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

08.06.2021 NL law
De Europese Klimaatwet uitgelicht

Short Reads - Op 21 april 2021 is een voorlopig akkoord bereikt over de Europese Klimaatwet. Deze Klimaatwet kan worden gezien als de kern van de Europese Green Deal, die in december 2019 werd gepubliceerd door de Europese Commissie. Het overstijgende doel van deze instrumenten is om een klimaatneutraal Europa te bewerkstelligen in 2050. De Europese Klimaatwet zorgt ervoor dat deze klimaatneutraliteitsdoelstelling in een Europese verordening wordt vastgelegd. Dit blogbericht gaat nader in op de Europese Klimaatwet en legt uit wat dit met zich brengt.

Read more

03.06.2021 NL law
First material judgment in Dutch damages proceedings in trucks infringement

Short Reads - In its judgment of 12 May 2021, the Amsterdam District Court ruled that it has not been established that it is definitively excluded that the trucks infringement led to damage to the claimants. However, this does not alter the fact that it must still be assessed for each claimant whether the threshold for referral to the damages assessment procedure has been met. For this to be the case, it must be plausible that a claimant may have suffered damage as a result of the unlawful actions of the truck manufacturers. The Amsterdam District Court has not yet ruled on this issue.

Read more

08.06.2021 NL law
Actualiteiten milieustraftrecht: zorgelijke ontwikkelingen

Short Reads - Afgelopen vrijdag 28 mei jl. hadden wij een inspirerend webinar over actualiteiten op het gebied van milieustrafrecht. Wij spraken gedurende 90 minuten onder meer over aansprakelijkheden van bestuurders, de zorgplichten, incidentenrapportages vanuit strafrechtelijk- en bestuursrechtelijk perspectief.

Read more

03.06.2021 NL law
Highest Dutch Court: ACM has not proved dominance of Dutch railway operator NS

Short Reads - A high market share is not always proof of a dominant position. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal (CBb) upheld the annulment of the ACM’s fine of nearly EUR 41 million on Dutch railway operator NS for alleged abuse of dominance. According to the CBb, NS did not abuse its dominant position as the ACM failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that NS holds a dominant position on the market for the exercise of the right to exploit the main rail network concession.

Read more