Skip to content

Keyword: sovereignty

  • «
  • 1
  • »

The search returned 2 results.

Fostering Tech Sovereignty with a Level Playing Field on State Aid and Foreign Subsidies journal article

Andreas Haak, Barbara Thiemann

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 21 (2022), Issue 1, Page 20 - 30

In her 2021 State of the European Union Address, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stressed ‘the importance of investing in our European tech sovereignty’ and continued by appealing that ‘[w]e have to double down to shape our digital transformation according to our own rules’. Availability of semiconductors (also referred to as microchips or simply as chips) is essential for industry and national security alike. Without microchips there is no tech sovereignty. Given the currently fragile state of global supply chains, expanding fabrication capacity within the EU is high on the political agenda. At the same time, ensuring fair competition is of paramount importance. While tech sovereignty must be matched by sufficient State funding, it still needs to be awarded in compliance with EU State aid rules. These rules must not work as an impediment to tech sovereignty. Furthermore, the rules of the game must be the same for everyone. This regulatory objective is most evident in the draft Distortive Foreign Subsidies Regulation. Keywords: twin transition; ICPEI; supply chain; sovereignty; EU Chips Act; foreign subsidies

Let Down by the Facts: The General Court Annuls the European Commission Decision on Irish Tax Arrangement for Apple · Joined Cases T-778/16 and T-892/16 Ireland and Others v European Commission · Annotation by Veronika Korom journal article

Annotation on the Judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber, Extended Composition) of 15 July 2020 in Joined Cases T-778/16 and T-892/16 Ireland and Others v European Commission

Veronika E. Korom

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 20 (2021), Issue 2, Page 277 - 283

The General Court's decision in Apple’s Irish tax case confirmed that the European Commission is competent to review national tax rulings for whether they confer a selective advantage on a tax payer. Further, the GCEU validated the legal tests on which the Commission relied in reaching its State aid decision. However, the GCEU found that the Commission had failed in its assessment of the specific facts of this case and in particular failed to show the existence of a selective advantage. It therefore annulled the Commission’s decision. Given that the GCEU ruled in favour of the Commission on virtually all points of law but censured the Commission on questions of fact, the Commission’s appeal to the CJEU is likely to face significant challenges on both admissibility and substance.

  • «
  • 1
  • »

News


Current Issue

Issue 1 / 2024