Recovery Of Aid Research Articles

Recovery of Unlawful State Aid from the Purchasers of Assets

Recovery of Unlawful State Aid from the Purchasers of Assets

General Court dismisses appeal against a Commission decision ordering recovery of aid granted to SEA Handling

General Court dismisses appeal against a Commission decision ordering recovery of aid granted to SEA Handling

2ND ESTAL PHD AWARD NOMINATIONS ∙ Recovery of Unlawful Fiscal State Aid in Belgium

2ND ESTAL PHD AWARD NOMINATIONS ∙ Recovery of Unlawful Fiscal State Aid in Belgium

Public Financing of Sport Infrastructure versus State Aid

Abstract The main objective of this article is to present an overall insight into the legal aspects related to public financing of a sport infrastructure in Poland. The research strives to draw attention to the importance of public financing in the sports sector and also to ensure a small breakthrough in the administrative process of granting and applying for state aid funds. The author highlights the possible negative implications of mistakes in the state aid scheme, in particular connected with the potential recovery of incompatible aid. The article includes theoretical and practical issues related to the rules of state aid in sports sector. The research is intended to propose an interpretation and application of the current state aid law in light with CJEU jurisdiction and the Commission’s decision-making practices. In the opinion of the researcher the final implications contribute to the better protection of the joint interest of Polish sports clubs and public authorities and to minimalization of the potential risk of EU sanctions.

Recovery of Unlawful Aid in Case of Insolvency

Recovery of Unlawful Aid in Case of Insolvency

Bouncing Forward After Irma and Maria: Acknowledging Colonialism, Problematizing Resilience and Thinking Climate Justice

The 2017 hurricane season caused widespread devastation across Central America, the Caribbean and the South-Eastern United States. Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria were among the most intense Atlantic hurricanes and the costliest for the Circum-Caribbean region. For the small islands of the Caribbean, the hurricanes highlighted the acute vulnerability to climate change. The scale of physical ruin and level of social dislocation, however, do not just reflect the outcomes of a natural hazard. Continued structural dependency and outright entanglement in colonial relationships complicated recovery and coordination of aid to affected communities across the region. We argue that the experiences and outcomes of hazards like Harvey, Irma and Maria therefore invite examinations of persisting colonial power dynamics in discussions of climate hazard. Using Foucauldian theory for such an examination, we problematize simply championing resilience, without noting the possibilities for its use as a biopolitical regime of governing life. Such an appraisal, we suggest, might clarify a path toward reparations and climate change justice.

The Individual Identification of Beneficiaries of State Aid and the Financing Mechanism · Case C-505/18 Copebi SCA v Établissement national des produits de l’agriculture et de la mer · Annotation by Federica Maldari

The Case deals with a legal dispute concerning the recovery of unlawful State aid in the fruit and vegetable sector under a Decision of the European Commission (EC), between Copebi SCA, one of the beneficiaries of the involved funds, and the French Republic. The dispute concerns the scope of the Decision of the EC, in so far as Copebi considered that the funds used were not covered by the Decision, which did not specifically mention the economic committee which paid them to Copebi. The beneficiary also argued the measure could not be covered by the Decision, since the financing mechanism of the funds was different from that described in it. The issues were referred to the Court of Justice (CJ) for a preliminary ruling, which concluded that the Decision must be interpreted as covering the funds paid to Copebi despite the fact that it didn’t mention the grantor of funds nor exact financing mechanism. Keywords: Recovery order; Contingency plans; Scope of Decision; Identification; Financing mechanism.

The Never Ending ‘Saga’ of the Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo · Case C-387/17 Traghetti del Mediterraneo · Annotation by Alessandra Franchi

This judgment continues the ‘saga’ related to the litigation between Fallimento Traghetti del Mediterraneo and the Italian State concerning the unlawful State aid granted to Tirrenia di Navigazione SpA as compensation for public service obligations from 1976 to 1980 and shows the complexity of the assessments by national courts on damages related to the granting of unlawful State aid. The CJ provides guidance on the notion of existing aid, clarifying that State aid measures which were granted in a period when the maritime cabotage market was not yet liberalized at Union level cannot be classified as existing aid because of the merely formal absence of liberalisation of that market, to the extent that those subsidies were liable to affect trade between Member States and distorted or threatened to distort competition. The CJ also emphasises the cooperation obligation of the national courts and their role in awarding damages related to the distortion of competition created by unlawful State aid. Member State cannot invoke the principle of legitimate expectation in case of breach of the notification obligation set in Article 108 (3) TFEU. Finally, the CJ clarifies that the ten-year limitation period set out in Article 15, paragraph 1, of Regulation 659/1999 (repealed by Regulation 2015/1589), only applies to Commission investigation under Article 108, paragraph 3, TFEU and only refers to the Commission’s power and time limit for recovery of illegal aid, but does not apply in damages proceedings before the national jurisdictions. Keywords: Existing aid; Recovery; National enforcement; Prescription; Damages.

The Protection of Legitimate Expectations in the Recovery of State Aid: On the Brink of a European and National Principle?

The principle of legitimate expectations is a general principle, recognized by the European Union and a large number of her Member States. However, there is not a semantic uniformity in the European legal order. This literature review will focus from a comparative perspective on the principle of legitimate expectations as it exists in Belgian, Dutch and Union Law, applied to the recovery procedure of State aid, where procedural autonomy is conceded to member states. The corollary of this multi-layered judicial process is a tension between the European and the national interpretation of legitimate expectations. The central issue in this literature review can be posed as follows: How is the legitimate expectations principle interpreted and applied in the EU, the Netherlands and in Belgium? How do they interact in the recovery procedure of State aid and what are their mutual influences?

ARTICLES - STATE AID AND NATIONAL JURISDICTIONS ∙ Economic Penalties and Recovery of State Aid: Some Lessons from the Spanish Experience

The EU Treaties establish a system to ensure compliance of the judgments of the Court of Justice. In the area of State aid law the Court has already imposed some economic sanctions to Member States for failure to adopt the necessary measures to comply with a first judgment. In 2012 and 2014, the Spanish authorities had to adopt different measures in this area. Both cases arise different aspects concerning the recovery of State aid. The paper depicts some of the lessons and the difficulties of the implementation of both judgments. It reflects on the institutional aspects concerning the execution of Luxembourg decisions, on the role of the national judges and the public authorities which granted the aid when the implementation affects a beneficiary involved in an insolvency proceeding or on which tax scheme to apply to the beneficiary company when the previous scheme is declared illegal according to EU law. In the context of the recovery also the procedural rights and national remedies may have an effect on the compliance of EU law. Keywords: Penalty; Recovery; Spain; Magefesa; Basque Tax Incentives.

Key Developments in State Aid Law

With respect to legislation, there has been, in the last 12 months, no significant development on State aid, following the adoption of the State aid modernisation package in 2014. The EU case law has clarified the general conditions for the application of the Treaty provisions on State aid – in particular, the conditions of State intervention and State resources, the private investor principle and the requirement of selectivity. New developments are also worthwhile to note with respect to the compensation of public service obligations, the res judicata principle and the recovery of unlawful aid.

Article 263(4) TFEU and the Impossibility of Challenging Recovery Decisions in State Aid ∙ Ferracci v EC and Montessori v EC ∙ T-219/13 and T-220/13 ∙ Annotation by Erika Szyszczak

The Ferracci and Montessori judgments of the General Court of 15 September 2016 were challenges brought against a Commission Decision scrutinising Italian municipal tax rules allowing tax exemptions for non-commercial bodies. The cases raise issues of when third party standing is allowed under Article 264(4) TFEU, the standard of review of European Commission Decisions, the concept of economic and non-economic activity and when the European Commission may decide that it is impossible for a Member State to recover illegal State aid. Key Words: Economic and Non-Economic Activity; Access to Justice; Standing before the General Court; Impossibility of Recovery of State Aid.

Hungarian Experiences and Regulations Regarding the Recovery of State Aid That Are Incompatible with the Internal Market

Hungarian Experiences and Regulations Regarding the Recovery of State Aid That Are Incompatible with the Internal Market

De minimis and exceptional circumstances as grounds for interim relief against recovery of State aid: Hellenic Republic v. Commission

<i>De minimis</i> and exceptional circumstances as grounds for interim relief against recovery of State aid: <i>Hellenic Republic v. Commission</i>

Recovery of Unlawful State Aid and Determination of Beneficiaries: Guidance for National Courts

Recovery of Unlawful State Aid and Determination of Beneficiaries: Guidance for National Courts

The Merchants Of Venice or A Tale of Two Cities?

This case arose from a decision of the Italian authorities to extend an existing regional aid scheme – a social security concession for the south of Italy - to the cities of Chioggia and Venice in the north, which fell outside the designated regional aid areas approved on the basis of Article 107(3)(a). This measure was not notified to the Commission in advance and, following an investigative procedure, the Commission reached a decision requiring the recovery of aid except insofar as it had been paid either to SMEs, to firms located in designated assisted areas, concerned the employment of ‘hard-to-place’ employees or to specified municipal companies. The recovery decision was contested before the General Court. The Commission claimed that the applicants lacked standing, but this was rejected by the Court which found that belonging to a closed class of actual beneficiaries of an aid scheme affected by the obligation to repay aid was sufficient to differentiate them from all other persons. On substance, the applicants argued, inter alia, that the measures were compensation for additional costs arising from their location in the Venice lagoon (not State aid), that the Commission had failed to account of the situation of undertakings other than selected municipal companies, and that the Commission had infringed Article 107(3)(c) in relation to regional aid. The substantive claims were rejected by the General Court. The applicants also challenged the legality of the recovery order, arguing that the measure was a mere extension in time and territory of a measure dating back to the 1970s. This was not accepted by the General Court which accordingly dismissed the actions. The applicants appealed the General Court’s judgment before the Court of Justice. For its part, the Commission, by cross appeal, sought the annulment of the General Court’s judgment insofar as it declared the applicants’ actions admissible. The Court of Justice upheld the General Court’s ruling on the standing of the applicants, though it found that the General Court had erred in law in finding that it was not for the national authorities to verify in each individual case whether the conditions for the existence of aid were met. The Court of Justice dismissed the main appeals of the applicants against the judgment of the General Court and confirmed the order for the recovery of the unlawful aid.

Recovery of State Aid in Corporate Groups and Post-Transfer

Recovery of State Aid in Corporate Groups and Post-Transfer

Recovery of Unlawful State Aid: The Role of Member State Courts in State Aid Recovery Scenarios

Recovery of Unlawful State Aid: The Role of Member State Courts in State Aid Recovery Scenarios

The Obligation to Recover Unlawful Aid

The recovery of aid is the ‘logical consequence’ of the finding that an aid is unlawful (ECJ, Case C-142/87, Tubemeuse [1990] ECR I-00959, para. 66). Indeed, under Article 14(1) of the Procedural Regulation (Reg. No. 659/1999, OJ 1999 L 83, pp. 1–9), when a negative decision is adopted in cases of unlawful aid, the Commission ‘shall’ order its recovery by the Member State concerned, which ‘shall’ take all the measures necessary to this purpose. Article 14(3) sets out the conditions for the recovery: it shall be effected ‘without delay’ and ‘in accordance with the procedures under the national law of the Member State concerned, provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the Commission's decision’. The Court of Justice (ECJ) has constantly interpreted this provision—itself codifying the previous case law of the Court—as providing Member States with...

Appropriate Measures to Remedy the Consequences of Unlawful State Aid

This analysis deals with the judgment of 12 February 2008 of the European Court of Justice in the CELF/SIDE case and its effects on the enforcement of European State aid law. The Court answered two questions referred to it by the French Conseil d’Etat in an ongoing dispute about French State aid to book export centre CELF. According to the Court, Community law requires a national court to order appropriate measures to remedy the consequences of unlawful State aid. However, Community law does not impose an obligation of full recovery of unlawful aid in the event that the Commission subsequently declares the aid in question compatible with the common market. Are the measures chosen by the Court really appropriate to remedy the consequences of unlawful State aid? This analysis shows that the Court’s judgment could have negative effects on the effectiveness of the enforcement of European State aid law.