annulment against that Decision before the General Court. The judgment Georgsmarienhütte re-evaluates the interrelationship between the action for annulment and the preliminary reference procedure and is, in essence, a reiteration of the TWD doctrine established already in 1994. Keywords: Action for annulment; Preliminary ruling procedure; Dual remedy; Parallel proceedings; National courts; TWD doctrine.

Maria Segura, Marianne Clayton, Aidan O’Connell

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 424 - 427

Thomas Gourdeau

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 432 - 434

Marc Custers, Boyd Wolffers

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 4, Page 561 - 566

This annotation explores the relation between the free movement provisions and State aid in the light of the A-Fonds Case. In A-Fonds, the Court of Justice of the European Union dealt with the question whether a national court may conclude that a measure infringes the freedom of capital with respect to a measure that had been declared State aid by the Commission. A finding that the national court may test the contested measure against the free movement provisions (for the years that the measure constituted existing aid) would have as its result that the measure must be made available to comparable foreign taxpayers. Existing aid should in that case be extended. But that would not have been the only result: such conclusion would have broad consequences. The CJ rules in the A-Fonds Case that the national court may not test the contested measure against the free movement provisions, but has ruled differently in other Cases when dealing with the same issue. This annotation provides an analysis of the different approaches that the CJ took when deciding whether a State aid measure may be tested against the free movement provisions together with the consequences of the different approaches. Keywords: Free movement provisions; Freedom of capital; Existing aid; New aid; National courts; Direct taxation.

Francesco Maria Salerno, Federico Macchi

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 17 (2018), Issue 2, Page 311 - 315

The case in comment illustrates the application of State aid rules by a national court. Moreover, the case deserves to be brought to the attention of a wide readership because it concerns a rare case of award for damages to the beneficiary of the aid. By adjudicating in favour of the beneficiary, the Italian court recognized the peculiarities of the case at issue. At the same time, the ruling raises general questions of consistency with EU law, which are likely to become even more salient as the cooperation between Commission and national courts in the enforcement of State aid rules increases. Keywords: National courts; Damages; State liability; Legitimate expectations.

Mihalis Kekelekis

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 16 (2017), Issue 2, Page 291 - 294

The notion of existing aid has a huge importance in State aid control. Procedural rules for existing aid differ from those regarding new aid. The consequence of granting new or existing aid is also different: from recovery to a proposal to adopt appropriate measures and modify the scheme. As other notions in the State aid field, despite its importance, the notion of existing aid is still evolving by the case-law of the EU courts. This should be an objective concept but as this judgment reveals, it may also be influenced by a subjective analysis regarding State aid compatibility. This judgment also clarifies the role of national courts in the State aid field. National courts must not only serve as guarantors of the direct effect of Article 108(3) TFEU but also as potential aid granting authorities. Keywords: Existing Aid; New Aid; Recovery; Duration; Alteration of an Existing Aid; National Courts; Notification.