Short Reads

European Commission issues a new Best Practices Code for State aid control

European Commission issues a new Best Practices Code for State aid co

European Commission issues a new Best Practices Code for State aid control

01.08.2018 NL law

On 16 July 2018, the European Commission adopted a new Best Practices Code for State aid control. With this code the Commission aims to provide clarity to Member States, businesses and stakeholders about the day-to-day conduct of State aid procedures.

State aid and the obligation to notify the Commission

Member States can in principle only implement State aid after approval from the Commission. Therefore, Member States must notify the Commission of intended measures if they contain State aid. A state measure is deemed to include State aid when state resources are used to give an undertaking or a certain group of undertakings preferential economic treatment with a result that the competition is or may be distorted and that this measure is likely to affect the trade between Member States. After the notification, the Commission will examine whether a measure is compatible with the internal market. If that is the case, it will approve the measure.

The Commission has issued several decisions which exempt certain categories of State aid from the obligation to notify State aid in advance. The General Block Exemption Regulation for instance provides for such an exemption [See our June 2017 Newsletter]. If State aid is not notified and falls outside the ambit of issued exemptions to the notification obligation, competitors and other interested parties can file a complaint to the Commission.

The Best Practices Code

The new Best Practices Code for State aid control clarifies how the Commission will be in contact with Member States authorities and provides guidance before State aid measures are formally notified. It describes, for instance, how the pre-notifications contacts between the Member States authorities and the Commission should take place. This new code also explains that it is possible for Member States to ask the Commission services to deal with priority cases within a certain timeframe. In that regard the Commission will ask Member States twice a year which cases they deem of high priority. The Commission will then propose a so called Mutually Agreed Planning on the basis of this information.

A notified measure can also be subject to a streamlined procedure. This means that the Commission will, within 25 days from the date of notification, try to adopt a so-called short-form decision finding that the notified measure does not constitute State aid or a decision not to raise objections. This procedure is applicable if the notified measure is comparable to measures approved in at least three other Commission decisions. The Member States can ask during the pre-notification stage to apply the streamlined procedure.

If the Commission is of the opinion that a measure constitutes State aid which is not compatible with the internal market it will generally launch a formal investigation. The decision to open this investigation will be published to enable interested parties to submit comments. Comments must be submitted within a month after the publication of the decision. The Commission will aim to make a decision on the measure within 18 months from the start of the investigation process.

Lastly, the Commission states that interested parties wanting to submit a formal complaint to the Commission should fill out the complaint form. The Commission will make a decision or send a letter with its preliminary views within 12 months after the registration of the complaint.

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of August 2018. Other articles in this newsletter:

  1. European Court of Justice dismissed Orange Polska’s appeal in abuse of dominance case
  2. General Court underlines importance of Commission's duty to state reasons
  3. General Court dismisses appeals by investor against power cable cartel fine
  4. Google receives a second record fine of EUR 34 billion for imposing restrictions on Android device makers
  5. District Court in the Netherlands rules on limitation periods in CRT case
  6. Court of Appeal in the Netherlands decides to appoint independent economic experts in TenneT v ABB
  7. Belgian Court of Cassation annuls decision prohibiting pharmacists from using Google Adwords

Team

Related news

12.05.2020 NL law
Kroniek van het mededingingsrecht

Articles - Wat de gevolgen van de coronacrisis zullen zijn voor de samenleving, de economie en – laat staan – het mededingingsbeleid laat zich op het moment van de totstandkoming van deze kroniek niet voorspellen. Wel stond al vast dat het mededingingsrecht zal worden herijkt op basis van de fundamentele uitdagingen die voortvloeien uit zich ontwikkelende ideeën over het belang van industriepolitiek, klimaatverandering en de positie van tech-ondernemingen en de platforms die zij exploiteren.

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
Spreading fast: Dutch and Belgian COVID-19 State-aid approved

Short Reads - Many Member States are taking measures to support the economy during the COVID-19 crisis. The European Commission’s Temporary Framework enables the rapid approval of certain types of State aid. So far, three Dutch State aid schemes and six Belgian schemes were approved, providing the beneficiaries with legal certainty that the aid received is in line with EU State aid law and cannot be challenged at a later stage.

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
ECJ confirms: no shortcut for ‘by object’ antitrust infringements

Short Reads - The European Court of Justice has found there is no shortcut for determining whether particular conduct can be held to have the object to restrict competition. A competition authority will always need to assess carefully whether the conduct reveals "a sufficient degree of harm to competition” before labelling it a ‘by object’ infringement. This is the case where there is sufficiently solid and reliable experience showing that this type of conduct is commonly regarded as being inherently anticompetitive.

Read more

28.04.2020 EU law
Origin of the primary ingredient - Implementing Regulation 2018/775

Short Reads - Since the beginning of this month, the origin of the primary ingredient of a food must be clearly indicated on the product when it differs from the origin given for the product as a whole. This is the result of the implementation of Article 26 (3) of the European Regulation 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers.  

Read more

07.05.2020 NL law
COVID-19: fast-forwarding competition law

Short Reads - Competition authorities are temporarily ‘green-lighting’ certain collaboration initiatives to safeguard the supply of essential products in light of the COVID-19 outbreak. At the same time, authorities warn against using the current exceptional circumstances to engage in anti-competitive practices, such as price-fixing, excessive pricing, refusals to deal or opportunistic takeovers. 

Read more