Short Reads

Submarines, secret guarantees and imputation in the context of State aid

Submarines, secret guarantees and imputation in the context of State aid

Submarines, secret guarantees and imputation in the context of State aid

12.07.2016 NL law

Merely having general control over a public undertaking by public authorities does not warrant imputation (toerekening) of a specific measure by that public undertaking to a Member State in the context of State aid. 

This was the recent decision of the Dutch Supreme Court, after consultation with the Court of Justice of the EU, in a dispute about the validity of guarantees issued by the Rotterdam Port Undertaking to Commerz. According to the Rotterdam Port Undertaking, these guarantees should be classified as State aid. Commerz was represented by Stibbe (Toni van Hees, Rein Wesseling and Winfried van Hemel).

Guarantees issued by the Rotterdam Port Authority

Commerz offered a credit facility to an undertaking called RDM. The Rotterdam Port Undertaking agreed to act as guarantor for RDM, in case it did not meet its obligations towards Commerz under the credit facility. These guarantees were issued on the basis of the so-called ‘submarines agreement’ between RDM and the Rotterdam Port Undertaking. This agreement entailed that RDM would not export submarine technology to Taiwan in exchange for guarantees by the Rotterdam Port Authority.

Forbidden State aid?

When RDM indeed failed to meet its obligations, Commerz invoked the guarantees issued by the Rotterdam Port Undertaking, amounting to approximately EUR 20 million. The Rotterdam Port Undertaking, however, refused to pay. It argued that the guarantees were void because these would qualify as forbidden State aid according to Articles 107 and 108 TFEU.

The imputation requirement

One of the requirements for a guarantee by a public undertaking to be classified as State aid under European law is that such guarantee can be imputed to a Member State. In the case at hand, the question therefore came up whether the guarantees issued by the Rotterdam Port Undertaking, a former municipal service that was privatized and converted into a private law legal entity, were to be imputed to the Rotterdam municipality and (from a European perspective) by that to the Dutch State.

Does general control by public authorities warrant imputation?

According to the Court of Appeal, the guarantees issued by the Rotterdam Port Undertaking were to be imputed to the Dutch state. It took into consideration that the Rotterdam municipality exerted ‘strong’ control over the Rotterdam Port Undertaking, for instance by holding all shares and nominating both the executive as well as the supervisory board. The Court of Appeal also took into consideration the fact that in the internal regulations of the Rotterdam Port Undertaking the purpose of the undertaking to serve the ‘general interest’ was explicitly inserted.

Commerz: no imputability if sole director acted on his own and in secret

In proceedings before the Dutch Supreme Court, Commerz argued that the guarantees could not be imputed to the Dutch State. The Court of Appeal did not properly appreciate that the guarantees were in fact issued by the sole director of the Rotterdam Port Authority, who acted on his own, while deliberately keeping the guarantees secret and ignoring the internal regulations (prescribing the approval of the supervisory board). In addition, it had to be assumed that the Rotterdam municipality was not willing to grant RDM any compensation in relation to the submarines agreement.

Dutch Supreme Court follows Commerz

In 2013, the Dutch Supreme Court asked the Court of Justice of the EU for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 107 (1) TFEU in this respect (ECLI:EU:C:2014:2224). In view of this preliminary ruling the Dutch Supreme Court in its recent decision on 27 May 2016 (ECLI:NL:HR:2016:994) ruled that the imputation requirement is met, when public authorities are in fact involved in the specific issuing of guarantees. With this in mind, it does not suffice that the Rotterdam Port Undertaking was under the general control – or even ‘strong’ control – of the Rotterdam municipality. This is even more so in the circumstances pointed out by Commerz, that the guarantees were issued by the sole director of the Rotterdam Port Undertaking, acting on his own, in secret and in violation of the internal regulations, while it had to be assumed that the Rotterdam municipality was not willing to issue any guarantee.

Follow up-proceedings

The Dutch Supreme Court set aside the award of the Court of Appeal. In follow up-proceedings, it will have to be decided whether, in view of the decision by the Dutch Supreme Court and given the above circumstances, the guarantees are to be imputed to the Dutch State. If that would be the case, another Court of Appeal will have to determine whether nullity of the guarantees would then be an appropriate sanction. According to the Dutch Supreme Court, this could only be the case if it would turn  out that not only RDM, but also Commerz benefitted from the State aid measure.

The post “Submarines, secret guarantees and imputation in the context of State aid” is a post of www.stibbeblog.nl

Team

Related news

22.05.2020 BE law
International Comparative Legal Guide to Restructuring & Insolvency 2020 - Belgium chapter

Articles - The Belgium Chapter of the International Comparative Legal Guide to Restructuring & Insolvency 2020 is online. The publication, authored by Paul Van der Putten and Pieter Wouters, covers common topics in restructuring and insolvency, including issues that arise when a company is in financial difficulties, restructuring options, insolvency procedures, tax, employees, and cross-border issues in 27 jurisdictions. 

Read more

01.05.2020 NL law
Back to the future: begroting van toekomstige schade aan de hand van een ijkpunt in het verleden

Articles - Hoe dient een rechter schade te begroten die een benadeelde partij heeft geleden en nog steeds lijdt als gevolg van wanprestatie of onrechtmatige daad in een ver verleden? De rechter kan kiezen voor het concreet vaststellen van de schade zoals de benadeelde partij die tot (kort voor) de datum van de schadevaststelling door de rechter heeft geleden en de redelijkerwijs te verwachten toekomstige schade schatten.

Read more

20.05.2020 NL law
Stibbe in Amsterdam answers questions from consumers, small business foundations and NGOs about the coronavirus [updated]

Inside Stibbe - In a special Q&A (in Dutch), lawyers from our Amsterdam office share their legal expertise and strive to provide answers to questions put to us by consumers, self-employed persons, enterprises large and small, foundations and NGOs as a result of the corona crisis.

Read more

12.05.2020 NL law
Bespiegelingen over bewijs en waarheidsvinding naar aanleiding van een voorval in een politiecel

Articles - In de regel gaat het leggen van bewijsbeslag en het instellen van een exhibitievordering op grond van art. 843a Rv vooraf aan de procedure. In dit artikel gaat Tim de Greve in op het belang van een succesvolle exhibitievordering om zo de focus van het geschil nog meer naar de fase van het onderbouwd stellen en betwisten te brengen.

Read more

This website uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential for the technical functioning of our website and you cannot disable these cookies if you want to read our website. We also use functional cookies to ensure the website functions properly and analytical cookies to personalise content and to analyse our traffic. You can either accept or refuse these functional and analytical cookies.

Privacy – en cookieverklaring