EStAL - European State Aid Law Quarterly

«
1
2
»

The search returned 14 results.

Svein Terje Tveit

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 18 (2019), Issue 2, Page 186 - 191

On 5 March 2019, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJ) issued an important ruling clarifying the scope of the national authorities’ obligation to recover unlawful State aid and the test for ‘incentive effect’ — a requirement for an aid measure to benefit from the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER). The CJ confirms that national authorities must recover unlawful State aid also in cases where the aid is granted (wrongfully) under the GBER as regional investment aid and the Commission has not adopted any Decision. The aid beneficiary may not rely on the principle of protection of legitimate expectations even if the granting authority had recommended the aid beneficiary to apply for aid knowing that work on the project had begun before the aid application was submitted. In cases where the EU rules on limitation period and interests are not directly applicable, national rules apply, so that the national authorities must seek full recovery of the unlawful aid and thereby ensure the effectiveness of State aid rules. Keywords: GBER; Recovery; National enforcement; Unlawful aid; National legal basis.

Denis Jouve

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 16 (2017), Issue 3, Page 367 - 376

In CELF and Scott/Kimberly Clark cases, the Court of Justice clarified the role and the power of national courts to recover unlawful State aids. This fundamental role to protect individuals’ rights varies depending on Commission intervention. When the Commission has issued a final decision, national courts become the guardian of this decision, they have to control the execution in national law. In this situation, their room for manoeuvre is reduced. Pending a final Commission decision, it is for the national court to safeguard the rights of individuals and the effectiveness of Article 108(3) of the Treaty. Therefore, national courts shall take all relevant measures in order to protect individuals’ rights and to stop unlawfulness. It is forced to act even if Commission has decided on State aid compatibility but it has more freedom and it is possible to not order recovery. Keywords: Recovery; Unlawful Aid; Incompatible Aid; National Courts; CELF; Scott/Kimberly Clark.

Daniel Harrison

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 16 (2017), Issue 3, Page 487 - 494

As the case of DHL-Leipzig Halle demonstrated, the possibility that contractual measures implementing an unlawful aid measure are invalid and unenforceable can give rise to a curious paradox: where the State assumes a contingent liability that has not yet crystallised, unenforceability of the contractual "advantage" may mean that unlawful aid is, like Schrödinger's cat, both present and absent at the same time. This article looks at the two cases since DHL Leipzig-Halle that have cited the judgment, before considering other areas in which contractual unenforceability of State aid measures can impose adverse – and often unfair – consequences on parties that have received no advantage or benefit from the aid measure in question: State guarantees and warranties and indemnities given to buyers of privatised businesses. Keywords: Unlawful Aid; State Guarantee; Borrower's Liabilities; Warranties and Indemnities; Privatisation; DHL Leipzig-Halle; Aer Lingus.

Nuria Arenas

European State Aid Law Quarterly, Volume 16 (2017), Issue 4, Page 641 - 642

«
1
2
»

News

Current Issue