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

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Short Reads - The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Call of duty: Commission must state reasons when straying from its guidelines

Short Reads - The European Commission has lost a second battle concerning its EUR 15 million fine imposed upon interdealer broker ICAP, this time before the European Court of Justice. The Court upheld the previous judgment of the General Court on the basis of the Commission's failure to state reasons concerning its fining methodology of cartel facilitator ICAP. This may lead to more reasoned Commission decisions in the future - deterrence of cartel behaviour does not justify keeping the methodology for setting the fines as a 'black box'.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring