Short Reads

European Commission publishes guidance on the notion of State aid

European Commission publishes guidance on the notion of State aid

European Commission publishes guidance on the notion of State aid

02.06.2016

On 19 May 2016, the European Commission published its Notice on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 107(1) TFEU ("Notice"). This guidance can be used to determine whether public spending falls within or outside the scope of EU State aid control.

The Notice is the last part of the Commission's State aid Modernisation initiative. This initiative is aimed at providing more legal certainty about the complex EU State aid regime. The Notice helps Member States and companies identify public investments that qualify as State aid. It clarifies the different constituent elements of the notion of State aid, i.e. the existence of an undertaking, the imputability of the measure to the State, its financing through State resources, the granting of an advantage, the selectivity of the measure and its effect on competition and trade between Member States. In addition, the Notice zooms in on certain sectors to provide  detailed guidance.

If public investment amounts to State aid it has to be notified to and approved by the Commission, unless it falls within the ambit of an exemption regulation. An example of such a regulation is the Commission's General Block Exemption Regulation. The Commission can deem State aid compatible with the internal market, in which case the public investment can be carried out by the Member State after approval of the Commission. The Commission can also declare the State measure incompatible with the internal market in which case it may not be granted.

In comparison to the draft Notice that was published in 2014, the Commission added the following sectors:

 

  • chapter 7 contains specific clarification on State measures concerning infrastructure. For example,  funding of infrastructure will not qualify as State aid if the infrastructure does not directly compete with other infrastructure of the same kind. This is typically the case for general infrastructure such as roads, railways, inland waterways and waste water networks. By contrast, specific infrastructure, for instance airports or ports, is often in competition with similar infrastructure;
  • paragraph 2.6 discusses culture and heritage conservation, including nature conservation. It clarifies that public investment in this area is not State aid if the cultural institution or activity is open to the general public and a monetary contribution from visitors only covers a fraction of the true costs. However, if the activities are predominantly financed by visitor or user fees or by other commercial means (e.g. commercial exhibitions) then the State aid rules apply. This is also the case if the institution carries out other activities which are of economic nature that benefit from the public investment.
  • paragraph 5.4.3 elaborates on when a tax ruling gives a company or a group of companies a selective advantage. The Commission has been investigating tax rulings from a State aid perspective since 2013. The Commission decided for instance that a tax ruling between Starbucks and the Netherlands should be considered as illegal State aid [see our November 2015 newsletter].

The Notice contains detailed and useful guidance for both States and companies.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of June 2016. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. General Court rejects Trioplast's action for annulment of a Commission notice to pay interest
  2. Commission blocked Hutchison's proposed acquisition of Telefónica UK
  3. General Court confirmed that German law on renewable energy amounts to State aid
  4. District Court of Rotterdam upheld the ACM's unconditional clearance decision in telecoms merger KPN/Reggefiber

  5. Rotterdam District Court considered "franchise agreements" in breach of competition law in launderette cartel case

  6. UK High Court held that territorial limits apply to EU cartel damages claims

Team

Related news

06.02.2020
Pay-for-delay: brightened lines between object and effect restrictions

Short Reads - In its first pay-for-delay case, the ECJ has clarified the criteria determining whether settlement agreements between a patent holder of a pharmaceutical product and a generic manufacturer may have as their object or effect to restrict EU competition law. The judgment confirms the General Court’s earlier rulings in Lundbeck and Servier (see our October 2016 and December 2018 newsletters) in which it was held that pay-for-delay agreements (in these cases) constituted a restriction ‘by object’.

Read more

06.02.2020
Consumers and Sustainability: 2020 competition enforcement buzzwords

Short Reads - The ACM will include the effects of mergers on labour conditions in its review. It will also investigate excessive pricing of prescription drugs. As well as these topics, the ACM has designated the digital economy and energy transition as its 2020 focus areas. Companies can therefore expect increased enforcement to protect online consumers, and active probing of algorithms.

Read more

06.02.2020
The ACM may cast the net wide in cartel investigations

Short Reads - Companies beware: the ACM may not need to specify the scope of its investigation into suspected cartel infringements in as much detail as expected. On 14 January 2020, the Dutch Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal upheld the ACM’s appeal against judgments of the Rotterdam District Court, which had quashed cartel fines imposed on cold storage operators. The operators had argued that the ACM was time-barred from pursuing a case against them, because the ACM had not suspended the prescription period by beginning investigative actions specifically related to the alleged infringements.

Read more

06.02.2020
Den Bosch Court of Appeal revives damages claims in Dutch prestressing steel litigation

Short Reads - On 28 January 2020, the Court of Appeal of Den Bosch issued a ruling in the Dutch prestressing steel litigation. In its ruling, the Court of Appeal overturned a 2016 judgment of the District Court of Limburg, in which it was held that civil damages claims brought by Deutsche Bahn were time-barred under German law (see our January 2017 newsletter).

Read more

06.02.2020
CDC/Kemira: Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies European principle of effectiveness to limitation periods

Short Reads - In a private enforcement case brought by CDC against Kemira, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal applies the European principle of effectiveness and rules that claims are not time-barred under Spanish, Finnish and Swedish law. With reference to the Cogeco judgment of the ECJ, the Court considers that claimants must be able to await the outcome of any administrative appeal against an infringement decision, even in relation to respondents who themselves have not filed appeals against the infringement decision.

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