Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Public and Private Enforcement of EU State Aid Law

Legal Issues of Dual Vigilance by the Commission and National Courts

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The European Union after Lisbon

Abstract

European Union (EU) competition policy is considered to be one of the basic elements of the European economic constitution, originally established by the Treaty on the European Economic Community and now transferred into the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The EU competition rules should guarantee fair and undistorted competition, which according to Art. 3.1 (b) TFEU is necessary for the functioning of the internal market. These rules apply to undertakings (Arts. 101–106 TFEU) as well as to Member States (Arts. 107–109 TFEU).

Associate Professor of Constitutional and Administrative Law at Leiden University.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See e.g. Kroes (2008).

  2. 2.

    See e.g. the Communication from the Commission – Temporary framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis, O.J. C 83/1 (2009).

  3. 3.

    See e.g. the Conclusions of the European Council, Brussels, March 2006, para 33; Conclusions of the European Council, Brussels, March 2005, para 23.

  4. 4.

    The guiding principles for this reform were first laid down in the State Aid Action Plan. ‘Less and better targeted state aid; a roadmap for state aid reform 2005–2009’ (COM(2005) 107 final) (hereinafter referred to as the State aid Action Plan), and referred to in later documents, e.g. in the State Aid Scoreboard, Autumn 2009 update (COM(2009) 661), p. 11.

  5. 5.

    See also the State Aid Action Plan, p. 13, and various Reports on Competition Policy by the Commission (e.g. 2004, Volume I, pp. 4, 5 and 115; 2006, p. 18; State Aid Scoreboard spring 2006, COM(2006) 130 final, p. 33. See also Anestis et al. (2005).

  6. 6.

    See the 2009 Update of the 2006 Study on the enforcement of State aid rules at national level, directed by J. Derenne, Lovells 2009 (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/enforcement_study_2009.pdf)

  7. 7.

    See e.g. Case C-83/98 P France v Ladbroke Racing and Commission (ECJ 16 May 2000) para 25.

  8. 8.

    See e.g. Case 173/73 Italy v Commission (ECJ 2 July 1974) para 13; Case C-159/01 Netherlands v Commission (ECJ 29 April 2004) para 51.

  9. 9.

    State Aid Action Plan, p. 4.

  10. 10.

    See Case C-39/94 SFEI et al. (ECJ 11 July 1996) para 42.

  11. 11.

    Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1998/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid, O.J. L 379/5 (2006).

  12. 12.

    Commission Regulation (EC) No. 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Article 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation), O.J. L 214/3 (2008).

  13. 13.

    Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for the treatment of certain types of State aid, O.J. C 136/3 (2009).

  14. 14.

    Commission Notice on a Best Practices Code on the conduct of State aid control proceedings, O.J. C 136/13 (2009).

  15. 15.

    See the State Aid Scoreboard, Autumn 2009 update (COM(2009) 661), p. 12.

  16. 16.

    Council Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 [now Art. 108 TFEU] of the EC Treaty, O.J. L 83/1 (1999).

  17. 17.

    Case C-39/94 SFEI et al. (ECJ 11 July 1996) paras 74 and 75.

  18. 18.

    Joined Cases T-111/01 and T-133/01 Saxonia Edelmetalle and ZEMAG v Commission, (CFI 11 May 2005) para 96.

  19. 19.

    See also the Notice from the Commission ‘Towards an effective implementation of Commission decisions ordering Member States to recover unlawful and incompatible State aid’, O.J. C 272/4 (2007), para 69.

  20. 20.

    See also Adriaanse et al. (2008).

  21. 21.

    See Jans et al. (2007), pp. 3–32. See also e.g. Kilpatrick et al. (2000), pp. 3–4.

  22. 22.

    See Lonbay and Biondi (1997), p. 26.

  23. 23.

    Article 17.1 TEU.

  24. 24.

    See Case C-301/87 France v Commission (Boussac) (ECJ 14 February 1990) paras 18 and 19.

  25. 25.

    The conditions laid down in Art. 11.3 are: according to an established practice there are no doubts about the aid character of the measure concerned, there is an urgency to act and there is a serious risk of substantial and irreparable damage to a competitor. This competence was not yet accepted in case law before Regulation 659/1999 entered into force.

  26. 26.

    No examples of such on-site monitoring visits have been found.

  27. 27.

    Case C-70/72 Commission v Germany (Kohlegesetz) (ECJ 12 July 1973) para 13.

  28. 28.

    See e.g. Case 310/85 Deufil GmbH & Co. KG v Commission (Deufil) (ECJ 24 February 1987) para 24; Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission (Tubemeuse) (ECJ 21 March 1990) para 66; Case C-305/89 Italy v Commission (ECJ 21 March 1991) para 41.

  29. 29.

    See Case C-382/99 Netherlands v Commission (ECJ 13 June 2002) para 89; Case C-298/00 P Italy v Commission (ECJ 29 April 2004) para 76.

  30. 30.

    See e.g. Case C-142/87 Belgium v Commission (Tubemeuse) (ECJ 21 March 1990) para 66.

  31. 31.

    See also Keppenne (1999), p. 294.

  32. 32.

    See Case C-5/89 Commission v Germany (ECJ 20 September 1990) paras 14–16; Case C-24/95 Land Rheinland-Pfalz v Alcan Deutschland (ECJ 20 March 1997) para 25.

  33. 33.

    See Case C-303/88 Italy v Commission (ECJ 21 March 1991) para 43; Case C-75/97 Belgium v Commission (ECJ 17 June 1999) paras 71 and 72.

  34. 34.

    See Case C-404/97 Portugal v Commission (ECJ 27 June 2000) para 53.

  35. 35.

    Before the enactment of Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999, the Commission still seemed to have a discretionary power regarding whether it could require interest. See Hancher et al. (1999), p. 390. See also Sinnaeve (1997), p. 49 et seq.

  36. 36.

    Case C-24/95 Land Rheinland-Pfalz v Alcan Deutschland (ECJ 20 March 1997) para 34.

  37. 37.

    See the 2006 Study on the Enforcement of State Aid Law at National Level, coordinated by Th. Jestaedt, J. Derenne and T. Ottervanger, March 2006; 2009 Update of the 2006 Study on the enforcement of State aid rules at national level, directed by J. Derenne, Lovells 2009. See also Nemitz (2007).

  38. 38.

    See the results of the 2006 Study on the Enforcement of State Aid Law at National Level, coordinated by Th. Jestaedt, J. Derenne and T. Ottervanger, March 2006, p. 34.

  39. 39.

    Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) (Bundesgerichtshof (BGH)), IX ZR 221/05 (5 July 2007).

  40. 40.

    See Adriaanse and den Ouden (2009).

  41. 41.

    O.J. C 272/4 (2007) para 71.

  42. 42.

    Case C-355/95 P Textilwerke Deggendorf GmbH (TWD) v Commission (ECJ 15 May 1997).

  43. 43.

    See e.g. Case 94/87 Commission v Germany (Alcan) (ECJ 2 February 1989) para 8-9; Case C-415/03 Commission v Greece (ECJ 12 May 2005) para 35; Case C-214/07 Commission v France (ECJ 13 November 2008) para 44.

  44. 44.

    See Case C-369/07, Commission v Greece (ECJ 7 July 2009) para 45.

  45. 45.

    Case C-214/07 Commission v France (ECJ 13 November 2008) paras 45 and 46.

  46. 46.

    See Case C-301/87 France v Commission (Boussac) (ECJ 14 February 1990) paras 9–22.

  47. 47.

    See Case C-39/94 SFEI et al. (ECJ 11 July 1996) para 73.

  48. 48.

    Commission Notice on the enforcement of State aid law by national courts (hereinafter Enforcement Notice), O.J. C 85/1 (2009) para 5.

  49. 49.

    Case 26/62 Van Gend & Loos (ECJ 5 February 1963).

  50. 50.

    Roach and Trebilcock (1997), p. 471 et seq. See also Naysnerski and Tietenberg (1992), p. 46.

  51. 51.

    The same clause is laid down in Art. 3 of Regulation (EC) No. 659/1999.

  52. 52.

    Case 6/64 Costa v E.N.E.L. (ECJ 3 June 1964).

  53. 53.

    Case 120/73 Lorenz GmbH v Germany et al. (ECJ 11 December 1973) para 8.

  54. 54.

    See also Struys (1999), p. 290.

  55. 55.

    Joined Cases 261/01 and C-262/01 Van Calster and Cleeren (ECJ 21 October 2003) para 52 (confirmed in later judgments).

  56. 56.

    Joined Cases 261/01 and C-262/01 Van Calster and Cleeren (ECJ 21 October 2003) paras 49–51.

  57. 57.

    Case 77/72 Capolongo v Azienda Agricola Maya (ECJ 19 June 1973) para 6.

  58. 58.

    See Case C-39/94 SFEI et al. (ECJ 11 July 1996) para 73.

  59. 59.

    See also Sasserath (2001), pp. 224–227.

  60. 60.

    Enforcement Notice, O.J. C 85/1 (2009) para 55.

  61. 61.

    Case C-354/90 FNCE v France (‘Salmon’) (ECJ 21 November 1991) para 12; Case C-39/94 SFEI (ECJ 11 July 1996) para 40; Case C-368/04 Transalpine Ölleitung (ECJ 5 October 2006) para 47.

  62. 62.

    Case C-354/90 FNCE v France (‘Salmon’) (ECJ 21 November 1991) para 12. See also Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01 Van Calster and Cleeren (ECJ 21 October 2003) para 52; Joined Cases C-34/01-C-38/01 Enirisorce (ECJ 27 November 2003) para 46; Case C-174/02 Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-Brabant (ECJ 13 January 2005) para 16.

  63. 63.

    Case C-199/06 CELF/SIDE (ECJ 12 February 2008) para 39. See also Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01 Van Calster and Cleeren [(ECJ 21 October 2003) paras 53 and 54.

  64. 64.

    See Enforcement Notice, O.J. C 85/1 (2009) para 26.

  65. 65.

    See Joined Cases C-261/01 and C-262/01 Van Calster and Cleeren (ECJ 21 October 2003) paras 53 and 54; Joined Cases C-34/01-C-38/01 Enirisorce (ECJ 27 November 2003) para 45; Case C-174/02 Streekgewest Westelijk Noord-Brabant (ECJ 13 January 2005) paras 16 and 17.

  66. 66.

    Case C-39/94 SFEI et al. (ECJ 11 July 1996) paras 68–71.

  67. 67.

    See Case C-39/94 SFEI (ECJ 11 July 1996) para 70.

  68. 68.

    Case C-199/06 CELF/SIDE (ECJ 12 February 2008) paras 52 and 53. See on this judgment Adriaanse (2009); Jaeger (2008); Slot (2009).

  69. 69.

    Case C-199/06 CELF/SIDE (ECJ 12 February 2008) paras 52 and 53.

  70. 70.

    Case C-6/90 and C-9/90 Andrea Francovich et al. v Italy ECJ 11 November 1991); Case C-46/93 and C-48/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur SA v Germany (ECJ 5 March 1996).

  71. 71.

    See also the Enforcement Notice, O.J. C 85/1 (2009), paras 43–52; Flynn (2003), p. 333; Bacon (2003), p. 354; Soltész (2001); Sasserath (2001), p. 169.

  72. 72.

    Case C-39/94 SFEI et al (ECJ 11 July 1996) para 73.

  73. 73.

    Case C-39/94 SFEI et al (ECJ 11 July 1996) para 74.

  74. 74.

    Case C-39/94 SFEI et al (ECJ 11 July 1996) para 75.

  75. 75.

    O.J. C 272/4 (2007) para 45. Reference is made to Case 249/85 Albako Margarinefabrik Maria von der Linde GmbH & Co v. Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung (ECJ 21 May 1987).

  76. 76.

    O.J. C 85/1 (2009) para 69.

  77. 77.

    Case C-39/94 SFEI et al. (ECJ 11 July 1996) para 41.

  78. 78.

    Case C-39/94 SFEI et al. (ECJ 11 July 1996) para 42. See also Case C-354/90 FNCE v France (‘Salmon’) (ECJ 21 November 1991) para 14. See also the Enforcement Notice, O.J. C 85/1 (2009) para 19 et seq.

  79. 79.

    See Case 120/73 Lorenz v Germany (ECJ 11 December 1973) para 6.

  80. 80.

    See Case C-39/94 SFEI et al. (ECJ 11 July 1996) para 51.

  81. 81.

    See Keppenne (1999), p. 313. See also Ross (2000).

  82. 82.

    Enforcement Notice, O.J. C 85/1 (2009) para 77 et seq.

  83. 83.

    Enforcement Notice, O.J. C 85/1 (2009) paras 77 and 78.

  84. 84.

    See Case C-312/90 Spain v Commission (ECJ 30 June 1992) para 23. See also Keppenne (1999), p. 305.

  85. 85.

    Case C-39/94 SFEI et al. (ECJ 11 July 1996) para 44.

  86. 86.

    Case C-39/94 SFEI et al. (ECJ 11 July 1996) para 53.

  87. 87.

    See the 2006 Study on the Enforcement of State Aid Law at National Level, coordinated by Th. Jestaedt, J. Derenne and T. Ottervanger, March 2006 and the 2009 Update of the 2006 Study on the enforcement of State aid rules at national level, directed by J. Derenne, Lovells 2009. See also Nemitz (2007).

  88. 88.

    2009 Update of the 2006 Study on the enforcement of State aid rules at national level, Final Report, directed by J. Derenne, Lovells 2009, p. 2 (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/court/state_aid_info.html)

  89. 89.

    See the website of DG Competition with selected summaries of judgments from national courts: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/court/state_aid_judgments.html

  90. 90.

    Administrative Court in Blekinge (“Länsrätten i Blekinge”), 316-08 (21 October 2008).

  91. 91.

    Supreme Administrative Court (“Korkein hallinto-oikeus”), Dno. 3170/2/06 (29 December 2006).

  92. 92.

    Council of State (“Afdeling bestuursrechtspraak Raad van State”), AB 2008, 371 (11 June 2008).

  93. 93.

    Oberlandesgericht Koblenz 25 February 2009. Since several of these cases are currently under appeal before the German Supreme Court, the final outcome may be different.

  94. 94.

    Higher Regional Court Schleswig-Holstein (Court of Appeal), 6 U 54/06 (20 May 2008).

  95. 95.

    Bad Kreuznach Regional Court (Landgericht Bad Kreuznach), 2 O 441/06 (16 May 2007).

  96. 96.

    Coblence Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht Koblenz), 4 U 759/07 (25 February 2009).

  97. 97.

    Supreme Administrative Court (Supremo Tribunal Administrativo), 01050/03 (23 October 2007).

  98. 98.

    Case C-504/07 Associação Nacional de Transportadores Rodoviários de Pesados de Passageiros (Antrop) a.o. v Conselho de Ministros, Companhia Carris de Ferro de Lisboa SA (Carris) and Sociedade de Transportes Colectivos do Porto SA (STCP) (ECJ 7 May 2009).

References

  • Adriaanse PC (2009) Appropriate measures to remedy the consequences of unlawful state aid. An analysis of the ECJ Judgment of 12 February 2008 in Case C-199/06 (CELF/SIDE). Review of European Administrative Law 2009:73–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adriaanse PC, den Ouden W (2009) Legislative initiative for effective recovery procedures in Dutch law. EStAL:15–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Adriaanse PC et al (2008) Implementation of EU enforcement provisions: between European control and national practice. REALaw:83–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Anestis P, Mavroghenis S, Drakakakis S (2005) Recent developments in EC state aid policy. Eur Antitrust Rev:68–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacon K (2003) State aids in the English Courts: definition and other problems. In: Biondi A, Eeckhout P, Flynn J (eds) The law of state aid in the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Flynn J (2003) The role of national courts. In: Biondi A, Eeckhout P, Flynn J (eds) The law of state aid in the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hancher L, Ottervanger T, Slot PJ (1999) EC state aids. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger Th (2008) The CELF-judgment: a precarious conception of the standstill obligation. EStAL:279–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Jans JH et al (2007) Europeanisation of public law. Europa Law Publishing, Groningen

    Google Scholar 

  • Keppenne JP (1999) Guide des aides d’État en droit communautaire; Réglementation, jurisprudence et pratique de la Commission. Bruylant, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilpatrick C, Novitz T, Skidmore P (eds) (2000) The future of remedies in Europe. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroes N (2008) EU State aid rules – part of the solution. EStALI Conference Luxembourg 5 December 2008 (SPEECH/08/679)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lonbay J, Biondi A (eds) (1997) Remedies for breach of EC law. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Naysnerski W, Tietenberg T (1992) Private enforcement of federal environmental law. Land Economics 68(1):28–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nemitz PF (ed) (2007) The effective application of EU state aid procedures. The role of national law and practice. Kluwer Law International, Alphen a/d Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Roach K, Trebilcock MJ (1997) Private enforcement of competition laws. Osgood Hall Law Journal 34(3):461–508

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross M (2000) State aid and national courts: definitions and other problems – a case of premature emancipation? CMLRev 37(2):401–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Sasserath N (2001) Schadenersatzansprüche von Konkurrenten zur Effektivierung der Beihilfenkontrolle? Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinnaeve A (1997) Die Rückforderung gemeinschaftsrechtswidriger nationaler Beihilfen, Kollisionen im Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Gemeinschafts- und nationalem Recht. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Slot PJ (2009) Case C-166/06, Centre d’exportation du livre Français (CELF) v. Société internationale de diffusion et d’édition (SIDE), judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 February 2008, [2008] ECR I-469. CMLRev:623–639

    Google Scholar 

  • Soltész U (2001) Der Rechtsschutz des Konkurrenten gegen gemeinschaftsrechtswidrige Beihilfen vor nationalen Gerichten. EuZW 7:202–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Struys ML (1999) Le rôle des juridictions nationales. In: Les aides d’etat en droit communautaire et en droit national. Bruylant, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Public Law, Department of Constitutional and Administrative Law, Leiden University, Steenschuur 25, 2311 ES, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Paul Adriaanse

Authors
  1. Paul Adriaanse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Adriaanse .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Faculty for Economics, Law and Social Sc, University of Erfurt, Nordhäuser Straße 63, Erfurt, 99089, Germany

    Hermann-Josef Blanke

  2. Regionalism, Federalism and Self-Governm, National Research Council - Institute fo, Via dei Taurini 19, Rome, 00185, Italy

    Stelio Mangiameli

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Adriaanse, P. (2012). Public and Private Enforcement of EU State Aid Law. In: Blanke, HJ., Mangiameli, S. (eds) The European Union after Lisbon. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-19507-5_17

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation