Caroline Buts, Malgorzata Agnieszka Cyndecka, José Luis Buendía

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 3, Page 397 - 426

Caroline Buts, Péter Staviczky

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 4, Page 546 - 559

Eesti Pagar constitutes a milestone in State aid law. This article provides an overview of the judgment and discusses, in chronological order, the topics of the five questions dealt with by the Court. First, we review the importance of the criterium incentive effect and more specifically the timing of the aid application in relation to the start of the project. Second, we analyse the obligation of a national authority to recover unlawful aid, also in the absence of a Commission decision. Third, we investigate whether actions by national authorities (in breach of EU law) can cause legitimate expectations for an aid beneficiary. Fourth, regarding recovery procedures without a Commission decision, we reflect on the pertinent limitation period. Finally, we examine the applicable recovery interest rate. Keywords: incentive effect; complaints; recovery; (recovery) interest rate/reference rate; limitation period, GBER, illegal aid, obligation of national granting entities 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).

Irene Moreno-Tapia, Victoria Rivas Santiago

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 2, Page 220 - 224

Almost a century after the construction of the German racing circuit Nürburgring, economic problems obliged the Land of Rhineland-Palatinate to finance a luxury complex around the race track with the purpose to save the park in economics terms. However, after having received a complaint, the European Commission started an investigation procedure which ended with a Decision on the State aid implemented by Germany for Nürburgring. In the meantime, the Nürburgring assets were sold through a tender process managed by the German Government under the rules agreed with the European Commission and the administrators of the assets. The Commission Decision determined that the measures in favour of the owners of Nürburgring were unlawful and incompatible with the European market rules; in addition, the European Commission decided, first, that any potential recovery of the aid would not concern the buyer of the assets; and, second, that the sale of the assets in the framework of an open, transparent and non-discriminatory tender process did not constitute State aid. The General Court upheld the Decision. Both judgments, T-353/15 and T-373/15 are currently appealed by both complainants before the Court of Justice.

Sami Hartikainen

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 3, Page 359 - 364

Economic continuity is not a new topic in State aid recovery cases. However, a final satisfactory solution has yet to be established. The significance of the purchase price in asset deals especially remains unclear. The General Court’s judgment would seem to suggest that the question of as to whether an asset deal is made as ‘a going concern’ might be a more decisive factor than the price. While the case remains under appeal before the Court of Justice, taking a closer look at the details of the case is already warranted.

Stefania Bello, Germano Guglielmi

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 4, Page 440 - 451

The provisions on State aid laid down by the TFEU aim at preventing that public intervention in the economy could affect trade and distort competition to an extent contrary to the common interest. To this end, the Commission may order Member States to recover State aid granted in breach of EU law. This article focuses in particular on the specific case of aid recovery from insolvent beneficiaries. The Commission has always taken a very rigorous approach on this matter, requiring the winding-up of the beneficiary and the exit from the market where it is not able to reimburse the total amount of the recovery, regardless of the circumstances of the case. The Recovery Notice adopted in 2019 confirmed the rigid position taken by the Commission towards insolvent beneficiaries. The main purposes of this article are, firstly, to assess the approach adopted by the Commission and, secondly, to investigate the existence of the possibility for the Member State to behave as a private creditor in recovering the unlawful aid, or to suspend the recovery procedure in order to examine a plan to relaunch the activities of the insolvent beneficiary. Keywords: Recovery Notice; unlawful aid; State aid recovery; insolvent beneficiaries

Sara Gobbato

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 4, Page 528 - 530

Sandra Caussanel

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 19 (2020), Issue 4, Page 522 - 524

Luca Carmosino

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 1, Page 71 - 75

On 6 November 2018, the Court of Justice rendered a judgment in a proceeding that opposed the Commission and the competitor of a beneficiary of an aid set up by Italy. One of the most interesting issues that the case presents is the question of regulatory acts, and the application of the notion of regulatory acts to State aid decisions. The case explores three elements in relation to admissibility: (i) State aid measures are not sui generis; (ii) State aid decisions further the general application nature of a national measure; and (iii) the assessment of direct concern requires some factual analysis already at the admissibility stage of the procedure. On the substance, the case is interesting since it defines the extent of the Commission’s duties in assessing whether to order the recovery of an illegal State aid.

Alessandra Franchi

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 391 - 397

This judgment continues the ‘saga’ related to the litigation between Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo and the Italian State concerning the unlawful State aid granted to Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA as compensation for public service obligations from 1976 to 1980 and shows the complexity of the assessments by national courts on damages related to the granting of unlawful State aid. The CJ provides guidance on the notion of existing aid, clarifying that State aid measures which were granted in a period when the maritime cabotage market was not yet liberalized at Union level cannot be classified as existing aid because of the merely formal absence of liberalisation of that market, to the extent that those subsidies were liable to affect trade between Member States and distorted or threatened to distort competition. The CJ also emphasises the cooperation obligation of the national courts and their role in awarding damages related to the distortion of competition created by unlawful State aid. Member State cannot invoke the principle of legitimate expectation in case of breach of the notification obligation set in Article 108 (3) TFEU. Finally, the CJ clarifies that the ten-year limitation period set out in Article 15, paragraph 1, of Regulation 659/1999 (repealed by Regulation 2015/1589), only applies to Commission investigation under Article 108, paragraph 3, TFEU and only refers to the Commission’s power and time limit for recovery of illegal aid, but does not apply in damages proceedings before the national jurisdictions. Keywords: Existing aid; Recovery; National enforcement; Prescription; Damages.

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 3, Page 313 - 338