George Peretz KC

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 23 (2024), Issue 1, Page 87 - 90

Philipp Reinhold, Thomas Weck

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 23 (2024), Issue 1, Page 22 - 34

The new industrial competition in the digital and ecological age has led to a global subsidy race. Against this backdrop, the EU's new instrument for foreign subsidies seems to have come at just the right time. However, the initial euphoria, particularly among companies in the EU that are under strong competitive pressure from China, has faded. There are more and more complaints about the extreme lack of clarity, particularly with regard to the comprehensive notification obligations, which is leading to considerable legal uncertainty. Until more detailed guidelines and/or exemptions are published, a step-by-step approach regarding the individual requirements and a corresponding risk assessment are essential. This also includes a better understanding of the concept of a foreign subsidy envisaged by the EU. Keywords: FSR; Foreign Subsidies Regulation; Merger; Public Procurement; Notification

Juan Jorge Piernas López

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 23 (2024), Issue 1, Page 85 - 87

Marianne Clayton, Gaétan Roelants du Vivier, Matthieu Jamart

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 1, Page 89 - 94

The judgment of the General Court in Case T-392/20 Flašker v Commission addresses the procedural concept of serious difficulties and the scope of the Commission’s obligation, when investigating complaints, to carry out a thorough examination beyond the mere information provided by the complainants and the national authorities which is also applicable in the context of existing aid. In particular, the General Court reaffirmed the Commission’s responsibility to conduct a proper investigation when faced with serious allegations and insisted that the Commission cannot rely on the fact that the complaint may not be sufficiently substantiated as an argument for dismissing it. More novel, the General Court noted that the Commission had disregarded the existing procedural rules by adopting a decision finding that, assuming that a measure constitutes aid, it amounts to existing aid, but unfortunately did not draw any further conclusions.

George Peretz KC

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 1, Page 114 - 117

Sara Gobbato

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 1, Page 110 - 111

Jakub Kociubiński

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 1, Page 4 - 16

Even though the economic situation remains precarious, the Covid-19 economic shock has subsided enough to allow us to take stock of the European Union (EU) responses to the pandemic and appraise them in the context of emerging trends. The author argues that there are early precursors of such trends – referred to as the ‘Three Poisons’ – observable in interpretive and legislative approaches to Member States’ aid measures. These are: the easier justification of extended lifelines without adequately recognising the need for adaptation to new market conditions, and moral hazard associated with subsidy dependence; the blurring of lines between what is theoretically rational and what is obtainable under crisis market conditions thereby distorting the results of the Market Economy Operator Test; the increasing reliance on ad hoc frameworks, and highly situation-specific interpretations potentially eroding the pre-existing acquis. In this context, the purpose of this article is to identify post-Covid trends which negatively affect or might affect the long-term effectiveness of the EU State aid control system. Based on this, to assess whether these ‘poisons’ can and should be opposed. This analysis will conclude with de lege lata and de lege ferenda recommendations. Keywords: COVID-19; market economy operator test; MEOP; moral hazard; ad hoc regulation; common assessment criteria

Christopher Yukins

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 2, Page 181 - 187

Ulrich Soltész

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 22 (2023), Issue 2, Page 175 - 180

Antonis Metaxas

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 1, Page 43 - 53

EU State aid rules, as a normative framework for ensuring and preserving undistorted competition in an equitable Common Market, traditionally constitute fundamental provisions of the EU legal order. Within this framework, the constructive cooperation of the Member State concerned with the European Commission is important when assessing the compatibility of an aid measure with the internal market. Notwithstanding the bilateral character of the control procedure, the participation of interested parties enables the Commission to get a better insight regarding the contested aid measure in order to conclude whether the latter is aligned with the Union’s interests and policies. In a dynamic global environment, these interests and prevailing priorities are constantly redefined (climate change is a prominent example). To the extent that this broader, dynamic scope of EU State aid control is accepted, the question arises if State aid measures adopted by a Member State for supporting a given activity shall be assessed not only on the grounds provided for by the Member State concerned, the recipient of the aid or its direct competitors. In this context, the author claims that aspects of procedural efficiency must be held in balance with the reality of normative interdependence and the necessity of compatibility among EU policies. Procedurally, the question now arises if and to which extent the interested party concept must be broadened so that, for example, organisations of the civil society obtain a ‘locus standi’ in EU State aid control administrative procedures as well as in respective judicial proceedings before EU Courts. Keywords: interested party; State aid control procedure; NGO; Aarhus Convention; Aarhus Regulation