EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 7.12.2009 
SEC (2009) 1638 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
 
Accompanying the 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
State Aid Scoreboard 
 
- Autumn 2009 Update - 
  
Facts and figures on State aid in the EU Member States  
{COM(2009) 661 final} 
EN 2   EN Table of contents 
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ... 4 
State aid in the context of the economic crisis ........................................................................... 4 Scope and content.............................................................................................................. ......... 5 
State aid as defined under Arti cle 87 of the EC Treaty.............................................................. 6 
Revised format of the Stat e aid autumn Scoreboard.................................................................. 6 
1. State aid in 2008 in absolute and relative terms........................................................... 7 1.1. Total State aid and State ai d per sector as % of GDP .................................................. 7 
1.2. Impact of crisis measures on total State aid................................................................. 8 1.3. Total State aid and State ai d per sector as % of GDP (c risis measures excluded)....... 9 
1.4. Broad sectoral distribution of aid (w ith and without crisis measures)....................... 12 
2. Trends and patterns of state aid e xpenditure in the Member States........................... 13 
2.1. Levels of State aid to industry and services............................................................... 13 2.2. State aid for horizontal obj ectives of common interest.............................................. 16 
2.2.1. Horizontal versus se ctoral aid in 2008....................................................................... 16 
2.2.2. State aid to horizontal objectives ............................................................................... 17 2.2.3. Trend in State aid for horizontal ob jectives and sectoral objectives.......................... 21 
2.2.4. State aid for research and development and innovation............................................. 22 
2.2.5. State aid for SMEs including risk capital................................................................... 24 2.2.6. State aid for environmental protection....................................................................... 24 2.2.7. State aid supporting regional development and cohesion.......................................... 25 
2.3. State aid earmarked for specific sectors..................................................................... 27 2.3.1. State aid for rescue and rest ructuring firms in difficulty ........................................... 27 
2.3.2. State aid to the shipbuilding sector ............................................................................ 27 2.3.3. State aid to the steel sector......................................................................................... 27  
2.3.4. State aid to the coal sector.......................................................................................... 28  
2.3.5. State aid to the transport sector .................................................................................. 28 2.3.6. State aid to the agricultural sector.............................................................................. 30 2.3.7. State aid to the fisheries sector................................................................................... 31 
2.4. State aid instruments .................................................................................................. 32 2.4.1. State aid instruments and aid volumes in 2008.......................................................... 32 2.4.2. Trend in the use of aid instrume nts (crisis measures excluded)................................. 34 
3. State aid in the context of th e financial and economic crisis ..................................... 35 
3.1. General economic background................................................................................... 35 3.2. Chronology of the crisis and the Commission's response.......................................... 36 
EN 3   EN 3.3. Measures approved, take-up and review.................................................................... 41 
3.4. State aid granted in 2008............................................................................................ 44 3.5. Measures adopted under th e Temporary Framework................................................. 47 
3.6. Special reference to the car sector.............................................................................. 48 3.7. Special reference to th e air transport sector ............................................................... 49 
4. Simplification of the State aid rules........................................................................... 49 4.1. A new architecture for State aid control .................................................................... 49 4.2. Types of aid measures used by Member States ......................................................... 51 5. Enforcement the state aid rules .................................................................................. 54 5.1. Unlawful aid.............................................................................................................. . 54 
5.2. Recovery of unlawful aid........................................................................................... 54 5.3. Enforcement of State aid Law: Cooperation with national courts ............................. 56 
5.4. Ex-post monitoring..................................................................................................... 57 Methodological Notes ........................................................................................................... ... 58 
Annex: Statistical tables...................................................................................................... ..... 60 
Table 1-1: Key figures and tre nd on State aid as per centage of GDP and share of horizontal 
objectives as percentage of total aid for industry and serv ices and their trend (all 
cases; 2008)................................................................................................................ 60 
Table 1-2: Key figures and tre nd on State aid as per centage of GDP and share of horizontal 
objectives as percentage of total aid for industry and serv ices and their trend (excl. 
crisis measures) .......................................................................................................... 61 
Table 1-3:  State aid for prim ary objectives and sectoral ai d as % of total aid (crisis 
measures excluded); 2008.......................................................................................... 62 
Table 1-4:  Trend in share of primary obj ectives in total aid between 2003-2005 and 2006-
2008 as percentage point differen ce (crisis measures excluded) ............................... 63 
Table 2: Main set of rules adopted si nce the launch of the SAAP in 2005.............................. 64 
Table 3-1: Overview of measures revi ewed by the Commission under the Temporary 
Framework until 9 November 2009 ........................................................................... 67 
Table 4-1: Trend in the number  of recovery decisions and am ounts to be recovered (1) 2000- 
2009 (by 30 June 2009).............................................................................................. 70 
Table 4-2: Recovery in the fisheries sector.............................................................................. 70 
Table 4-3: Pending recovery decisions (by 30 June 2009) ...................................................... 71 
Table 4-4: Pending recovery cases where th e Commission has decided to bring the case 
before the Court of Justice and where ille gal and incompatible aid has not yet been 
recovered (30 June 2009)........................................................................................... 74 
Table 5: Summary of rules for the transport sector.................................................................. 77 
 
EN 4   EN  
INTRODUCTION 
 State aid in the context of the economic crisis 
Over the past decade, the EU experienced steady economic growth whereby GDP increased 
on average by roughly 1.5% per annum. Between 2002 and 2007, the level of State aid, 
expressed as a percentage of GDP, decreased on average by around 2% pe r year and stood at 
less than 0.5% in 2007. During th is period, Member States con tinued their effort to reduce 
budget deficits which reached lower levels than the beginning of the millennium. The rate of 
unemployment fell in line with the economic trend though with some delay and stood at 
approximately 7% EU-wide in 2008. 
The financial crisis has caused an abrupt en d to GDP growth, low levels of State aid 
expenditure and decreasing budget deficits. Unemploy ment is expected to rise in the coming 
years up to 10%. Economic activity contracted in the second half of 2008. This has led to a fall of GDP by approximately 1.4%. It is expected  to decline further (by almost 4%) for the 
entire year 2009 and to stabilis e in 2010 with small growth e xpected to be 0.75% and 1.5% in 
2011. Budget deficits have increased substantia lly, returning to levels reached at the 
beginning of the decade, with significant variations between Member States however. As can be expected, State aid expenditu re has also risen since most  Member States have given 
support to their economies to st abilise the financial sector. 
Aid granted to the real economy through the Tem porary Framework measures is not shown in 
this report since expenditure only occurs from  2009 and underlying data will only be available 
in 2010. 
After the break-down of the in ter-banking market in Septembe r 2008, Member States injected 
substantial amounts of aid to the banking sector in  order to prevent coll apses of banks in the 
EU with the aim of reducing systemic risks which many banks have posed on the functioning 
of the financial markets. It is this kind of aid which contributed most to the significant 
increase of State aid expenditure in 2008. 
A stable banking system is key to provide th e economy with liquidity, mainly in form of 
credit. Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (herei nafter "SME") in par ticular need financing 
from banks to invest in new technologies, th ereby creating job opportun ities for the future. 
Recapitalisation measures and aid to the real eco nomy were put in place by Member States to 
ensure both that lending to the economy conti nues and that the real economy could continue 
to invest. The massive aid which contributed to stabilise the ba nking sector should eventually 
reap future dividends in the form of new j obs and opportunities to exploit new technologies, 
as many enterprises are able to stay in bus iness because of conti nued access to finance 
(though this is admittedly more diffi cult than in previous years).  
Needless to say, State aid expenditure  has to return to pre-crisis levels over the next years and 
budget deficits will also have to decrease. A big ch allenge for Member States will be the 
sharp rise in unemployment expected over th e next years (around 10.25% in 2010). Only by 
returning to economic growth, can public spen ding be reduced over time. Current State aid 
contributes to stabilising the economy in order to  boost return to growth. By gradually ending 
crisis-caused state support over the next years at the appropriate time, the path of economic 
growth will not be jeopardised through a sudde n lack of resources bu t it will ensure a smooth 
transition towards sustainable growth. 
EN 5   EN  Scope and content 
This autumn 2009 update of the State aid Commi ssion Staff Working Document (hereinafter 
"the Scoreboard")1 focuses on the State aid situation in the twenty-seven Member States for 
the year 2008 and gives deta il on the underlying trends. 
When starting to analyse State aid expenditure in 2008, a higher aid volume was expected due 
to aid in response of the financ ial crisis. Many Member States granted substantial aid to the 
financial sector, be it in form of rescue a nd restructuring aid or ai d directed to remedy a 
serious disturbance of the economy. By presen ting State aid expenditu re including the aid 
volumes granted to crisis-related measures (her einafter "crisis measures"), the report would 
probably draw the wrong conclusions since hi gh aid volumes related to crisis measures 
certainly distort the overall picture on State ai d.  Where appropriate or  necessary, the report 
henceforth identifies instances of State aid vol umes excluding crisis measures, thereby being 
able to focus on the essential developments, as if there were no crisis measures. Aid measures 
qualify as crisis measures if they were adopted  under sector specific St ate aid rules introduced 
in the context of the current global financia l crisis (for more de tail on the individual 
Communications, see chapter 3). Measures which respond to th e financial crisis but were 
approved prior the State aid rules aforementione d also count as crisis measures. The report 
updates on all crisis measures and gives an outlook for 2009. 
In order to analyse data and tr ends of the Member States' re sponse to successive European 
Council call for “less and better targeted aid”, Stat e aid granted to remedy the crisis situation 
will be excluded from total aid. This update of the Scoreboard also reports on progress towards delivering a comprehensive and coherent  reform package for State aid that began 
with the State Aid Action Plan
2 (hereinafter "SAAP") in 2005. 
This Annex of the Scoreboard comprises five chapters. Key statistical information on State 
aid awarded by each Member State in 2008 is included in Chapter 1 and 2 where detailed data show the trend of State aid expenditure. Chap ter 3 provides an update of the spring 2009 
Scoreboard on the financial and real economy State aid cases. It also provides an outlook for 
2009, based on latest developments. Chapter 4 provides an overview on the simplification of State aid rules that have been pu t into place since the SAAP in 200 5. In particular, it will update 
on the use of block exempted aid by Member States. Chapter 5 reports on ongoing efforts to enforce the State aid rules and to recover unl awful aid. Finally, tables in annex show key 
figures of State aid expenditure, the follow-up on the SAAP, the case lists in regard of the 
financial and economic cr isis and on recovery. 
The Directorate-General Competition publishes this Scoreboard on its website
3, where 
previous editions can also be found. Also available on the website are a series of key indicators 
and in-depth statistics covering the EU as a whole as well as individual Member States. 
The EFTA Surveillance Authority (E SA) publishes an annual scoreboard4 on the volume of 
State aid granted in Ic eland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Data  for these countries have also 
been included in Tables 1-1 and 1-2 in Annex. 
                                                 
1  Any reference to the Scoreboard in this text refers to this document (the Commission's staff working 
document).  
2 COM(2005) 107 final, 7.6.2005 
3  http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/studies_reports.html   
4  http://www.eftasurv.int/information/sascoreboard/    
EN 6   EN  State aid as defined under Ar ticle 87 of the EC Treaty 
The Scoreboard covers St ate aid as defined under Article 87(1)  of the EC Treaty that Member 
States granted up to the end of 2008. All State ai d data refer to th e implementation of 
Commission decisions but exclude cases which ar e still under examinat ion. With respect to 
general measures implemented by Member States, they do not constitute State aid as defined 
by Article 87(1).  
State aid is expenditure which represents an economic advantage passed onto undertakings 
engaged in economic activities. In cases of grants, the econ omic advantage passed onto the 
beneficiary normally corresponds to budgetary expenditure. For other aid instruments, 
advantage to the beneficiary and cost to govern ment may differ. For guarantees, for example, 
the beneficiary avoids the risk associated with the guarantee, since it is carried by the State. Such risk-carrying by the State should normally be remunerate d by an appropriate premium. 
Where the State forgoes all or part of such  a premium, there is both a benefit for the 
undertaking and a drain on the resources of the St ate. Thus, even if it  turns out that no 
payments are ever made by the State under a gu arantee, there may nevertheless be State aid 
under Article 87(1) of the Treat y. The aid is granted at the mo ment when the guarantee is 
given, not when the guarantee is invoked nor wh en payments are made under the terms of the 
guarantee.  
 Revised format of the St ate aid autumn Scoreboard 
With the autumn 2009 Scoreboard, the Commissi on publishes the report  in a new format 
composing of a summary adopted by the Coll ege of Commissioners and an annex (only 
available in English) presenting facts and fi gures. While the summary outlines the principal 
developments of State aid expendi ture on the basis of the analysis of thei r underlying data and 
other detected trends, the staff report gives de tail on facts and trends. Needless to say, it 
covers the entire scope as provided in previous autumn editions. 
EN 7   EN  
1. STATE AID IN 2008  IN ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE TERMS  
2008's State aid expenditure in the EU covers to tal State aid, aid to i ndustry and services and 
aid granted through crisis measures  inter alia . The indicator of 'State  aid as percentage of 
GDP' takes into account the general economic situa tion in the particular Member State as well 
as that of the EU as a whole. The static pi cture (i.e. focus on the data of the year under 
review) shows aid levels in absolute and relativ e terms. It will set the tone for a comparative 
analysis of aid expenditure sin ce the Scoreboard also deals w ith the impact of the financial 
crisis on State aid. 
1.1. Total State aid and State ai d per sector as % of GDP 
Figure 15: Total State aid as % of GDP (all sect ors; crisis measures included), 2008  
Total State aid as  %  of GDP; 2008
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00IrelandLuxembourgBelgiumLatviaUnited KingdomNetherlandsGermanyHungaryEU- 15EU- 27DenmarkMaltaFranceBulgariaPortugalEU- 12FinlandSw edenPolandCzech RepublicLithuaniaSloveniaCyprusRomaniaSpainSlovakiaAustriaGreeceItalyEstonia
Industry and services as % of GDP
Agriculture, fisheries and transport as % of GDP 
Total State aid6 granted by the Member States amounted to approximately € 279.6 billion in 
20087. In absolute terms, the United Kingdom show ed the highest aid level (€ 72.5 billion) 
                                                 
5  Source: DG Competition, DG Energy and Transport, DG Agriculture and DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries: 
Note: Member States are ranked in ascending order according to the total amount of aid expressed as % of 
GDP. Data cover all State aid measures as defined under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty that have been 
awarded by Member States and exam ined by the Commission. Included are all sectors except railways and 
Services of General Economic Interest. 
6 The total covers aid to manufacturing, services, coal, ag riculture, fisheries and part of the transport sector but 
excludes aid to the railway sector, aid for compensation for services of general economic interest due to the 
lack of comparable data. 
EN 8   EN followed by Germany (€ 66.8 billion), Ireland (€ 37.5 billion), France (€ 26.8 billion) and 
Belgium (€ 19.4 billion). 
In relative terms, State ai d amounted to 2.2% of EU-278 GDP in 2008. This average masks 
significant disparities between Member States: th e share of total aid to GDP amounts to less 
than 1% (of GDP) in ten countries and exceeds th e average in eight countries. In the latter 
group, the sharp increase on State aid was due to the crisis measures. 
1.2. Impact of crisis measu res on total State aid 
Crisis measures implemented and reporte d by Member States in 2008 amounted to 
approximately € 212.2 billion or around 1.7% of GDP.  
Figure 29: Total State aid to industry and services  as % of GDP (all cases versus crisis 
measures excluded); EU-27; 2008  
Total State aid to industry and services as % of GDP (all cases 
versus crisis cases excluded); EU-27; 2008
2.1
0.10.4
0.1
0.00.51.01.52.02.5
Aid to industry and services as % of GDP Aid to agriculture, fisheries and transport as
% of GDP
E U -27 (all cases) EU-27 (crisis measures excluded)
 
Figure 2 clearly shows which imp act the crisis measures had on total State aid granted by 
Member States to industry and services when expressed as percentage of GDP. 
The big increase of State aid to industry and services at EU-27 level can be attributed to the 
thirteen Member States which granted aid to fi nancial institutions in response to the crisis. 
Many of the EU-1210 countries saw no need to support their banking sector and hence their 
aid levels remained unaffected by crisis measures. For detailed information on crisis measures, see chapter 3. 
                                                                                                                                                        
 
7  Crisis measures included 
8  EU-27 means all Member States of the EU.  
9  Source: DG Competition, DG Energy and Transport, DG Agriculture and DG Mar itime Affairs and Fisheries. 
Note: Data cover State aid to industry and services.  
10  EU-12 includes Member States which en tered the EU in 20 04 or thereafter. 
EN 9   EN  
1.3. Total State aid and State aid per sect or as % of GDP (crisis measures 
excluded)  
Figure 311: Total State aid (crisis measures excl uded) as % of GDP (all sectors) 2008  
Total State aid as  %  of GDP; 2008 
(cris is  meas ures  excluded)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5HungaryMaltaBulgariaFinlandIrelandEU- 12PolandCzechPortugalSw edenLatviaLithuaniaDenmarkSloveniaCyprusRomaniaGermanyEU- 27SlovakiaFranceEU- 15SpainBelgiumAustriaGreeceNetherlandsItalyEs toniaUnited KingdomLuxembourg
Industry and services as % of GDP
Agriculture, fisheries and transport as % of GDP 
                                                 
11  Source: DG Competition, DG Energy and Transport, DG Agriculture and DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries: 
Note: Member States are ranked in ascending order according to the total amount of aid expressed as % of 
GDP. Data cover all State aid measures as defined under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty that have been 
awarded by Member States and ex amined by the Commission.  Included are all sectors except railways. 
EN 10   EN Figure 412: Total State aid (crisis measures excl uded) as a percentage of GDP (industry 
and services only) 2008 
Total State aid as  %  of GDP; 2008 
(cris is  meas ures  excluded)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0HungaryMaltaPortugalSw edenPolandCzechEU- 12DenmarkGermanyLithuaniaCyprusSloveniaFinlandEU- 27SlovakiaSpainEU- 15FranceAustriaIrelandBelgiumGreeceItalyNetherlandsLatviaRomaniaUnited KingdomLuxembourgBulgariaEstonia
Industry and services as % of GDP
 
When excluding crisis measures, total Stat e aid amounted to around € 67.4 billion in 2008. 
Germany granted most aid (around € 15.7 billio n), followed by France (€ 10.3 billion), Italy 
(€ 5.5 billion), Spain (€ 5.2 billion) and the United Kingdom (€ 3.8 billion). 
In relative terms, total State aid amounted to 0.54% of EU-27 GDP in 2008. This average 
masks significant disparities between Member St ates: the share of total aid to GDP amounts 
to less than the average in eleven Member States.  
In sectoral terms, around € 47.2 billion of ai d was earmarked for the manufacturing and 
services sectors, roughly € 1.7 billion for the other non manufacturing sectors13, € 2.7 billion 
for coal, € 12 billion for agriculture14 and fisheries and approximately € 2.4 billion for the 
transport sector (excluding railways)15. Crisis aid implemented in 2008 relates only to the 
financial services sector and is therefore allocated to 'manufact uring and services'. 
                                                 
12  Source: DG Competition. Note: Member States are ranke d in ascending order accordin g to the total amount of 
aid expressed as % of GDP. Data cover all State aid m easures as defined under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty 
that have been awarded by Member St ates and examined by the Commission.  
13 It includes aid for mining and quarry ing, oil and gas extraction, aid for electricity, gas and water supply and 
aid for construction. 
14  For Agriculture: € 11.76 billion 
15  DG Agriculture is responsible for ai d to the agricultural sector, DG Maritime and Fishery Affaires for aid to 
fisheries and DG Transport and Energy for aid to the transport sector, coal and railways.  
EN 11   EN Significant differences were found between Member  States regarding the sectors to which aid 
was directed. In 2008, aid dire cted at manufacturing and se rvices, other non manufacturing 
sectors and coal represented 75% or more of total aid inter alia  in Belgium, the Czech 
Republic, Denmark, Germany, Italy, France, Austria, Portugal, Sweden and the United Kingdom. In few Member States, aid to agriculture, fisheries and transport still accounts to 
more than 50%, namely in Bulg aria, Estonia, Ireland, Roma nia and Finland. Aid to the 
agricultural and fisheries sector s accounted in the EU-12 Memb er States for around twice the 
share of the EU-15
16 average. Due to the pa rticularities associated with aid to agriculture, 
fisheries and transport, it is worth looking at total aid less th ese sectors i.e. total aid to 
industry and services.  
Aid to industry and services17 
Total aid to industry and services amounted to a pproximately € 265 billion18 in 2008. In 
absolute terms, the United Kingdom granted mo st aid (€ 71.8 billion) followed by Germany 
€ 65.3 billion), Ireland (€ 36.3 bill ion), France (€ 24.1 billion), Be lgium (€ 19 billion), and the 
Netherlands (€ 15.6 billion). 
In relative terms, State aid to industry and services amounted to 2.1% of EU-27 GDP in 2008. 
This second indicator produces a rather different  ranking of Member States. Fourteen Member 
States granted aid representing less than 1% of GDP and only seven Member States exceed on 
the average, namely Belgium, Germany, Irela nd, Latvia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and 
the United Kingdom.  
When excluding crisis measures, aid awarde d to industry and services amounts to 
€ 52.9 billion in 2008. Germany granted most aid (around € 14.2 billion) followed by France 
(€ 7.6 billion), Italy (€ 4.5 billion), Sp ain (€ 4.4 billion) and the United Kingdom 
(€ 3.1 billion). 
In relative terms, State aid to industry and services amounted to 0.42%19 of EU-27 GDP in 
2008. This average masks significan t disparities between Member St ates: the share of total aid 
to GDP amounts to less than the average in fourteen countries. 
Aid to industry and services represent 78% of total State aid, of which 4.1% or € 2.7 billion 
are allocated to the coal industr y. The remainder of aid is shar ed between agriculture (almost 
17.5% of total aid), fisheries (0.4%  of total aid), and transport20 (3.6% of total aid). 
Around half of the Member States lie below the EU average (0.44% of GDP) of aid for 
industry and services. However, some increase in aid expenditu re in 2008 was expected due 
to the crisis. 
                                                 
16  EU-15 comprises Member States th at joined the EU before 2004.  
17  See methodological notes with respect to aid for industry and services at the end of this document.  
18  Crisis measures included. 
19  Crisis measures excluded 
20  Excluding railways 
EN 12   EN  
1.4. Broad sectoral distribution of ai d (with and without crisis measures) 
Figure 521 : Total State aid (all cases); EU-27; 2008 
Total State Aid by sector; EU 27; 2008
Industry + 
services
95%Transport 
(Excl.Railways)
1%Agriculture + 
Fisheries
4%
 
Figure 622 : Total State aid (crisis measures excluded); EU-27; 2008  
Total State Aid by sector; EU 27; 2008 
(cris is  meas ures  excluded)
Industry+ services
78%Transport 
(E xcl.Railw ays)
4%Agriculture+ Fisheries
18%
 
Figures 5 and 6 present the distribution of Stat e aid per sector. Due to the significant aid 
volume granted for crisis measures, Member States dedicated almost all aid to industry and services (95%) in 2008. The othe r sectors represent only a sma ll aggregated share of 5%.  
When excluding crisis measures, Member States  roughly awarded 78% of aid to industry and 
services. The remainder of aid is shared between  agriculture and fisher ies (18%) and transport 
(4%)
23.  
                                                 
21  Source: DG Competition, DG Energy and Transport, DG Agriculture and DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 
22  Source: DG Competition, DG Energy and Transport, DG Agriculture and DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 
EN 13   EN 2. TRENDS AND PATTERNS OF STATE AID EXPENDITURE IN THE MEMBER STATES  
After the static view above, th e analysis continues with tre nds and patterns of State aid 
expenditure in the Member States. The degree to which Member States have (or have not) 
reduced the level of State aid can be measured by looking not only at State aid relative to 
GDP in particular years but on the same in formation over a number of years in order to 
eliminate annual fluctuations and delayed reporting24 as far as possible. The periods into 
which expenditure data were  grouped are 2003-2005 and 2006-2008. 
2.1. Levels of State aid to industry and services 
In view of the fact that data on aid to agriculture, fisheries an d transport contains 
particularities25 which prevent the production of aggreg ate information across all sectors for 
the purposes of trend analysis in particular , all State aid observations will exclude these 
sectors. 
Total State aid to industry a nd services obviously includes aid granted for crisis measures. 
Crisis-related aid (€ 212.5 billion) contributed to a five times higher level of total State aid to 
industry and services in 2008 compared with 2007. This would influence many key data and 
undermine the comparability of da ta between individual years. Fu rthermore, crisis measures 
represent aid granted under except ional circumstances and can clear ly be attributed as aid to 
the financial sector. Where appropriate, State aid expenditure for crisis measures is therefore 
not taken into account for the purpose of anal ysing trends and pattern s. See chapter 3 for 
details on crisis measures.   
Figure 726: State aid to industry and services since 1992  
State aid to industry and services
00.511.522.5
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of GD P
State aid incl. crisis measures State aid excl. crisis measures 
                                                                                                                                                         
23  Excluding railways 
24  In spite of the Member States’ obligation (Annex III, Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 
2004 ) to report State aid expenditure figures for the year t-1, some Member States are able to report figures 
for some measures only for year t-2. In addition, unlawfully granted State aid is included in the Scoreboard 
data only after Commission’s decision on particular unl awful aid case and retroactively added to the year in 
which the aid was granted. Therefore, overall aid levels  could possibly be underestimated for the most recent 
years. 
25  For instance, aid to the agricultura l sector is earmarked through a set of particular objectives which are 
different from those for industry and services' primary objectives.     
26  Source: DG Competition 
EN 14   EN Figure 7 shows the long-term tren d on State aid expenditure for industry and services in the 
EU. During the Nineties, the overall level of aid was around 0.7% of GDP27 on average on a 
downward path. This decline can be partly expl ained by the work that began in the mid 1980s 
to make effective State aid control a key co mponent of the Single Market Programme. State 
aid further widened and strengthe ned in the 1990s mainly due to  preparation for the European 
Monetary Union. 
New impetus from the Lisbon Strategy launched by the European Council in 2000 and then 
the SAAP in 2005 resulted in further declinin g aid expenditure for industry and services, 
fluctuating between 0.4% and 0.6% GDP between 2000 and 200728.  
Three main factors contributed to this decrea se: first, due to a period of economic growth 
since 2000, Member States granted considerably less rescue and restructuring aid for ailing 
firms. 2007 showed an exception with the support to Northern Rock29 and Sachsen LB30. Both 
cases are now included under the crisis measures. Second, State aid to the coal sector showed 
a continued downward trend. The decrease can be primarily observed in Poland, France, 
Germany, and to a lesser extent, Spain. Apart from that, no further significant rescue and 
restructuring aid was granted. Third, pre-acces sion commitments and continued efforts after 
accession both contributed to the downward tre nd since the EU-12 Memb er States continued 
to adjust their State aid polic ies and practices to the require ments under EU State aid law and 
policies.   
This positive downward trend abru ptly stopped due to the financ ial crisis. The strong upward 
move in 2008 can be almost exclus ively attributed to the crisis measures, which is a five times 
higher than in 200731.  
In order to see expenditure devel opments on State aid without the di storting effect of the crisis 
measures, crisis measures will be excluded from total aid to industry and services for the purpose of the further analysis. On this basis,  the trend shows a mode rate upward move in 
2008. Compared with 2007, aid for industry and services increased by approximately 0.04% 
of GDP. For instance, Germany granted more re gional aid to foster investment in the new 
German Länder and parts of Berlin
32. Spain gave more aid for environmental protection33. 
Poland substantially increased employment ai d and introduced new block exempted aid 
representing several € 100 million of expenditure. Only aid earmarked for horizontal objectives contributed to the increase. Aid for sectoral development and rescue and 
restructuring aid was lower compared to 2007.  
It is important to emphasise that this upward m ove nevertheless represents  a level of State aid 
expenditure which is below the level of 2006 and it is within the trend average seen between 
2000 and 2007.  
                                                
 
27  1997 had a peak due to the Credit Lyonnais aid.   
28  The aid to BGB in 2002 contributed to another peak in the long-term trend.  
29  NN 70/2007 Northern Rock   
30  C 9/2008 Restructuring aid to Sachsen LB   
31  Higher aid levels were already e xpected in 2007 - see Autumn 2008 Scoreboard, p. 16 - where the first signs 
of the financial crisis appeared on the screen, e.g. rescue and restructuring of Northern Rock and Sachsen LB. 
32  N 357a/2006 Investitionszulagengesetz 2007  and XR 6/2007 Investitionszulagengesetz 2007  
33  A large part can be attributed to NN 61/2004 Tax exemption on bio fuels . 
EN 15   EN  
Figure 834:  Trend in State aid to industry and services as % of GDP (crisis measures 
excluded) 
Trend in State aid to industry and services (excl. crisis cases) 
as % of GDP
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5HungaryPortugalSwedenLithuaniaBelgiumAustriaGreeceIrelandLatviaNetherlandsFinlandDenmarkFranceUnited KingdomEU-15EstoniaLuxembourgSpainEU-27ItalySlovakiaGermanySloveniaBulgariaEU-12Czech RepublicPolandMaltaCyprusRomania
% of GDP
2003-2005 2006-2008 
The trend in State aid expenditure to industry and services, as shown in figure 8, underlines 
engagement of Member States to reduce aid expe nditure. Firstly, a majority of Member States 
were able to reduce aid levels in th e period 2006-2008 as compared with 2003-2005. On 
average in the EU-27, the trend has been stab le between the period s 2006-2008 compared to 
2003-2005. However, many of the EU-12 countries  achieved significant reduction by 1% of 
GDP or even more. As a result, the average EU -12 expenditure reduced by almost half, i.e. 
from more than 1% of GDP in 2003-2005 to  slightly above 0.5% in 2006-2008. Many EU-15 
countries were also able to reduce aid levels , now down at approximately 0.4% of GDP in the 
period 2006-2008, i.e. almost equa l to the EU-27 average. Desp ite the increase of aid to 
industry and services in 2008, the trend analysis  has not shown a reversal of the long-term 
downward trend in EU-27.  
Despite the positive downward trend, some Memb er States increased aid expenditure in 2006-
2008 compared to 2003-2005. Hungary substantially increased aid expenditure. Most aid was 
                                                 
34  Source: DG Competition 
EN 16   EN earmarked for regional development by grantin g investment aid to regional development 
programmes. The other area of increased ex penditure was aid for employment. Portugal 
granted substantial aid to financial services, ma inly fiscal aid. However, the increase of the 
trend for 2006-2008 can be explained from the st atistical effect that  Portugal reported 
substantial aid volumes (Madeira tax regi me) in 2006 and 2007 whereas high expenditure 
discontinued in 2008. Being in phase-out, the futu re trend for Portugal can be expected to 
return to lower levels. A very similar pattern of statistical effect can be identified with respect 
to Sweden and awarding large volumes of aid for environmental protection since 2005. 
Belgium granted more aid for horizontal objectives  and some further aid for financial services 
(outside the crisis measures). Lithuania awarde d more aid to regional development, as well as 
Greece. Ireland increased aid for research and development and support for SMEs.     
2.2. State aid for horizontal objectives of common interest 
State aid for horizontal objectives, i.e. aid that is not granted to  specific sectors, is usually 
considered as being better suit ed to address market failures and thus less distortive than 
sectoral and ad hoc aid. Re search and Development and I nnovation (hereinafter "R&D&I"), 
safeguarding the environment, support to SM Es, employment creation, the promotion of 
training and aid for regional economic development are the most prominent horizontal 
objectives pursued with State aid. 
2.2.1.  Horizontal versus sectoral aid in 2008 
Figure 935: Total State aid, aid to industry and serv ices as % of GDP, share of horizontal 
aid 
Figures in (..) include 
crisis measures Total State Aid 
less railways (in billion EUR) Total State Aid 
for industry and services (billion 
EUR) Total State 
Aid less railways as 
% of GDP Total State 
Aid for industry and 
services as 
% of GDP Horizontal 
objectives as % of total aid to 
industry and 
services 
EU-27 67.4 (279.6)  52.9 (265.0) 0.54 (2.2)  0.42  (2.1)  87.61 (17.49) 
EU-15 57.1 (268.3)  45.8 (256.9)  0.50  (2.3)  0.40  (2.2)  87.68 (15.62)  
EU-12 10.3 (11.3)  7.1 (8.1) 1.05  (1.1)  0.72  (0.82)  87.17 (76.79)  
Belgium 1.6 (19.4)  1.2 (19.0) 0.46 (5.63)  0.36 (5.52)  99.01  (6.40)  
Bulgaria 0.4 (0.4) 0.04 (0.0) 1.30 (1.30)  0.12 (0.12)  91.25  (91.25)  
Czech Republic 1.4 (1.4) 1.2 (1.2) 0.97 (0.97)  0.78 (0.78)  93.75  (93.75)  
Denmark 1.9 (4.7) 1.7 (4.5) 0.80 (2.02)  0.71 (1.93)  93.71  (34.47)  
Germany 15.7 (66.8)  14.2 (65.3)  0.63 (2.68)  0.57 
(2.62)  86.93  (18.87)  
Estonia 0.05 (0.05)  0.01 (0.01)  0.29 (0.29)  0.09 (0.09)  100.00  (100.00)  
Ireland 1.9 (37.5)  0.7 (36.3)  1.05 (20.20)  0.38 (19.53)  84.50  (1.63)  
Greece 1.0 (1.0) 0.8 (0.8) 0.42 (0.42)  0.33 (0.33)  97.57  (97.57)  
Spain 5.2 (6.2) 4.4 (5.3) 0.48 (0.56)  0.40 (0.48)  78.91  (65.02)  
France 10.3 (26.8)  7.6 (24.1)  0.53 (1.37)  0.39 (1.23)  95.60  (30.17)  
                                                 
35 Source: DG Competition, DG Agriculture, DG Mare and DG Transport 
EN 17   EN Italy 5.5 (5.5) 4.5 (4.5) 0.35 (0.35)  0.29 (0.29)  85.30  (85.30)  
Cyprus 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.65 (0.65)  0.47 (0.47)  94.99  (94.99)  
Latvia 0.2 (1.2) 0.0 (1.0) 0.88 (5.05)  0.20 (4.37)  99.94  (4.53)  
Lithuania 0.3 (0.3) 0.2 (0.2) 0.82 (0.82)  0.53 (0.53)  100.00  (100.00)  
Luxembourg 0.1 (2.9) 0.1 (2.9) 0.20 (7.83)  0.15 (7.78)  100.00  (1.88)  
Hungary 2.5 (2.5) 1.9 (1.9) 2.38 (2.38)  1.81 (1.81)  81.18  (81.18)  
Malta 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 2.00 (2.00)  1.74 (1.74)  2.26  (2.26)  
Netherlands 2.2 (16.2)  1.5 (15.6)  0.36 (2.73)  0.25 (2.62)  97.81  (9.45)  
Austria 1.3 (1.3) 1.1 (1.1) 0.46 (0.46)  0.38 (0.38)  98.67  (98.67)  
Poland 3.7 (3.7) 2.9 (2.9) 1.02 (1.02)  0.80 (0.80)  93.28  (93.28)  
Portugal 1.6 (2.0) 1.5 (2.0) 0.93 (1.19)  0.92 (1.18)  16.34  (12.76)  
Romania 0.9 (0.9) 0.3 (0.3) 0.64 (0.64)  0.18 (0.18)  52.86  (52.86)  
Slovenia 0.2 (0.2) 0.2 (0.2) 0.66 (0.66)  0.47 (0.47)  89.16  (89.16)  
Slovakia 0.4 (0.4) 0.3 (0.3) 0.53 (0.53)  0.42 (0.42)  83.91  (83.91)  
Finland 2.1 (2.1) 0.8 (0.8) 1.13 (1.13)  0.44 (0.44)  98.37  (98.23)  
Sweden 3.0 (3.4) 2.7 (3.1) 0.92 (1.03)  0.82 (0.94)  99.59  (87.77)  
United Kingdom 3.8 (72.5)  3.1 (71.8)  0.21 (4.00)  0.17 (3.96)  90.99  (3.87)  
Table 9 makes clearly visible the impact of the crisis measures on totals by comparing total 
aid including or excluding crisis measures. 
As chapter 3 shows, crisis measures is aid grante d to the financial sector and hence classify as 
sectoral aid. If the co rresponding aid volumes were included in the total of the sectoral aid for 
2008, the share of horizontal objectives in relation to total aid to industry and services would 
amount to approximately 17%. Around 83% woul d be sectoral aid whereby the crisis 
measures represent the largest part  of it (more than two-third).  
However, the analysis of horiz ontal aid is more informative when looking at State aid to 
industry and services when cr isis measures are excluded. It then s hows that horizontal 
objectives represent a share of almost 88% for aid granted in 2008 while sectoral aid stands 
around 12%. In absolute terms, aid earmarked for horizontal objectives amounted to roughly 
€ 46.3 billion in 2008 and sectoral aid to about € 6.6 billion. It is worth to note with respect to 
sectoral aid that the trend shows a slight decrease of s ectoral aid between the period 2003-
2005 and 2006-2008, mainly due to lower ai d granted to the coal sector.  
2.2.2.  State aid to horizontal objectives  
In 21 Member States, at least three-quarter s of all the aid awarded in 2008 was for 
horizontal objectives of common interest 
EN 18   EN Aid earmarked for horizontal objectives accounted for almost 88% of total aid to industry and 
services in 2008. The remaining 12% wa s aid directed at specific sectors36: financial services 
other than the crisis measures (2%), coal (5 %), other services (1%), manufacturing sectors 
(2%) and other non-manufacturing sectors (less than 2%).  
In seventeen Member States, 90% or more of  all the aid awarded in 2008 was earmarked for 
horizontal objectives. In Irela nd, Hungary, Slovakia and Spain, th e share of horizontal aid was 
between 70% and 85% while the share was signi ficantly lower in Romania (53%), Portugal 
(16%) and Malta (2%). The low share of horizont al aid (and thus rela tively high share of 
sectoral aid) in Malta can be explained by a tax relief measure under the Business Promotion 
Act,37 while in Portugal it is due to a large regional aid tax scheme (being phased out) in 
Madeira which in practice benefits a limited nu mber of sectors. In Romania, a significant 
proportion of aid continues to be awarded to the manufacturing sector as  well as to the mining 
industry.  
In absolute terms, aid to horizontal object ives amounted to around € 46.3 billion in 2008. 
Compared with 2007, it increased by roughly  € 7 billion. Regardle ss of the individual 
horizontal objective to which aid was earmark ed, individual Member  States contributed 
differently to this increase. For instance, Belgium's and Italy's contribution were around 
€ 400 million, Germany and Hungary contributed roughly € 1 billion each, Spain allocated € 200 million and Poland contributed € 1.5 billi on. The remainder is dispersed among many 
other Member States. In this re spect, only in few Member States were aid levels reduced for 
horizontal objectives (e.g. Sweden and United Kingdom) whereby sectoral aid also decreased 
in these Member States i.e. the reduction of horizontal aid was not set off by an increase of 
sectoral aid.  
The additional amounts granted were found in Germany, where a large part was used for 
regional development (roughly € 900 million)
38 and a smaller share for research and 
development (about € 160 million). For Spain, the increase of about € 200 million was largely 
due to an increase in ai d for regional development. Hungary  also substantially increased aid 
(about € 1 billion), mostly favouring regional development and employment. Poland granted 
aid of approximately € 500 million for inter alia  employment39.   
Large disparities between Member States in  the share of aid awarded to various 
horizontal objectives  
When comparing Member States, it is important  to bear in mind that aid measures are 
classified according to their primary objecti ve at the time the ai d was approved and not 
according to the final recipients of the aid40.  
The largest proportion of aid was earmarked fo r regional development (roughly 26% of total 
State aid for industry and services), which were  in the EU-12 countries widely used (around 
44%), but also in Greece (75%), France and Spain (roughly 40% each). 
                                                 
36 These percentages exclude those meas ures with a horizontal objective that  are nevertheless earmarked for the 
manufacturing and services sectors. 
37 Case MT/6/2002 . Accession Treaty 2003, OJ L 236 of 23.9.2003, p. 797, OJ C 227 E, 23.9.2003, p. 2. 
38  For instance N357a/2006 Investitionszulagengesetz 2007  
39  For instance XE 11/2004 Compensation des coûts liés à l'insertion des personnes handicapées dans les PME , 
N 575/2007 Secteur du charbon 2008-2015   
40  With respect to GBER measures which have objectives  but no primary objective, groups of these objectives 
have been mapped into the corresponding primary objec tive in order to receive the total aid earmarked for 
horizontal objectives. 
EN 19   EN The second largest proportion of aid concerni ng horizontal objectives was allocated to the 
environment (roughly 24% of all total State aid fo r industry and services). Sweden (86%), the 
Netherlands (65%), Austria ( 42%), the United Kingdom (41%) and Germany (40%) devoted a 
substantial part of aid to these objectives. In contrast, the average for the EU-12 countries was 
6%. 
In third position was aid to R& D&I activities with a share of 16%. It wa s favoured mostly by 
Belgium (46%), Luxembourg (36%), Finland (29%), Romania (26%) and France (25%). 
Together, these three objectives represent two-third of total aid to industry and services in the 
EU-27 and hence are the most widely used horizontal objectives of common interest.  
All other objectives take n together account for roughly one quart er of total aid to industry and 
services: SMEs (9% of total aid)41, employment (6%), culture a nd heritage conservation (3%), 
training (2%), risk capital (1%), and other hor izontal objectives (roughly 1%) which include 
objectives such as commerce and intern ationalisation and na tural disasters. 
The relative share of ob jectives is considerab ly different in the EU -12 countries where the 
predominant objective is aid for regional deve lopment (44%), followed by employment aid 
(19%), R&D&I (6%), environmental aid (6%) and SMEs (4%). The relatively high share of 
employment aid in EU-12 is du e mainly to a Polish block exempted scheme for disabled 
people.42 
Block exempted measures 
Table 1043: Block exempted measures as % of total horizontal aid to industry and 
services 
Trend in the share of exempted aid in total aid directed at the same horizontal 
objective, industry and services, EU-27; 2003-2008
020406080100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Year%Share of exempted aid in
Training aid
Share of exempted aid in aid toSME (incl. R&D for SMEs)
Share of exempted aid in aid toemployment
Share of exempted aid in aid toregional development
Share of exempted aid in total
horizontal aid
 
                                                 
41 This figure only captures aid exclusively earmark ed for SMEs for which there was no other primary 
objective. For example, risk capital aid which accounts for 1.0 % of total aid (included in "other horizontal 
objectives") is also exclusively direct ed to SMEs. Indeed total aid granted to SMEs is much higher since most 
schemes for other horizontal objec tives such as environment, regi onal development, research and 
development are open to companies regardless of their size. 
42 XE 11/2004  Compensation des coûts liés à l'insertion des personnes handicapées dans les PME   
43  Source: DG Competition 
EN 20   EN Figure 11: Trend in the share of block exempt ed aid in total aid directed at the same 
horizontal objective, industr y and services (EU-27; 2003-2008)   
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Horizontal ob jectives in € billion
Share of exempted aid in %
Aid for SME (incl. R&D for SMEs) 5 . 96 . 05 . 85 . 34 . 55 . 3
Share of exempted aid in aid for SME (incl. R&D for SMEs)(in %) 20 24 28 34 53 49
Employment 2 . 22 . 23 . 43 . 72 . 93 . 2
Share of exempted aid in Employment (in%) 1 9 14 18 28 44
Training 0 . 90 . 90 . 60 . 90 . 70 . 9
Share of exempted aid in Training (in %) 70 83 80 78 85 89
Regional development 10.0 9.3 9.6 10.3 9.8 13.7
Share of exempted aid in regional development (in %) ---- 2 5 3 8
Total horizontal aid 38.2 38.8 41.8 44.6 41.0 46.3
S h a r e  o f  e x e m p t e d  a i d  i n  t o t a l  h o r i z o n t a l  a i d  ( i n % ) 5667 1 5 2 2  
Member States awarded a total of roughly € 10 billion aid under block exemptions for 
industry and services in 2008. U nder the Block Exemption Regula tions (hereinafter "BER"), 
aid is earmarked for employment, regional inve stment aid, SME and tr aining. For aid awarded 
under the General Block Exemption Regulation (hereinafter "GBER")44, much of the aid was 
earmarked for the same objectives as the BERs provide.  
In relative terms, block exempted aid repres ented a share of approxi mately 22% of total 
horizontal aid to industry and services in 2008.  
For instance, almost 89% of training aid was granted through block ex emption in 2008. When 
looking at the trend, training ai d had been granted at a high ra te through block exemption over 
the entire period under revi ew. In absolute terms, training aid amounted to roughly 
€ 0.8 billion.  
In 2008, € 5.1 billion of aid was awarded for re gional investment aid. Compared with 2007, 
the figure represents an increase of € 2.7 billion. The main contributing factor here was a regional investment scheme of around € 1 billion in Germany.
45 Although only in troduced in 
2007, block exempted aid earmarked for regional investment aid reached a share of almost 
38% of total aid awarded under the same objective only one year later.  
Member States awarded block exempted aid to employment amounting to around € 1.4 billion 
in 2008. It is an increase by € 0.6 billion comp ared to 2007. Employment aid exempted under 
block exemption represents a share of 44% of total aid award to the same objective. 
Finally, block exempted aid for SMEs amounte d to € 2.6 billion in 2008, an increase of 
€ 0.2 billion compared to 2007. Block exempted SME aid has a share of roughly 50% of total aid award to the same objective.  
The main reason for the comparatively low perc entage of block exempted aid for employment 
and SME in total aid for the same objectiv e can be explained by ongoing high expenditure 
under a few large schemes authorised prior to the entry into force of the block exemption 
regulations
46. In addition, large French SME schemes th at do not meet all criteria for block 
                                                 
44 Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible 
with the common market in application of Article 87 and 88 of the Treaty (OJ L 214, 9.8.2008, p. 3)  
45 XR 31/2007  Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur“ (GA); 36. 
Rahmenplan: Teil II A – Gewerbliche Wirtschaft  
46  In particular a Danish scheme for so cial measures in the employment sector ( NN 10/2002 , ex N 425/2001) 
and an Italian scheme to promote industrial production in less-favoured regions ( N 715/1999 , amended by N 
440/2006 ). 
EN 21   EN exempted aid account for almost half of aid to SME granted out side block exempted 
measures47.   
2.2.3.  Trend in State aid for horizontal objectives and sectoral objectives 
Figure 12: Trend in share of primary object ives as % of total aid (2006-2008 compared 
with 2003-2005)48 
Trend in share of primary objectives as % of total 
aid (crisis measures excluded)
0102030SME
Training
Employment 
Other horizontal
objectives
Total
sectoral aid (including rescue and
restructuring aid)Environment/
energy savingRegional
development Research &
DevelopmentAid objectives EU-27
2003-2005
Aid objectives EU-27
2006-2008
 
                                                 
47  N 596a/2007  (approved on 11.03.2008), N 70a/2006  (22.06.2006), N 211/2003  (16.12.2003) 
48  Source: DG Competition. Note: Data cover industry and services only.  
EN 22   EN Figure 13: Trend in level of aid by primary objective, EU-27, 2003-200849 
Trend in level of aid (horizontal objectives and sectoral aid) as % of GDP;
EU-27 (cris is  meas ures  excluded)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.6
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008% of GD POther sectoral aid
Financial Services
Coal
Other Horizontal
objectives
R&D&I
Environment
Regional development
SME & risk capital
Employment & training
 
When looking at the trend with respect to ai d earmarked for horizontal objectives in 2008, it 
has been broadly stable, now representing almost  88% of total aid to industry and services. 
Compared with previous periods, 74% in 2004 and around 50% in the mid-Nineties, it 
confirms a clear upward move. The underlying trend also confirms the upward move on aid 
oriented to horizontal objectives. During th e period 2003-2005 on averag e 72% of aid were 
earmarked for horizontal objectives wh ile during 2006-2008 it increased to 84%50. 
Nevertheless, the long-term trend still shows that Member States  direct a rela tively high level 
of aid towards horizontal objectives. A clear positive trend was observed, to varying degrees, in many Member States. In particular, all EU-1 2 Member States are progressively redirecting 
aid towards horizontal objectives. 
Looking at individual objectives , the orientation of aid at EU-27 level shifted in favour of 
regional development, environmental protection and research and development. Expenditure 
on other horizontal objectives was relative ly stable while sectoral aid decreased
51. 
2.2.4.  State aid for research and development and innovation 
Overall Research and Development spending  
                                                 
49 Source: DG Competition. Note: Data cover industry and services only. 
 
50  It should be noted that the average share of horizontal aid in the period 2006-2008 is slightly higher since 
rescue and restructuring aid granted to the banking sector  prior to the entry into force of the crisis-related 
Communications were classified as sectoral  aid but not qualified as crisis measures50. By excluding them 
retrospectively, the share of horizontal  aid as % of total aid to industry a nd services slightly  increase for 2007. 
51  Crisis measures excluded 
EN 23   EN Investment in research and development (hereina fter "R&D") is a crucial factor to strengthen 
the competitiveness of the EU economy and to  ensure sustainable growth. The Barcelona 
European Council in 2002 recognised this by sett ing a 3% of GDP target for expenditure on 
R&D by 2010. Two thirds of this expenditure s hould be funded by the private sector and the 
other third by public funding. 
Figures for 2007 show that investment in R& D is not sufficient to  meet the Barcelona 
objectives: for the EU as a w hole, overall R&D investment  stood at 1.85% of GDP, with 
public R&D funding amounting to 0.62 % of GDP. Sweden and Finland are the only Member 
States to reach the 3% level with 3.6% a nd 3.47% respectively. Public R&D funding is 
highest in Austria, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany, Denmark and Portugal, with all seven 
Member States above the EU average. Draw ing conclusions from the so far sluggish 
development of R&D investment, it is clear that with growth remaining at the current level, 
the European economy will not achieve the Ba rcelona targets by 2010. Rather, growth needs 
to be accelerated and new impetu s given to investment in R&D. 
State aid for research, development and innovation  
National governments have a range of measures  to choose from to fund and consequently 
trigger R&D&I, the exact range and balance of which depend on the national context and 
form the policy mix. These public measures mi ght contain State aid that could distort 
competition by favouring some enterprises over ot hers. On the other hand, State aid may in 
certain circumstances be the best available option to provide incentives for additional private R&D&I investment. The Commission thus tries to strike a balan ce through the application of 
the framework on R&D&I aid thereby ensuring that  R&D&I is furthered to the largest extent 
while minimising distortions of competition. 
EU-wide, State aid expenditure on R&D&I amounted to € 8.6 billion in 2008. This 
represented a relatively sma ll share in public R&D funding a lthough there are significant 
differences between Member States (Figure 10 ): while State aid to R&D&I accounted for 
0.07% of GDP in 2008, the overall public funding for R&D was 0.62% of GDP
52. Eight 
Member States awarded R&D&I aid above the average level: Belgium (0.17% of GDP), the 
Czech Republic (0.14%), Finland (0.13%), Fr ance (0.10%), Germany (0.09%), Austria 
(0.09%) and Hungary (0.07%) while Cyprus, Slovakia, Greece, Poland, Latvia, Malta, 
Lithuania and Portugal grante d less than 0.01% of GDP. 
For the Union as a whole, the level of R&D& I aid increased from 0.05% of GDP to 0.07% 
comparing two consecutive  periods 2003-2005 and 2006-2008. 
                                                 
52 Public R&D expenditure in 2007 – data for 2008 not available 
EN 24   EN Figure 14: Public expenditure on R&D as % of GDP, 200853 54 
0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 0,90 1,00Cyprus (0.45)Slovakia (0.46)Bulgaria (0.48)Romania (0.53)Greece (0.57)Poland (0.57)Latvia (0.59)Malta (0.59)Lithuania (0.82)Hungary (0.97)Italy (1.13)Estonia (1.14)Portugal (1.18)Spain (1.27)Ireland (1.31)Slovenia (1.45)Czech Republic (1.54)Luxembourg (1.62)Netherlands (1.70)United Kingdom (1.79)EU 27 (1.85)Belgium (1.87)France (2.08)Germany (2.54)Denmark (2.55)Austria (2.56)Finland (3.47)Sweden (3.60)
%of GDP
R&D aid Other public expenditure on R&D 
2.2.5.  State aid for SMEs in cluding risk capital 
Aid to SMEs including risk capital amounted to  approximately € 5.3 billion in 2008 of which 
risk capital represents € 0.4 billion. In relative terms, r oughly 10 % of horizontal aid was 
exclusively earmarked for SMEs, with risk capita l contributing less than 1% to this sum.  
Aid expenditure to SMEs has been relatively stable over time. Expressed in % of GDP, it 
remained at a level of around 0.04% of GDP (on average).   
2.2.6.  State aid for environmental protection 
Aid earmarked for environmental protection amounted to roughly € 12.7 billion in 2008, of 
which € 2.9 million was granted through the GBER55. In relative terms, it represents roughly 
24% of total horizontal aid56. 
                                                 
53 Source: DG Competition and Eurostat. Note: Figures on R&D public expenditure are not directly comparable 
with State aid expenditure data as i)  the source is different and ii) for ma ny countries, data are not available 
for 2008. Nevertheless, the graph provides an indication as to the approximate share of State aid in total R&D 
public expenditure. While the graph itself shows public expenditure on R&D, the figure presented next to a 
Member State' name indicates total R&D expenditure (p ublic and private) as a percentage of GDP. This 
shows progress towards the Barcelona target of 3% of GDP.  
54 Member States sorted by the overall (public and private) R&D expenditure – presented in brackets as % of 
GDP 
EN 25   EN For the European Union as a whole, the trend of aid for environment increased from 23% to 
26% of total horizontal aid betw een the periods 2003-2005 and 2006-2008.  
Environmental aid encompasses a wide range of objectives, including support measures for 
renewable energy, energy-saving, waste management, rehabilitation of polluted industrial 
sites and improvement of production processes. For these types of measures, aid granted by 
Member States pursues a direct benefit to the en vironment. State aid expenditure data for such 
cases can therefore be taken as a proxy meas ure for the intended environmental benefit, 
regardless of the form in which the aid ma y be awarded (grant, tax exemption, guarantee, 
etc.). This represented approxi mately 38% of total environm ental aid expenditure in 2008 
(around € 4.9 billion). 
A second category of State aid m easures assessed under the envi ronmental aid guidelines are 
reductions or exemptions from environmental ta xes. Here, the environmental objective of the 
measure is pursued by the tax itself. Any reduc tion or exemption from environmental taxes, 
i.e., the part of the measure constituting ai d, has an indirect environmental objective by 
facilitating the introduction or  modification of such taxes.  Expenditure data currently 
available for this category of  aid schemes indicate the amount  of tax revenue foregone and 
can therefore not serve as a proxy measure of th e environmental benefit the taxes themselves 
have brought. In 2008, about 62% of tota l environmental aid expenditure (around 
€ 7.8 billion) fell under this category. 
The overall level of expenditu re in environmental aid meas ures in the EU is strongly 
influenced by the largest aid grantors, Ge rmany, Netherlands and Sweden, whereby in 
Germany and Sweden tax exemptions account for a large share of total environmental aid in 
each country. A CO 2 tax reduction for industry and a tax exemption from the energy tax on 
electricity led to a remarkable rise in aid expenditure for Sweden from 2003 onwards. In 
Germany, expenditure rose steadily up to 2006 following the approval in 2002 of measures 
that prolonged several tax exemptions from the German energy taxation on electricity and 
mineral oils. Following modifications to these tax exemptions, environmental aid expenditure 
fell significantly by more than € 2 billion between 2006 and 2008. Moreover, aid granted 
through tax exemptions usually benefits energy intensive industries including sometimes big 
polluters which had to be accepted in order to allow for certain types of environmental taxes 
to be introduced. 
The Commission's Climate Change/Energy Packag e of January 2008 implemented a series of 
targets for the year 202057: 20% CO 2 emissions reduction, 20% shar e for renewable energy in 
EU energy consumption and 20% increase in  energy efficiency. The package included a 
policy mix of regulatory measures, including new Community Guidelines on State aid for 
Environmental Protection.58 These have since been comple mented by the new GBER adopted 
in July 2008 which included specific provisions for environmental protection. 
2.2.7.  State aid supporting regional development and cohesion 
Aid earmarked for regional development 
                                                                                                                                                         
55  The GBER entered into force only on 29 August 2008.    
56 Expenditure data currently available for this categor y of aid measures indicate the amount of tax revenue 
foregone and can therefore not serve as a proxy measure for the environm ental benefit the taxes themselves 
have brought. In 2008, around 79% of total expenditu re (around € 9.9 billion) was aid granted through tax 
exemption. 
57 Targets set by the March 2007 Council. 
58 OJ C 82 of 01.04.2008, p. 1 . 
EN 26   EN The Commission Guidelines on na tional regional aid for 2007-201359, applicable as of 1 
January 2007, clarify the genera l approach taken by the Commissi on to consider whether aid 
granted to promote the economic development of certain disadvantaged areas within the 
European Union is compatible with single market  rules The aim of regi onal aid is to develop 
the economic, social and territorial cohesion of a Member State and of the EU as a whole. 
The Commission encourages Memb er States to grant regional aid on the basis of multi-
sectoral schemes, which form part of a na tional regional policy. Thes e schemes provide the 
general conditions under which a Member State can grant regional aid,  normally without the 
need to notify their indivi dual cases to the Commission. In October 2006, the Commission 
adopted a block exemption regulation con cerning national regional investment aid60 which 
remains applicable until end 2013 though Memb er States may also notify regional aid 
measures under GBER. 
Member States granted aid earmarked for regi onal development of about € 13.7 billion in 
2008, which includes € 4.9 billion aid granted through block exemp tion. It represents 
approximately 26% of total horizontal aid for industry and services or 0.1% of EU-27 GDP. 
The long-term trend has increased from 18% to 22% between the periods 2003-2005 and 
2006-2008. Greece, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and the Czech Republic were the largest 
contributors to this increase while the increase and decrease in other Member States balanced 
each other out. 
 Aid pursuant to Article 87(3)(a) and (c)  
Aid for regional development can also be looked from the perspective of aid in relation with 
provisions of Article 87(3)(a) a nd Article 87(3)(c) EC Treaty. Article 87(3)(a) provides for 
aid that promotes the economic development of areas where the st andard of living is 
abnormally low or where there is a serious un deremployment, so-called category 'a' regions. 
The regional aid angle under Article 87(3)(c) refe rs to aid to facilitate the development of 
certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an 
extent contrary to the common inte rest, so-called category 'c' regions. 
It is worth to recall that aid earmarked for categ ory 'a' or 'c' regions ma y not have necessarily 
regional development as horizontal objective but it can be earmarked for other objectives. 
Due to this effect, the figures presented on the basis of the category, which follows below, are 
different from those above.  
In 2008, almost € 14 billion of aid was direct ed to 'a' regions in 2008. While many EU-15 
Member States have identified some 'a' regions w ithin their country, the en tire territory of the 
EU-12 Member States is eligible as 'a' region with the exception of Cyprus and the cities of 
Prague, Bratislava and Budapest. For several EU -12 Member States, almost all State aid for 
industry and services was gr anted as regional aid.  
Aid to 'a' regions increased in 2008 by one quarter compared to 2007 (€ 11 billion to 
€ 14 billion), with Poland, Germany, Spain a nd France as main contributors. However, the 
long-term trend shows a decrease from € 17 b illion to € 13 billion on average between 2003-
2005 and 2006-2008. Disparities between  the Member States in the levels of aid reserved for 
assisted 'a' regions may reflect not only differences in regional policy but also the size of each country's eligible population as well as the extent  to which each Member State grants aid at a 
sub-central level. 
                                                
 
59 OJ C 54/13 of 4.3.2006  
60  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 of 24 October 2006; OJ L 302, 01.11.2006 p.29 
EN 27   EN Around € 7.4 billion has been reported as aid for assisted 'c' regions in 2008. All EU-15 
Member States have identified some 'c' regi ons in their country as  well as some EU-12 
countries. Aid to 'c' regions decreased in 2008 by 23%61. Main contributors to this decrease 
were Germany and France. 
In some instances, Member States reported ai d aggregated for 'a' and 'c' regions which 
amounted to € 2 billion. 
2.3. State aid earmarked for specific sectors 
2.3.1.  State aid for rescue and restru cturing firms in difficulty 
Disregarding the recent crisis–related cases, € 576 million was granted as rescue and 
restructuring aid in 2008. This st rengthened a downward trend obs erved in the last years. On 
average, in the period 2003- 2005 the total rescue and rest ructuring aid amounted to 
€ 3.4 billion per year while in th e period 2006-2008 only to € 845 million. 
In the last six years, the extent to which Memb er States have (or have not) used State aid to 
rescue and restructure their ailing firms has varied considerably. Eight Member States accounted for 96% of the rescue and restruct uring aid. Romania made up 23% of the total 
followed by France (20%), the Czech Republic  (18%), Poland (16%), the United Kingdom 
(9%), Austria (6%), Italy (2%) and Spain (2%). This does not necessarily reflect a regular 
recourse to State aid for rescue and restructuring in each of these countries as one large rescue 
case may be sufficient to place them in this group. At the other end of the scale are seven 
Member States (Estonia, Ireland Cyprus, Latv ia, Luxembourg, Hungary and Sweden) who did 
not award any ad hoc rescue and restructuring aid to ailing firm s (in the industry and services 
sectors) between 2003 and 2008
62. 
Over this six-year period, the banking sector (excluding the crisis meas ures) accounted for, on 
average, 22% of all rescue  and restructuring aid. 
Chapter 3 includes an overview of the recent re scue and restructuring aid cases in the banking 
sector. 
2.3.2.  State aid to the shipbuilding sector 
In 2008, an estimated € 466 million was granted to  the shipbuilding sector mainly by Poland 
(€ 194 million), Spain (€ 86 million), Germany (€ 79 million), Italy (€ 26 million) and Denmark (€ 24 million). The amount of State ai d to the shipbuilding sector fell from an 
annual average of € 736 million for the period 2003-2005 to € 387 million for the period 2006-2008. 
2.3.3.  State aid to the steel sector 
Since the European Coal and Steel Commun ity (ECSC) Treaty expired on 23 July 2002, 
general State aid rules have b een applied for the steel sector , with the exception that no 
investment or restructuring aid may be grante d to steel production unl ess it is closure aid.
63 In 
2008, no new aid was authorised by the Comm ission for the steel sector.  Ongoing 
expenditure however, amounted to € 142 million; this was principally granted by the United 
                                                 
61  2007: € 10 billion 
62  It is worth noting that rescue and restructuring aid granted to the financial sector in these Member States has 
been covered under the aid volumes of the crisis measures.  
63 Aid under the Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6.August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid 
compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty  (OJ L 214, 9.8.2008, p. 
3-47)  remains possible with the exception of regional aid favouring activities in the steel sector (Article 
1(3)(e)). 
EN 28   EN Kingdom (€ 100 million - climate change levy) as  environmental aid, by Slovakia as sectoral 
aid (€ 41 million) and by Ireland (€ 0.6 million) as regional aid. There is a clear decreasing trend in the aid to the steel sector from an  annual average of € 656 million in the period 2003-
2005 to € 160 million in the period 2006-2008. Th e downward trend can be  largely explained 
by the fact that some Member States such  as Poland, Romania and Sweden stopped or 
reduced considerably (e.g. the Czech Republic) granting State aid after the year 2003 or 2004 to companies in the steel sector. 
2.3.4.  State aid to the coal sector 
Again, as the ECSC Treaty expired on 23 July  2002, a Council Regulation established a new 
legal framework for state aid to the Community coal industry thereafter. 
The overall amount of State aid to the coal sect or in the Union (EU-27)  stood at € 2.7 billion 
in 2008, a 15% reduction compared to 2007 (€ 3.4 billion) and both the absolute amount and 
the share of aid related to current production c ontinued to decline. More generally, as from 
2001, aid to current production decr eased significantly and steadily  in line with the agreement 
on the reduction of volumes of aid to the coal industry. As stipulated by Regulation 
1407/2002, the total amount of aid to current pro duction to be granted annually should in any 
event not exceed the amount of aid authorized by the Commission for the reference year 2001 (for new Member States – the year of accession to the EU). 
Reduction of the aid to current production was mainly achieved through a gradual closure of 
the least competitive mines, accompanied by considerable reductions in the number of persons employed in the EU's coal sector. Relatively high coal pr ices in 2008 played a role as 
well. Nearly all the aid not re lated to current production was di rected at covering the costs 
incurred in the process of (partial) mine cl osures and at financing so-called inherited 
liabilities. 
Eight Member States granted aid to the coal sector in 2008. Germany and Spain continue to 
account for the bulk of it (around 90%). Broadly speaking, coal mining in the EU-12 Member 
States is more competitive than in the EU- 15 Member States. For more information on the 
EU's coal sector and coal subs idies, please refer to the Report on State aid to the coal industry 
published in May 2007
64 as well as to the Commission's web-page devoted to coal issues65. 
Commission decisions on co al-related state aids can  also be found on the web66. 
In view of the forthcoming expiry of  Regulation 1407/2002 (on 31 December 2010), the 
Commission has recently carried out a public c onsultation on the future policy options with 
respect to aid to the coal industry67. Future updates on this subject will be available at the coal 
page of the Commission's web-site. 
2.3.5.  State aid to the transport sector 
 Introduction 
State aid to the transport sect or is governed by special rules in the Treaty, as well as 
secondary legislation and rules of soft law (see table 5 in Annex). Member States spend 
                                                 
64 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU riServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0253:FIN:EN:PDF  
65 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/coal/index_en.htm  
66  http://ec.europa.eu/energy/coal/state_aid/decisions_en.htm   (EN or FR versions) and 
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/state_aid/register/ii/by_sector_b.html   (authentic 
language versions)  
67 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/coal/consultations/2009_07_15_en.htm  
 
EN 29   EN considerable resources for the provision of Services of Gene ral Economic Interest (SGEI) in 
the transport sector and for the construction, ma nagement and maintenance of infrastructure. 
The amount of State aid granted for environmenta l measures, such as aid for the acquisition of 
new transport vehicles which go beyond Community standards or which increase the level of 
the environmental protection in absence of Co mmunity standards, has increased in recent 
years. 
With regard to public resources for the provisi on of SGEI, Community law foresees a number 
of mechanisms allowing for and encouraging th e provision of such services. Member States 
must, however, ensure that the public financing granted complies with th e rules laid down and 
in particular avoids overcompensa tion and the distortion of competition. 
Over the years, the public financing of trans port infrastructure has raised more and more 
questions about the application of State aid rules, as many infrastructures are operated on a 
commercial basis and either by private undertak ings or under public-private-partnerships. 
 Expenditure and trend 
For the transport sector as a whole across the EU (excluding  railways - see below), around 
€ 2.4 billion of aid was awarded per year ove r the period 2006-2008, a 3%  increase compared 
with the annual average over the period 2003-2005 (€ 2.3 bill ion). With respect to the 
different transport sectors, the foll owing developments can be observed: 
 Maritime transport 
Almost two-thirds of total tr ansport aid (around € 1.5 billion per year) was awarded to the 
maritime sector during the period 2006-2008. 
Most cases in this sector con cern the public financing of port infrastructure, social aid to 
seafarers and special taxation rules for sh ipping companies ("tonnage tax" schemes). 
 Land transport 
Railways 
A large amount of public financing for rail ways does not need to  be notified to the 
Commission, either because it does not constitute State aid w ithin the meaning of Article 
87(1) of the EC Treaty or beca use it is exempted from notif ication in accordance with 
Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69. Member States are however required to report to the 
Commission overall public expenditure to th is sector. Over € 46 billion was reported by 
Member States for 2008. 
Disparities between Member States  may reflect different interpre tations of the scope of this 
annual reporting exercise (see table on website). 
Following complaints from competitors in this sector, the Commission initiated in 2007-2008 
formal investigation procedur es in Germany and Denmark. 
 Road transport 
Like in the case of the railwa y sector, a large amount of pub lic financing for bus services 
operated under a public service contract is not notified to the Commission either because it 
does not constitute State aid or because it is ex empted from the notification obligation. As a 
result, the aid amounts reported for road and combined transport sector - € 836 million per 
year on average during the period 2006-2008 - underestimate the amount of public financing of these services. 
Following complaints from competitors in th is sector, the Commission initiated formal 
investigation procedures in Austria, Germ any, Ireland and the Czech Republic between 2006 
EN 30   EN and 2008. In 2008, it took final positive decisions concerning public service contracts for 
public passenger transport by bus in Austria and the Czech Republic. Further investigations in 
these and other Member State are ongoing. 
In the environmental area, the Commission main tains its policy of approving aid to favour the 
uptake of cleaner technology, in  particular on old vehicles . In 2008 the Commission approved 
several State aid measures for the acquisition  of lorries satisfying the Euro V pollution 
standard. 
 Aviation 
Since the entry into force of the 2005 guidelines on financing of airports and start-up aid to 
airlines departing from regi onal airports, the Commission has adopted a number of positive 
decisions (including Germany, Poland, Ireland , Malta, Cyprus and the United Kingdom), 
relating to the two main types of State aid define d by the guidelines – State aid to airports and 
start-up aid to airlines. 
The Commission has also assessed several ca ses concerning the public financing of the 
construction of new airports, th e extension of existing ones and the purchase of equipment to 
comply with safety and security standards. Since the operation of ai rports constitutes an 
economic activity, the Commission must assess wh ether the public financ ing has an impact on 
competing airports in particular. In most cas es, the Commission considers that the planned 
investments have a positive impact on the accessibility of the region, which outweighs the potentially negative impact on competition. 
The Commission is also examining a large numbe r of complaints concerning investment aid 
and start-up aid. In some of  these cases, the Commission has opened a formal investigation 
procedure. It is possible that the public fina ncing of new routes is  in accordance with the 
behaviour of a private investor acting under norma l market conditions and in such cases there 
is no State aid. In other cases, the public invest ment does constitute State aid but can still be 
declared compatible if the conditions la id down in the 2005 guidelines are fulfilled. 
In 2008 the Commission also dealt with cases c oncerning the privatisat ion and liquidation of 
the Italian and Greek flag carriers. 
Over the period 2006-2008, an annual average of € 100 million of aid was reported by 
Member States for the air transport sector. 
2.3.6.  State aid to the agricultural sector 
New cases registered and decisions taken in 2008 
When looking at cases registered in 2008 by DG Agriculture, 144 new m easures were notified 
to the Commission and 146 were decided. 
Based on the primary objective, it appears that almost 16% of the 140 decisions involved aids 
for investment in agricultural holdings, follo wed by 12.6% of aid to compensate damages 
caused by natural disasters or  exceptional occurrences, 9.8% of aid for advertising of 
agricultural products, 7.7%  of aid to compensate farmers for losses caused by adverse weather 
conditions, 7% of aids for the forest sector and 6.3% of aid in favour of environmental 
protection. Aid for combating anim al diseases, for research a nd development and provision of 
technical support represented 4% on av erage (or 12.6% regrouped together). 
Of the new aid measures, 27.8% were notified by Italy, followed by Spain (15.3%), Germany 
(11.8%) and France (7%). The breakdown by country is marginally different when looking at 
block exempted measures: 20.5% of the 433 me asures were communicated by Italy, followed 
EN 31   EN by Spain (20%), Slovenia ( 10.8%) and France (9.5%), Germ any and United Kingdom both 
with more than 4%. 
 Expenditure 
The results of the annual reporting exercise, in troduced for the first time in 2004, show that 
the total amount of State aid awarded to the agricultural sector in 2008 is € 11.76 billion 
compared with € 12.5 billion in 2007. Th e discrepancy with the total for 2007 
(€ 12,79 billion) published in the autumn 2008 Sc oreboard is due to corrections made by 
Member States in their annual reports s ubmitted in 2009 for the period 2003-2008. The 
highest expenditure was reported by France (€ 2 b illion), followed by Germany (€ 1.3 billion), 
Ireland (€ 1.2 billion) an d Finland (€ 1.2 billion). 
In almost all Member States, the vast majority of aid68 was granted for investment in 
agricultural holdings (around € 2391.4 million), followed by € 1074.2 million of aid for the livestock sector, € 692 million of aid linked to  tax exemptions under Directive 2003/96/EC, 
provision of technical support (€ 556.3 million), aid for animal diseases (€ 487.5 million), agri-environmental commitments (€ 431.9 million) and environmental protection (€ 410.3 million). With respect to investment in processing & marketing, aid amounted to 
€ 174.9 million. In this amount, a portion represen ts marketing aid which is granted to the 
industry processing ag ricultural products
69. 
By comparing figures of 2007 with 2008, the se ven Member States which increased their 
State aid expenditure are in de scending order: Ireland, Slovakia , Poland, Portugal, the Czech 
Republic, Estonia and Germany; all other Member States spent less. 
 Block exempted aid 
The total of aid granted under BERs amounted  to € 1.5 billion in 2008, corresponding to 
12.4% of the total State aid expenditure in ag riculture. In 2007, this figure was 8.55%. By 
analysing the results per country, it was f ound that 89% of the Latvian aid expenditure 
concerned measures granted under BERs, foll owed by Greece (72%), Cyprus (45%), Italy 
(34%), France and Spain (16.6%). 
2.3.7.  State aid to the fisheries sector 
 Expenditure 
The total amount of State aid aw arded to the fisheries sector was estimated at more than 
€ 290 million in 200870. The data are based on the figures  received from Member States' 
annual reports on existing aid schemes. Spain reported the highest figures with € 113 million, followed by France (more than € 75 million), Netherlands (€ 34 million), the Czech Republic 
and Ireland (both € 20 million). Further breakdown of expenditure figures are not available for the fisheries sector. 
 Block exemption 
The total amount of paid block-exempted ai ds in 2008 is about € 4.2 million, with Italy 
accounting for 65% of this total. 
                                                
 
68  Block exempted aid excluded 
69  A further mining of the data is not possible as the relevant detail which would be necessary for such purpose 
is not part of the scope of reporting.  
70  Estimation 
EN 32   EN Eight aid measures have been block-exempted  under the new block exemption regulation in 
force since 19 August 200871: XF 1/2009, 2/2009, 4/2009, 5/2009, 6/2009, 7/2009, 8/2009 and 
9/2009. These aids amount to € 16.7 million, among which Spain accounts for € 16 million. 
2.4. State aid instruments 
All State aid represents a cost or a loss of reve nue to the public authorities and a benefit to 
recipients. It should also be noted that with respect to subsidised loans or guarantees the 
actual aid element may significantly differ i.e. be lower than the nominal amount. 
The choice of aid instruments which Member St ates may use in a particular aid scenario 
largely depends on the aim of the aid measure. In  this respect, the crisis measures certainly 
distort the picture on the preference for aid inst ruments. The analysis therefore distinguishes 
between all measures and those excluding the crisis measures. 
2.4.1.  State aid instruments and aid volumes in 2008 
Figure 1572: Share of aid instruments in total aid for industry and services,  
    EU27, 2008 
Aid instruments as %  in 2008 (EU 27)
Grants
16%
Tax exemptions
8%Guarantees
35%
Soft loans
4%Tax deferrals
0%Equity participation
37%
 
                                                 
71  Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2008 of 22 July 2008 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the 
Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing 
of fisheries products 
72  Source: DG Competition 
EN 33   EN Figure 1673: Share of aid instruments in total aid for industry and services  
(crisis measures excluded), EU27, 2008 
Aid instruments as % in 2008 (EU 27) 
(cris is  meas ures  excluded)
Grants
52%Tax exemptions
42%Guarantees
1% Soft loans
4%Tax deferrals
0%
Equity 
participation
1%
 
When regarding total State aid granted for indu stry and services (all cases) in 2008, the aid 
instrument used the most frequently was the equity participation (roughly 37%), followed by 
guarantees (35%) and grants (16 %). Less frequently used were the other instruments like tax 
exemptions (8%) and soft loans (around 4%). It comes as no surpri se that equity participation 
was the most prominent instrument used in  2008, given the predom inance of the crisis 
measures whereby Member States ofte n entered as share holder in banks. 
When excluding crisis measures from total ai d to industry and services in 2008, the aid 
instrument most frequently used by Member States was grants (roughly 52%), followed by 
tax exemptions (approximately 42%). Much less used  were the other instruments i.e. soft loan 
(4%), guarantee (around 1%), and equ ity participation (less than 1%). 
Many Member States, e.g. the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland and 
Finland gave 50% or more of aid through grants . The remainder is relatively small, whereby 
soft loans represented 4% and guarantees 1% whereas equity particip ations don’t play an 
important role. 
                                                 
73  Source: DG Competition 
EN 34   EN  
2.4.2.  Trend in the use of aid instrume nts (crisis measures excluded) 
Figure 1774: Aid instruments EU-27 as % of  3 year average (2003-2005)  
Aid instrument (EU-27) as % of 3 year average (2003-2005) 
(cris is  meas ures  excluded)
Grants
53%Tax exemptions
37%Guarantees
3%Tax deferrals
3%Soft loans
3%
Equity participation
1%
 
Figure 1875: Aid instruments EU-27 as % of  3 year average (2006-2008)  
Aid instruments EU-27 as % of 3- year avera ge 
(2006-2008) 
(cris is  meas ures  excluded)
Grants
53%Tax 
exemptions
42%
Equity 
participation
0%
Soft loans
3%
Tax 
deferrals
1%
Guarantees
1%
 
                                                 
74 Source: DG Competition 
75 Source: DG Competition 
EN 35   EN The comparison between the periods 2003-2005 and 2006-2008 shows a slight shift on the 
use of aid instruments by Member  States. On average, the use of grants was stable while 
Member States increasingly made use of tax exem ptions. The latter can pa rtly be explained by 
the fact that some Member Stat es ran tax schemes where a rela tively large amount of aid is 
granted by tax reductions. 
When looking to the period 2006-2008 in isolati on, grants accounted for roughly 53% of total 
aid in the manufacturing and service sectors. Many Member States, e.g. the Netherlands, 
Luxembourg, Denmark, Ireland and Finland even 50% or more of their aid through grants. 
State aid awarded through tax exemption represents the 2nd largest use of aid instruments, 
roughly 42%. The remainder is relatively sma ll, whereby soft loans represent 3% and 
guarantees 1% whereas equity participa tions don’t play an  important role.  
This situation on the use of aid instruments varies from Member State to Member State 
however. While the above trend for the pe riod 2006-2008 broadly follows the pattern 
displayed in many Member States, there are of c ourse deviations in a few Member States, e.g. 
in Sweden, where roughly 83% of the aid is granted through tax exemptions and only 17% 
through grants. In Portugal, the situation is br oadly similar whereby only one aid measure, the 
Madeira tax regime, accounts for most of the aid volume granted. 
3. STATE AID IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS  
3.1. General economic background 
One year after the first rescue measures adopte d in favour of individual  banks, there are signs 
of economic recovery in the European Union. Th e EU’s latest Interim Forecast of September 
200976 sees improvements in the economic s ituation of the Eur opean economy where 
financial conditions have improved over the summer with several financial indicators 
returning to pre-crisis levels. 
The contraction in overall ec onomic activity slowed significan tly in the sec ond quarter of 
2009 and after a cumulative declin e of more than 4% in the fourth quarter of 2008 and the 
first quarter of 2009, GDP contracted by a mere 0.2% q-o-q in the EU (and 0.1% in the euro 
area) in the second quarter of this year. However, despite th e new outlook, the fall in GDP 
remains unchanged at -4% in bot h the EU and the euro area for the year as a whole. 
The labour market situation rema ins difficult with an unemploym ent rate in Ju ly of 9.0% in 
the EU which is expected to deteriorate further in the second half of 2009. Public finances in 
2009 are equally expected to be  strongly affected by the downt urn, due in part to the 
discretionary fiscal stimulus measures taken by many EU governments within the framework 
of the Recovery Plan. 
The application of the State aid rules and, in a broader context, the regulatory, monetary, and 
fiscal policies put in place by the Union, the European Centra l Bank and the Member States 
are providing tangible support and stimulus for economic activity. However, there are 
substantial uncertainties rega rding the economic situation a nd the sustainability of the 
recovery remains to be tested. Several of the te mporary factors that are set to boost growth in 
the short term are likely to diminish over time. A lasting and sustainable recovery might therefore need more time to materialise. 
                                                
 
76 European Commission, Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs, Interim forecast September 
2009 . 
EN 36   EN Building on the recommendations of the de Larosière77 report and the discussions in the G20 
context, the Commissi on presented a proposal78 for reforming the way financial markets are 
regulated and supervised which should facilitate a return to market conditions. The proposal 
for a European structure for supervision and a European body to oversee the stability of the 
financial system as a whole will establish a new regulatory framework for banking operations in the European Union. At the same time, the global system will undergo substantial changes, 
subsequent to the European and US de velopments and the discussions in the G20 framework. 
In the meeting of 18-19 of June 2009, the European Council
79 reaffirmed its commitment to 
restoring confidence and the proper  functioning of financial market s. It stressed also that all 
policy measures at EU level must be consistent  with single market principles, ensure a level 
playing field and provide fo r a credible exit strategy.  
3.2. Chronology of the crisis and the Commission's response 
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overvi ew of the Commissi on's response to the 
financial and economic crisis from  a State aid control perspective.  More detail is provided for 
the Restructuring Communication for financial institutions as all other crisis instruments were already presented comprehensively in the spec ial Scoreboard edition on the financial and 
economic crisis in spring 2009.
80  
The first signs of the financial crisis arriving in the EU were seen in early autumn 2008. Some 
banks, e.g. Northern Rock81, Sachsen LB82, IKB83, required state intervention to stabilise their 
business. State aid was granted under the existing rescue and restructuring rules.84  
 The Banking Communication 
With the worldwide collapse of interbank lend ing markets in Septem ber 2008, mainly caused 
by the overall loss of confiden ce following the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers , the main 
priority for state intervention was to secure and re-stabilise the financial system. The Commission in its Banking Co mmunication of October 2008 (h ereinafter "the Banking 
Communication")
85  laid down the basic rules a nd conditions under which financial 
institutions in difficulty could receive State aid in the form of (i) guarantees to cover their 
liabilities and (ii) recapitalisation measur es. The framework furthermore provided for 
measures in case of controlled winding-up of operations.  
 The Recapitalisation Communication 
Since credit lending conditions deteriorated furt her in autumn 2008 and threatened to affect 
the real economy, many Member  States considered supporti ng financial inst itutions with 
                                                 
77  The High Level Group on Financial Supervision in the EU, chaired by Jacques de Larosière, Report, Brussels 
25 February 2009 . 
78  On 27 May 2009 the Commission adopted a Communication on the European financial supervision, COM 
(2009) 252 final , describing its plans for putting into effect the recommendations of the de Larosière report. 
This Communication will be followed by legislative proposals in the autumn. 
79  See point II of the Presidency’s Conclusions of the Brussels European Council 18/19 June 2009 . 
80  See Spring 2009 Scoreboard, pages 11-13. 
(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/st udies_reports/archive/scoreboard_arch.html ). 
81  NN 70/2008 Northern Rock  
82  C 9/2008 Restructuring aid to Sachsen LB   
83  C 10/2008 Restructuring aid to IKB   
84  See autumn 2008 Scoreboard, chapter 5, p. 51 
(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/st udies_reports/archive/scoreboard_arch.html ). 
85  Commission Communication: The application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial 
institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis, adopted on 13 October 2008; OJ C 270, 
25.10.2008, p. 8–14. 
EN 37   EN capital injections. The overall aim was to ensure that financial institutions continue lending to 
the real economy. In its Recapitalisation Comm unication of December 2008 (hereinafter "the 
Recapitalisation Communication"),86 the Commission provided detailed guidance on 
recapitalisation measures, building on the criteria already set out in the Banking Communication. The Communication aims to ensure that such measures shall be designed in 
a way to take the individual situation of the financial institution concer ned fully into account.  
 The Temporary Framework for the real economy 
In parallel with the recapitalis ation measures directly addressing financial institutions, the 
Commission by introducing the Temporar y Framework for State aid measures
87 (hereinafter 
"the Temporary Framework") saw the need to counteract the increasing difficulty of the real economy to obtain credit and other types of financ ial support. Member States were allowed to 
grant aid under existi ng instruments for all sectors of the economy through higher limits on 
grants, credit guarantees, loans and risk capit al. The rules established by the Commission on 
the design of the measures have aimed to support access to finance thereby maintaining levels of investment.      
 The Impaired Assets Communication 
While temporary rescue measures have proven to  be an important tool in coping with the 
crisis, they are not viable in the long term /sufficient to support long term viability. Deep 
structural reforms of some i ndividual banks are unavoidable and State aid cannot be used to 
delay the process. Cleaning up impaired assets is an additional measure that many banks will 
need to undertake, often in combination with restructuring measures. The Commission 
Communication on the Treatment of impaired assets in the Commun ity banking sector 
(hereinafter "the Impair ed Assets Communication"),
88 adopted in February 2009, provides 
guidance for state interventions in the context of efforts of financial institutions to clean their 
balance sheets of 'toxic assets'.  
 The Restructuring Communication  for financial institutions 
Finally, the Commission adopted the Re structuring Communication on 23 July 200989 
(hereinafter "the Restructuring Communica tion"). This Communication complements the 
three previously issued comm unications on State aid to bank s: the Banking Communication, 
the Recapitalisation Communicatio n and the Impaired Assets Communication, and outlines 
the criteria that the Commission will apply to re structuring aid for banks in the current period 
in order to ensure long-term viability of financial institutions in the EU.     
Where a financial institution has received State aid, the Member State should submit a 
viability plan, or a more fundamental restructur ing plan, in order to confirm or re-establish 
individual bank's long-term viability without reliance on State support. Criteria have already 
been established to delineate the conditions und er which a bank may need to be subject to 
more substantial restructuring and when measur es are needed to cater for distortions of 
competition resulting from the aid. Member States  must provide a restructuring plan where it 
has recapitalised a distressed bank or when a ba nk, in connection with the crisis, has received 
                                                 
86  Commission Communication: Recapitalisation of financial institutions in the current financial crisis, adopted 
on 5.12.2008; OJ C 10, 15.1.2009, p. 2-10. 
87  Commission Communication: Temporar y framework for State aid measures  to support access to finance in 
the current financial and economic crisis, adopted  on 17 December 2008; OJ  C 16, 22.1.2009, p.1; 
consolidated version OJ C83 of 07.04.2009 . 
88  C 72, 26.03.2009, pages 1-22 
89  "The return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current 
crisis under the State aid rules"; OJ C 195, 19.8.2009, p.9 
EN 38   EN aid (except for participation in a guarantee sc heme) exceeding 2% of the bank's total risk-
weighted assets. For banks that are not distre ssed, i.e. fundamentally sound and have received 
a limited amount of aid, no restru cturing plan would be require d. However, Member States 
would have to submit a viability review enabli ng the Commission to assess viability of these 
banks and the Communication explains what type of information the Commission would 
expect to receive in these cases. 
With the Restructuring Communication the Co mmission has explained its approach to 
assessing aid for the restructuring of banks in the current crisis. 
The Restructuring Communica tion of 14 August 200990 
The Restructuring Communication is based on the same basic principles set out in the Community Guidelines on 
State aid for rescuing and re structuring firms in difficulty91: 
- Restructuring aid should lead to the restoration of viability of the undertaking in the longer term without
    State aid; 
 - Restructuring plan shall provide informat ion on the business model of the beneficiary 
 - Stress test of the bank's business 
 - Aid shall be granted for the minimum period and, in any event, for no longer than five years 
 - Viability could also be achieved through sale of  the bank  
- Adequate sharing of the restructuring costs; 
 - Limitation on the restructuring costs an d use of own resources in the first place 
 - Burden-sharing may also be required at a later stage  
- Measures must be taken to minimise distortions of competition; 
 - Taylor-made measures to ensure effective and prop ortionate aid with a view to limiting distortions of 
     competition  
 - Avoiding the use of State aid to fund anti-competitive behaviour 
 - Monitoring of the restructuring 
 - Detailed reports on the progress of restructuring, first report after six months  
 - Commission applies the Communication under which Member States notify restructuring aid until 
   31 December 2010 
 
The new guidelines explain how the Commission will apply these principles in light of the nature and the global 
scale of the current systemic crisis.
 
In order to devise sustainable strategies for th e restoration of viability, banks will be required 
to stress test their business and to include a thorough diagnosis of the bank's problems. 
Special attention will be given to the design of  a restructuring plan, and in particular to 
ensuring a sufficiently flexible and realistic timing of the necessary implementation steps. 
Costs associated with the restructuring must be borne not only by the Stat e but also by capital 
holders. Nonetheless, thresholds con cerning burden sharing are not fixed ex ante. Where 
significant burden sharing is not immediately pos sible due to market circumstances at the time 
of the rescue, this should be  addressed at a later stage. 
                                                 
90 Commission Communication on the return to viability and the assessment of restructuring measures in the 
financial sector in the current crisis under the State aid rules OJ C 195/2009  of 19/8/2009. 
91  Communication from the Commission -Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring 
firms in difficulty,  OJ C 244/2004  of 1/10/2004. 
EN 39   EN Measures to limit distortion of co mpetition by a rescued bank in the same Member State or in 
other Member States should be designed in a way that limits any competitive disadvantage to 
other banks while taking into account the systemic nature of the current crisis. 
The "one time last time" rule for banks in crisis would not necessarily apply if such non-
application is justified. 
The Commission's intervention in crisis cases 
Regarding the above-mentioned Communications, the Commission has been and will 
continue playing a key role in coordinating Member States' action  with a view to maintaining 
a level playing field, preservi ng the integrity of the common market and fighting harmful 
protectionism. The Commission will continue to monitor closely the situation in the market 
and review Member States' support measures in or der to ensure that th ey are designed in a 
way to limit as much as possible competition di stortions and to maintain the functioning of 
the single market. In addition, the Commission has particular ly emphasised that support 
measures must be designed considering the medium -to-long term perspective, in particular in 
the effort of swiftly returning to a compe titive environment. Finally, the Commission will 
support restructuring processes in th e context of State aid monitoring. 
For example, the Irish announcement to cove r only six Irish banks by a state guarantee 
scheme presented a serious risk of a large outflow of capital from non-eligible competitors operating in Ireland. Upon the Commission's insi stence the Irish Government confirmed 
within days that the guarantee scheme would be available to a ll banks with subsidiaries or 
branches in Ireland with a significa nt presence in the domestic economy. 
Similarly, when France announced its planned ai d to the automotive sector which originally 
raised concerns concerning Stat e aid and single market rules, the Commission stated without 
ambiguity that any aid granted under addi tional non commercial conditions concerning the 
location of investments (and/ or the geographi cal distribution of pot ential restructuring 
measures) could not be regarded as compatible. After intensive discussion between the 
Commission and the French authorities, France gave undertakings to avoid any conditions 
contrary to the single market rules. 
In Bradford&Bingley
92, the Commission ensured th at the beneficiaries of the aid will be the 
retail depositors of the bank. Th e State intervention allowed con tinuing the retail business of 
the bank through selling of the retail branch whereas the distressed part of the bank was 
allowed to discontinue.  
It is important that State aid rules are properly applied in order to ensu re a level playing field 
between Member States and between banks whic h receive aid and thos e which do not and in 
order to restructure banks in a way to enable them to resume their function of lending to the 
real economy. Besides ensuring an adequate bu rden sharing and minimising distortion of 
competition, when assessing restructuring plans the Commission aims to ensure that proposed 
divestments do not negatively affect the achieve d integration of the financial markets. For 
example, KBC has received a first recapita lisation amounting to € 3.5 billion, a second 
recapitalisation amounting to another € 3.5 billion and an asset relief measure, which covers the CDO portfolio of € 20 billion. The latter meas ures were subject to the submission of an in-
depth restructuring plan for KBC Group. The restructuring concept ensured KBC's return to 
viability even in difficult economic conditions and presented a convincing exit strategy of the 
state capital. The Commission found that KBC's restructuring plan  also adequately addressed 
distortion of competition issues. The Re structuring Communication requires the 
                                                
 
92  NN 41/2008 Rescue aid to Bradford & Bingley  
EN 40   EN implementation of measures which would facilita te effective competition in the core markets 
of the beneficiary. In this context, the Comm ission assessed positively that KBC committed to 
divest two subsidiaries acting in Belgium. In the case of Central and Eastern European 
countries, which represent a si gnificant part of KBC's core  business, the Commission noted 
positively that the bank intended to limit its e xpansion in certain countries, whilst on the 
whole maintaining its main activities in th e region. The Commission found that it could be 
potentially damaging to the financial stability in  the CEE countries and to the lending to the 
real economy, as well as to the Internal Market , should KBC be forced to withdraw from the 
region completely. 
ING has received € 10 billion of capital injection and an impaired asset measure for a 
portfolio of USD 39 billion. In addition ING ha s received about € 12 billion of liability 
guarantees and foresees another € 10 billion of liability guarantees u nder its restructuring 
plan. The presented restructuring plan foresees  a pro forma balance sheet reduction of about 
45% by deleveraging and divesting a number of  businesses, such as the whole of ING 
insurance. In addition, the plan foresees that ING will carve out a viable entity in the Dutch 
market which will be sold to an investor with the aim of creating a viable additional 
competitor. The Commission has assessed the plan and found that the proposed measures 
foreseen in the plan, including also a temporar y acquisition ban as regards other businesses, 
raise no objections as the plan demonstrates that  ING is able to return  to long term viability, 
includes a significant contribution to the restructuring effort and addresses competition distortions to a sufficient extent. 
The effectiveness of bank support schemes as well as the overall situation regarding the 
stability and functioning of financial mark ets has recently been assessed by the Council
93, 
concluding that public measures taken since the third quarter of  2008 have contributed to the 
stabilisation of the extremely tense financia l market conditions. However, the operating 
environment for banks is likely to remain challe nging, in particular in respect of credit losses 
linked to their loan portfolios. 
                                                 
93  Annex to the Council (Ecofin) Report to the 18-19 June European Council on the effectiveness of financial 
support schemes: Report of the Task Force on reviewing the effectiveness of financial support measures.  
EN 41   EN  
3.3. Measures approved, take-up and review 
Figure 1994:  Overview on the type of measures, decided in 2008 and 2009, which 
Member States made use in crisis cases (approved amounts in Euro 
billion)  
Member State Guarantee 
schemes Recapitalisation 
schemes Liquidity 
interventions Asset relief 
interventions Individual  
cases 
Belgium         288.3 
Denmark 580 13.5     6.3 
Germany 400 80 1.5 X 107.6 
Ireland 37695       12.5 
Greece 15 5 8     
Spain 200   50     
France 265 21.5     59.5 
Italy n. a. 20       
Cyprus 3         
Latvia 4.24       3.2 
Luxembourg         7.3 
Hungary 4.99 1.0       
Netherlands 200       40.5 
Austria 70.6 13.8 4.4 1.2 0.1 
Poland 10    X     
Portugal 20 4     0.5 
Slovenia 12   X     
Finland 50 4     n. a. 
Sweden 150 4.8     0.5 
United Kingdom 376.75 63 11.3   61.2 
Total96 EU-27 2737.6 230.6 75.2 1.2 587.4 
 
                                                 
94  Source: DG Competition. 
95  For approved amount of Irish guarantees: data source is Council Report of 9.06.2009  
96  Certain totals include estimates and approximations. 
EN 42   EN Maximum volume of approved crisis measures  
The total maximum volume of crisis measures  so far approved by the Commission, schemes 
and ad hoc  measures taken together, amounted to around € 3,632 billion. This corresponds to 
around 29% of the EU GDP97. This figure represents the overall maximum amount of 
guarantee umbrellas, rescue and restructuring packages and other measures set up by Member 
States. This figure should, however, not be mist aken as being the State aid element of the 
measures i.e. the amount which was actuall y handed-over to bene ficiaries. The aid 
expenditure of these meas ures can only be assessed ex post  in future Scoreboard editions 
depending on the actual implementation of the m easures. For 2008, a first estimate is made in 
section 3.4. 
In regard of guarantee schemes authorised  by the Commission, the approximate maximum 
volume amounted to € 2,738 billion, which co rresponds to around 22% of the EU GDP. 
Recapitalisation schemes amounted to approximately € 231 billion98 which corresponds to 
around 2% of the EU GDP. General liquidity measures and asset relief interventions 
amounted together to around € 76 billion and re present around 0.6% of the EU GDP. Figure 
19 above presents a general overview  of aid measures by Member State99. 
In addition to the schemes approved under the Banking and Recapitalisation 
Communications, the Commission took decisions in several ad hoc  interventions in favour of 
individual financial institu tions amounting to a total volume of around € 587 billion100. 
Time line of the approved crisis measures 
Most of the general schemes were approve d by the Commission during the first months 
following the publication of the Banki ng and Recapitalisation Communications101 i.e. October 
2008 to March 2009. The total volume of these measures amounted to around € 3,457 billion. 
Since April 2009, Member States have only a dopted eight new general schemes, which 
amounted to roughly € 86 billion: six sc hemes based on the Banking Communication102 as 
well as one scheme based on the Impaired Assets Communication103 and one specific 
scheme104. When looking at all additional measures, the overall maximum volume amounts to 
€ 175 billion. 
Take-up rate 
                                                 
97  EU-27 GDP of 2008 
98 It includes recapitalisation schemes and schemes combining recapitalisation with other measures. 
Discrepancies with the amounts published in the spring 2009 Scoreboard are due to the different classification 
of the schemes. The present edition considers liquidity interventions as a separate category. 
99  Aid measures have been classified following the same criteria as in Ecofin's Report made for the 18-19 June 
European Council on the effectiveness of financial support schemes: Report of the Task Force on reviewing 
the effectiveness of financial support measures.  It explains certain discrepa ncies with the classification 
published in the spring 2009 Scoreboard. 
100  Data with respect to Sachsen LB and Northern Ro ck, both decided in 2007, were not or only partially 
(as to Northern Rock) included.  
101 The spring 2009 Scoreboard  was focused on State aid interventions in the current financial and economic 
crisis and an overview on measures reviewed by the Commission until 31 March 2009. 
102 The UK's Asset-Backed Securities Guarantee Scheme  (N232/2009 ), the Portuguese recapitalization scheme  
(N556/2008 ), the Finish recapitalisation scheme (N329/2009 ), the German refinancing scheme for export 
loans  (N456/2009 ) and the Polish bank guarantee scheme  (N208/2009 ) and the Cypriot scheme to support 
credit institutions  (N511/2009). 
103 The German asset relief scheme  (N314/2009 ). 
104 The Hungarian  Mortgage Support Scheme  (N358/2009 ) approved under Article 87 (2)(a), social character. 
EN 43   EN The take-up rate by banks is de fined as the actual use of the measure relative to the notified 
approved amounts. The take-up rate can only be a preliminary indicator for the functioning of 
the schemes. A high take-up rate in a given Member State is not  necessarily an indication of 
whether the measure is adequate or not. Low gua rantee take-up rates in certain Member States 
are partly due to the fact that the amounts announced under the schemes are higher than actual 
need. Moreover, in some Member  States banks were able to access the funds easily on the 
market, often at a lower price. 
The maximum total aid volume as indicated above has not been actually implemented. 
According to the Commission's report of August 2008105, the take-up rate on the crisis 
measures amounts to roughly 33% with respect to  guarantees and for r ecapitalisation it is 
roughly 55%.  
Limitation on application of the crisis measures 
The Commission also introduced time limitations  into the various frameworks in order to 
ensure that crisis measures are in force only as  long as they are needed  to support the financial 
sector and with respect to the Te mporary Framework the real economy106. As for the Banking 
Communication, it foresees that Member States  review guarantee sche mes every six months. 
This allows the Commission to verify whether a continuation of a partic ular scheme is still 
justified. The same rule applie s with respect to the prolongat ion of recapitalisation measures. 
In other words, crisis measures are subjected to close monitoring to avoid their application 
beyond the time necessary. 
Six months after the adoption of the early crisis measures, Member States have carried out a 
review of the approved guarantee and recapitalis ation schemes and most of them asked the 
Commission to extend the schemes validity for an additional six month period. So far, 
eighteen schemes from fourteen Member States  (Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, 
Italy, Latvia, Hungary, the Netherlands, Austri a, Slovenia, Finland, Sweden and the United 
Kingdom) have been prolonged.107 
Review of the crisis measures 
In the context of the renewal process, the Dire ctorate-General for Compet ition has also issued 
a review of the aid schemes introduced by Member States and approved by the Commission 
with respect to their objectives of ensuring financial stability a nd restoring lending to the real 
economy while safeguarding the internal market  and minimising distortion of competition108.  
The assessment emphasises the important role of  rescue measures in avoiding a financial 
market meltdown and restoring market confiden ce. However, there are still concerns about 
the quality of assets on the ba lance sheets of financial instit utions. Equally, rescue measures 
have contributed to support the flow of credit to the real economy a lthough financial market 
tensions continue to have a ne gative impact on the lend ing capacity of banks . As to the impact 
on the functioning of the internal market, th e review concludes that the Commission 
                                                 
105 For more detail, see DG Competition's review of gu arantee and recapitalisation schemes in the financial 
sector in the current crisis, 7 August 2009 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/review_of_schemes_en.pdf 
106 The Temporary Framework is valid until December 2010, so as the provisions outlined in the Communication 
on restructuring measures. 
107 For more detail, see http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/tackling_economic_crisis.html  and 
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?ref erence=MEMO/09/499 &format=HTML&aged=0&languag
e=EN&guiLanguage=en  
108 DG Competition's review  of guarantee and recapitalisation schemes in the financial sector in the current 
crisis; 7 August 2009 
EN 44   EN framework helped to prevent major threats to the internal market notably in the early phase of 
the crisis and provided a co-ord ination tool in order to ensure maximum of coherence across 
national interventions. 
As a result and in order to ensure consis tency and effectiveness, the Commission has 
consolidated the requirements co mmon to all schemes and identified new additional elements 
which are been incorporated in the prolonged and new schemes109. 
3.4. State aid110 granted in 2008 
                                                 
109 See paragraph 33 of the DG Competition's review  of guarantee and recapitalisa tion schemes in the financial 
sector in the current crisis. "…The Commission has identified in its decisions five additional elements which 
should be present in prolonged and new schemes in order to ensure consistency and effectiveness; The first three elements (limitation of the amount  of recapitalisation, re porting obligation and th e lending to the real 
economy) have already been introduced  into the schemes in the context of the latest approvals and the 
notification of the prolongation of r ecapitalisation schemes. The last two (limitation of coupon payments on 
hybrid capital and individual notification for the second recapitalisation) are relatively new elements that may 
call for adjustments already in the ongoing round of prolongations…"  
110 Data on aid volumes refer to the aid element and not to the nominal amount. While aid element and nominal 
value normally coincide for grants, the actual aid el ement may significantly differ i.e. be lower than the 
nominal amount for other aid instruments like guarantees or subsidized loans. 
EN 45   EN Figure 20: State aid related to crisis me asures (2008; figures in billion €) – Source: DG Competition  
Equity participation Soft loans Guarantees Total crisis aid 
reported for 2008  Total 
crisis aid 
granted 
as % of 
GDP Share of 
banking 
sector as 
% of 
total 
economy  
  Total 
volume 
approved 
in 2008 Total 
volume 
approve
d 1.1. - 
31.03.2
009 Total 
volume 
approved 
from 2008 
to 
31.3.2009 Total 
volume 
approved 
1.4. - 
11.11.2009 Total 
volume 
approved 
from 2008 
to 
11.11.2009 Grants 
Nominal 
value Aid 
granted Nominal 
value Aid 
granted Nominal 
value Aid 
granted Nominal 
value Aid 
granted % % 
Belgium 255.15 7.80 262.95 25.36 288.31   16.40 11.70     30.40 6.08 46.80 17.78 5.17 5.4 
Denmark 585.44 13.50 598.94 0.82 599.75   0.50 0.50 2.35 2.35 0.00 0.00 2.85 2.85 1.22 5.4 
Germany 545.23 20.00 565.23 23.90 589.13 8.86 11.20 11.20 23.78 3.17 137.10 27.90 180.94 51.14 2.05 3.6 
Ireland 376.00 5.00 381.00 7.50 388.50           355.76 35.58 355.76 35.58 19.16 10.9 
Greece 28.00   28.00   28.00                     4.0 
Spain 250.00   250.00   250.00   - -     99.13 0.93  99.13 0.93 0.09 5.1 
France 341.25 4.70 345.95   345.95   11.50 11.50     31.40 4.98 42.90 16.48 0.85 4.7 
Italy 20.00   20.00   20.00                     4.8 
Cyprus       3.00 3.00                     7.8 
Latvia 7.44   7.44   7.44       0.96 0.96     0.96 0.96 4.17 6.2 
Luxembourg 7.00   7.00 0.26 7.26   2.50 2.50     1.50 0.30 4.00 2.80 7.64 29.1 
Hungary   5.99 5.99 0.04 6.03                     4.0 
Netherlands 217.75 22.79 240.54   240.54   10.75 10.75 3.00 3.00 3.34 0.33 17.09 14.08 2.37 5.6 
Austria 90.00   90.00 0.10 90.10                     5.6 
Poland       10.00 10.00                     5.1 
Portugal 20.00 0.45 20.45 4.00 24.45           4.30 0.43 4.30 0.43 0.26 8.2 
Slovenia 12.00   12.00   12.00                     4.3 
Finland 50.00   50.00 4.00 54.00           0.12 0.00 0.12 0.00   2.9 
Sweden 150.52 4.80 155.32   155.32   0.25 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.11 1.39 0.36 0.11 3.6 
United Kingdom 405.15 11.25 416.40 95.77 512.17 5.02 46.47 46.47 2.86 0.43 146.93 16.83 201.28 68.75 3.79 7.6 
Total EU-27 3360.92 96.28 3457.20 174.74 3631.94 13.89 99.57 94.87 32.95 9.92 811.12 93.48 957.52 212.15 1.70 - 
 
EN 46   EN This section analyses measures implemented by Member States in the current crisis during 
2008.  It covers both individual early cases111 during the first phase of the crisis in which the 
Commission applied Article 87 (3) (c) of the EC Treaty and the Community Guidelines on 
State aid for rescuing and restru cturing firms in difficulty (‘R&R Guidelines’)112 and 
measures approved under the Banking and R ecapitalisation Communications adopted in 2008. 
Measures related to the real economic cris is approved under the Temporary Framework are 
not covered since those measures only started implementation in 2009 and will be reported in 
the Scoreboard of next autumn. In sectoral te rms, this means that all State aid measures 
referred in this section are related to the financial services sector. 
As set out above, the maximum volume of Comm ission approved measures set up by Member 
States in 2008 to stabilise the financial mark ets amounted to € 3361 billion. According to the 
annual reports submitted by Member States, Member States implemented measures amounting to a nominal value of € 958 billion. This corresponds to a take-up rate of 29%. 
According to first estimates, the aid element of  the support measures put  in place in 2008 – as 
proxy for the benefits passed by the State to th e benefitting financial institutions – amounted 
to € 212.15 billion
113, which represents 1.7% of EU-27 GDP. The Commission approved in 
2008 crisis measures notified by seventeen Memb er States. Only thirteen Member States 
reported that these measures were already implemented in 2008. 
While the Commission approved in 2008 measur es in seventeen Member States (see 
figure 20) in 2008 , only thirteen countries aid related to the crisis actually granted in that year. 
In the case of Greece, and Austria, the Commis sion made its decision regarding a number of 
general schemes at the end of 2008 but impl ementation at national level took place only 
during the first months of 2009. In other countries  such as Italy, guarantee schemes have been 
implemented, but no bank had during 2008 availed its elf of such instruments. This partially 
explains why certain Member St ates did not report any crisis -related aid volume for 2008 in 
relation to crisis cases. 
In absolute terms, the United Kingdom grante d the most aid (€ 69 billion) followed by 
Germany (€ 51 billion), Belgium (€ 18 billion), the Netherlands (€ 18 billion) and France 
(€ 16 billion). The amounts comprise aid grante d under general schemes and aid granted with 
ad-hoc  measures outside schemes. 
In relative terms, State aid crisis measures  amounted to around 1.7% of EU GDP in 2008. 
This average hides significant disparities between Member Stat es: for Ireland, it represents 
around 19.2% of GDP, followed by Luxembourg 7.6% , Belgium with 5.2%, and Latvia 4.2% 
respectively. 
On average, aid earmarked for crisis meas ures, accounted for around 80% of total aid for 
industry and services in 2008. In Luxembour g, Latvia, the United Kingdom, Belgium and 
Ireland, aid for crisis measures represented more  than 90% of the total aid for industry and 
services. 
Concerning the aid instruments us ed by Member States in the context of the financial crisis, 
aid granted in the form of state equity partic ipation was the most used  and represented around 
                                                 
111 See Section 1 of the spring 2009 Scoreboard . 
112 OJ C 244, 1.10.2004, p. 2 . 
113The figure reported for Spain includes an estimated aid element of € 934 million attributable to the Fondo para 
la Adquisición de Activos Financieros (FAAF). The FAAF , pursuant to a competitive reverse auction, buys 
(outright and/or repo) high quality assets from eligible credit institutions in order to provide them with 
liquidity. 
 
EN 47   EN 45% of the total crisis aid. This instrume nt corresponds to recapitalisation measures 
implemented by Member States. 
The use of guarantees made up 44 % of crisis aid. This figure is relatively small compared to 
the total guarantee volumes approved by the Commi ssion. This is due, in part to the fact that 
the aid element is generally much lower than the nominal amounts guaranteed and to the fact 
that amounts announced under the schemes were hi gher than actual need. Moreover, concerns 
relating to the strict temporal scope of the lia bilities covered by guarantees and the pricing of 
guarantees raised by some Member States might have contributed to the reduced use of this 
instrument114. 
Finally, grants and soft loans represented together around 11% of crisis related aid. 
In relative terms, ai d granted in 2008 through ad-hoc  measures was considerably higher than 
aid granted through general schemes.  In countries such  as Belgium and Luxembourg where 
no general scheme has been adopted, total Stat e aid related to the cr isis was awarded to ad-
hoc cases ( Dexia, Fortis, KBC and Ethias ). In the Netherlands, Denmark, Latvia, Sweden and 
Finland, despite the approval of  general guarantee schemes, most of the aid (98% of aid 
granted in the Netherlands, 100% in Denmar k, Latvia, Luxembourg, Belgium and Finland and 
69% in Sweden) was also granted to individu al financial institutions out of schemes ( Dexia, 
Fortis, Aegon and SNS Reaal/New  in the Netherlands, Roskilde  in Denmark, Parex  in Latvia 
and Carnegie  in Sweden ). In another group of countri es including Ireland, Spain and  
Portugal, aid related to the crisis was granted exclusively through genera l schemes. Finally, in 
the United Kingdom, Germany and France, although ad-hoc  measures were significant 
(Bradford & Bingley, Dexia, Bayern, IK B, Sachsen, Hypo Real Estate)  most of the aid was 
granted through general schemes.  
3.5. Measures adopted under the Temporary Framework 
Since the adoption of the Temporary Framework115 in December 2008, Member States have 
made much use of the new facilities offere d to support access to finance in the current 
financial and economic crisis. As these measur es have been implemented by Member States 
during 2009, the information on aid granted in a pplication of these schemes will be reported 
and analysed in coming editions of the Stat e aid Scoreboard.  This section provides an 
overview116 of State aid measures undertaken by EU Member States in the context of the 
current crisis and reviewed by the Commission until 30 September 2009. 
Before the end of the year 2009, based on the in formation provided by the Member States, the 
Commission will have to evaluate the functi oning of the Temporary framework and decide 
whether adjustments would be needed. The Co mmission prepared a questionnaire for the 
purpose of providing guidance as  to what issues should be addressed in the report from 
Member States. Interested parties were also  offered the possibility  of providing comments 
until 15 September 2009. 
It is necessary to stress that measures take n under the Temporary Framework are not intended 
to remedy pre-existing struct ural problems and therefore do not apply to companies in 
difficulties before the crisis. In the present circumstances, it is also essential not to delay the 
                                                 
114 See Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the DG Competition's review  of guarantee and recapitalisation schemes in the 
financial sector in the current crisis. 
115 OJ C 16, 22.1.2009 p. 1-9 . The consolidated version, integrating the amendments adopted  by the Commission 
on 25 February 2009, is published in OJ C 83, 7.4.2009, p. 1-15 . 
116 See also chapter 5 "Real economy and financ ial crisis: The 'Temporary Framework'" of the spring 2009 
Scoreboard  . 
 
EN 48   EN necessary restructuring of the economy, absence of which could exacerbate the recession and 
its long term effects. At the same time, it is im portant to continue to target aid measures on 
investments which contribute  to a sustainable economy in  line with the post-Lisbon 
objectives. 
So far, the Commission has authorized 61 schemes under the Temporary Framework: 
• 21 schemes for aid up to € 500,000 per compa ny proposed by Czech Republic, Germany, 
Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Ital y, Latvia, Lithuania,  Luxembourg, Hungary, 
Malta, Netherland, Austria, Poland, Portugal,  Slovenia, Slovak, Finland and the United 
Kingdom; 
• 16 guarantee measures in Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, France, Italy, 
Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Romania, Sl ovenia, Finland, Sweden and the United 
Kingdom; 
• 7 schemes for subsidised loan interests in  Germany, Greece, France, Italy, Hungary and 
France; 
• 5 schemes offering reduced interest loans to  businesses investing in the production of 
green products in Germany, Spain, Fr ance, Italy and the United Kingdom; 
• 5 risk-capital schemes in Germ any, France, Italy and Austria; 
• 7 export-credit schemes in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, Luxembourg, 
Netherlands and Finland. 
Of the 27 Member States, so far only Bulgar ia and Cyprus have not used any of the 
possibilities offered under the Temporary Framewor k while Germany, at the other extreme, is 
the Member State that has approved the highest number of measures. By the end of September 2009, Germany had adopted 7 schemes c overing all the instrume nts (two different 
schemes have been adopted for reduced-interest ra te loans as well as two amendments to the 
scheme for aid up to € 500,000 per company). Th e Commission has also authorised several 
measures for France, Italy and the United Kingdom. Another group of countries which 
includes Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Li thuania, Malta, Netherland, Poland, Portugal, 
Romania, Slovakia and Sweden have put in pl ace only one of the different possibilities 
offered in the Temporary Framework (8 of the 12 measures were schemes for aid up to 
€ 500,000 per company proposed). For more detail, see table 3-1 in Annex. 
3.6. Special reference to the car sector 
Concerning State aid to the car industry, the Commission has continued to enforce a strict 
policy in order to ensure that any State aid gr anted to this industry co mplies fully with State 
aid and internal market rules. In this context, the Temporar y Framework for the real economy 
constitutes an important State aid instrument also for the car sector. Under this framework 
only companies that were not in difficulty on 1 July 2008 can benefit from State support. 
Companies whose difficulties had started before the crisis can only rece ive aid on the basis of 
the Rescue and Restructuring Gu idelines and subject to a rest ructuring plan that shows the 
company's return to viability. By way of exam ple, the Commission approved guarantees to be 
issued by the Swedish state as collateral for a loan from the European Investment Bank to finance green projects by Volvo  cars, after concluding that this  company was not in difficulty 
on 1 July 2008 ( N80/2009
). The Commission, following a notification by the United 
Kingdom, also approved rescue aid to LDV Group.  Since that company had been in 
difficulties for some time, the measure was based on the R&R Guidelines ( NN 41/2009 ). 
 
EN 49   EN In the context of a number of cases, including ai d granted by France to its car industry earlier 
in the year, the Commission has clearly indicated117 that it will not accept that State aid 
granted under the Temporary Framework is subject - de jure  or de facto  – to protectionist 
conditions, such as conditions concerning th e geographic location of investments. The 
Commission carefully examines every case that raises this type of additional non commercial 
concerns, in order to ensure that the aid is not biased by non-commercial considerations and 
can contribute to the future  viability of this industry. 
The schemes offering reduced interest loans to businesses investing in the production of green 
products have been used by Member States so fa r largely in favour of  the automotive sectors 
(manufacturers and suppliers) although this possibility is  open to all sectors. 
3.7. Special reference to the air transport sector 
The current crisis seriously affected the air transport sector, which overall is registering 
substantial losses: several air carriers have gone bankrupt and others are facing severe 
financial trouble. 
Following its decision to approve rescue aid in th e form of a State loan guarantee in favour of 
Austrian Airlines  in January 2009 ( NN72/2008 ), in August 2009 the Commission decided to 
close the formal investigation procedure in to the privatisation and restructuring of Austrian 
Airlines  concluding that the restruct uring following its sale to Lufthansa  is compatible with 
Community law ( C6/2009 ). The Commission has concluded th at the price to be paid by 
Lufthansa  involves State aid but that  such aid is compatible in accordance with the 
Community framework for rescue and re structuring of firms in difficulty. 
As regards land transport, the Commission al so approved in August a measure notified by 
France ( N362/2009 ) in the context of the national econo mic recovery plan. This measure, 
which was found compatible with the common mark et under Article 86(2) EC Treaty (service 
of general economic interest), foresees an ex tension of certain motorway concessions for a 
duration of one year, as a c ounterpart of the funding by the licensors of works aimed at 
improving the safety and reducing the environm ental impact of their motorway network. 
4. SIMPLIFICATION OF THE STATE AID RULES  
4.1. A new architecture for State aid control 
The SAAP adopted in June 2005, announced the Commission's intention to improve a number 
of aspects of State aid policy, a nd thereby transform State aid into  a more effective policy tool 
for growth and jobs. The plan launched a re view of almost all th e State aid rules and 
procedures. 
Four guiding principles underp inned the reform programme: 
• less and better targ eted State aid; 
• a refined economic approach; 
• more effective procedures, better enforcem ent, higher predictability and enhanced 
transparency; 
• a shared responsibility between th e Commission and Member States. 
                                                 
117 See Commission statements IP/09/318, on Opel: MEMO/09/460, MEMO/09/411, MEMO/09/389 and about 
the French car aid: MEMO/09/90. 
 
EN 50   EN In order to make procedures and decision-maki ng faster and more efficient, the Commission 
introduced substantial changes to the architectur e of its State aid cont rol. This was achieved 
by subjecting the various aid measures to a leve l of control which reflects their respective 
potential effects on competition and trade. The new architecture is based on a "3–stream 
system": block exemption, standard assessment and detailed assessment. 
Following the Action Plan's proposals, implemen tation of the SAAP has introduced besides 
the block exemption mechanism the individual a ssessment with two basic levels of scrutiny of 
State aid notified to the Commission. In prin ciple, State aid measures notified to the 
Commission are scrutinised thr ough applying a standard asse ssment. It allows making a 
judgement on whether aid measures can be considered to be compatible with the Treaty. Only in instances where doubts cannot be removed is  a detailed assessment carried out. Through 
adopting this two-way approach, the Commission focuses its anal ysis on the most distortive 
aid measures, while also ensuring effective State aid control through the standard assessment.    
By applying a level of assessment proportionate to the impact of the aid measure, the new 
State aid architecture assures a st rict and practical form of Stat e aid control in an EU of 27, 
where it is impossible to assess every notification of national aid measures in full detail. Furthermore, the new architectur e facilitates and considerably accelerates the implementation 
of compatible aid and, thus, provides an in centive for Member Stat es to introduce better 
targeted aid measures that contribute to gr owth and employment, not ably through R&D&I aid 
and risk capital.  
Regarding the assessment of cases, the majority  of aid measures were scrutinised under a 
standard assessment rather than a detailed economic assessment. A detailed assessment was carried out in 14% of R&D&I cases
118 and in 20% of risk capital cases between 2007 until 
mid 2009119, most noticeably in areas of particular  relevance for tackling major societal 
challenges. That was for the example the case of  a €68 million aid for the development of fuel 
cell power modules and decentralised hydrogen pr oduction systems in an integrated hydrogen 
energy chain (programme "H 2E"120), and a €90 million aid for the development of 
personalised medicine for infectious dise ases, cancer and genetic diseases through a 
combination of in vitro diagnosis, gene-bas ed therapeutic vaccines and immunotherapy 
products for some types of cancer a nd orphan diseases (programme "ADNA"121). In these 
cases, roughly two thirds concer ned aid granted through schemes or the individual application 
of aid within a scheme as well as some ad hoc cases. In regard of environmental cases, they 
were all dealt with under the standard assessment. 
Simplified procedure 
An additional novelty was introduced in 2009 with the Notice on a Simplified Procedure122, 
which is part of the Commission's simplifi cation package that entered into force on 
1 September 2009123. The Commission aims to ensure that  clearly compatible aid is approved 
                                                 
118 25 out of 177 R&D&I cases 
119 10 out of 49 risk capital cases 
120 N 1/2008  
121 N 709/2007  
122 Commission Notice on a Simplified procedure for the treatment  of certain types of State aid ; OJ C136, 
16.06.2009, p. 3-12 
123 On the same day, the Commission adopted a Best Practic es Code on the conduct of  State aid proceedings (OJ 
C 136, 16.06.2009, p. 13-20). Its objective is to improve the handling of State aid cases by encouraging the use of pre-notification contacts and streamlining the exchange of information between the Commission and 
Member States. As a result, the quality of Member St ate notifications should be improved and the treatment 
of cases accelerated. 
 
EN 51   EN within an accelerated time period of one mont h, based on a complete notification from the 
Member State. In order to ensure more transpar ency and predictability of the procedure, the 
following features have also been introduced: in principle mandatory pre-notification and the publication of a summary of the notifi cation on the website of the Commission. 
4.2. Types of aid measures used by Member States 
An increasing number of aid measures are ex empted from ex ante Commission scrutiny, 
either by the de minimis regulation
124 or by the new GBER. The rationale behind this change 
is that such measures are unlikely to have a significant negative impact on competition at the Community level while contributing to objectiv es of common interest and may thus be 
granted without prior notification to the Comm ission provided they fulfil the criteria of the 
respective legal instruments. For State aid measures that remain subject to Commission 
scrutiny prior to their implementation, Member St ates can notify aid schemes. After a scheme 
has been approved, a Member State may genera lly grant individual awards of aid without 
further notice to the Commission. Only larg e individual applicatio ns of aid schemes 
exceeding certain thresholds and individual aid (also known as 'ad hoc' ai d) awarded outside a 
scheme need to be notified indi vidually. In this context, changes to the state aid architecture 
have been under way since the entry of force the various block exemption regulations. They 
have continued with a further increase in the share of block exempted aid measures observed 
in 2008. 
Figure 21
125: Trend by type of aid measures (numbers); EU-27 
Number of meas ures  b y Type (EU 27 ) 
(cris is  meas ures  excluded)
249 291 275294269238243
19876125103
202636648
317248
26892
020040060080010001200
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Number of measures
Block exempted aid Schemes Individual aid
 
                                                 
124Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of 
the Treaty to de minimis aid, OJ L 379, 28.12.2006, p. 5  
125 Source: DG Competition. Data refer to industry and se rvices only. Note: The "number of measures" is based 
on the number of decisions taken by the Commission in a given year whereas the number of block exempted 
aid corresponds to the measures reported by Member St ate. Due to differences in  the nomenclature of aid 
measures, data for EU-12 are not included prior to accession. However, it has no significant impact on the 
graph. Note: Individual aid comprises ad hoc  aid and notified individual application within a scheme. Block 
exempted aid comprises measures notif ied under the BERs and the GBER.  
 
EN 52   EN Figure 22126: Trend by type of aid measures (volume); EU-27 
Aid volumes b y type: EU 27 
(cris is  meas ures  excluded)
0102030405060
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Aid volume (in billion €) 
Block exempted aid Schemes Individual aid
 
In order to obtain a true picture on the trend in terms of numbers and volume for the different 
types of measures (e.g. block ex empted aid, schemes and indivi dual applications  and ad hoc 
aid) the distorting effect of the crisis meas ures will be put aside for the purpose of the 
analysis. 
 Numbers of aid measures 
A sharp increase in the share of block exempted  aid measures (66% compared with 40% in 
2002) was observed in 2007 and this remained similarly high in 2008 (again, at 65% of 
measure). 2008 also saw a significant rise in th e share of expenditure awarded under the block 
exemption regulations which stood at ar ound 19% in 2008 (see below). Notified aid 
accounted for about 25% of all aid measures in 2008, of which the proportion of individual 
aid was rather lower i.e. acc ounting for approximately 9%. 
Over long-term, the trend shows a steady incr ease in the use of block exempted aid by 
Member States. It steadily in creased between 2003 and 2006 from 25% to 41%. In 2007, it 
sharply increased to 65%, mainly due to the entry into force of the new regional aid framework from 2007-2013 which triggered bloc k exempted aid earmarked for regional 
investment aid. This level of block-ex empted aid was roughly maintained in 2008. 
This development is accompanied by a signifi cant reduction of aid measures which were 
under individual scrutiny by the Commission. With  respect to notified schemes, the rate 
which they represent of all aid measures dec lined from 40% in 2003 to 25% in 2008. An even 
sharper decrease was seen for i ndividual aid measures, whether individual applications within 
a scheme or ad hoc measures, both of whic h dropped from 34% in 2003 to around 9% in 
2008. 
As the numbers clearly show, more aid meas ures are exempted fr om ex-ante Commission 
scrutiny, either by the de minimis  Regulation or by block exempti on. In this context, changes 
to the state aid architecture have already begun to show an impact. 
 Volume of aid measures 
                                                
 
126 Source: DG Competition. Data refer to industry and services only.  Note: Individual aid comprises ad hoc  aid 
and notified individual application within a scheme. Block exempted aid comprises measures notified under 
the BERs and the GBER. 
 
EN 53   EN Block exempted aid represented almost one fifth of total aid volume to industry and 
services 
On the basis of 2008 data, about 19% of the to tal aid volume to industry and services was 
awarded through block exemption, which co rresponds in absolute terms to around 
€ 10 billion. Aid granted through schemes which were under scrutiny, represent the bulk of 
measures in terms of volume, roughly 76% (around € 40 billion). Individual aid accounted for only 4.8% (around € 2.5 billion). 
The situation seen in 2008 is the result of a positive evolut ion over the period under review. 
As to block exempted aid, its share of the aid volume to industry and services rose steadily 
from 6% in 2006 to 13% in 2007 and stood at 19% in 2008 (which in absolute terms 
corresponds to € 3 billion, € 6 b illion and € 10 billion respectivel y). The main reasons for the 
increase were the introduction of block exem ption for regional aid in 2007 and the new GBER 
in 2008. With respect to the latter, a high take up rate is mainly due to the replacement of 
previous BERs. With the exception of Malta, Sw eden, Latvia, Portugal, Spain and the United 
Kingdom, most Member States granted more aid under block exemption than in previous 
years. In particular, Germany, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Poland granted substantially 
more aid under block exemption regulations.  
As already seen with the BERs and block exempt ed regional aid in particular, Member States 
positively included block exemption in their national designs of aid measures. The newly GBER follows this development whereby it is  now largely replacing aid measures awarded 
under the BERs. Aid objectives which have been  newly introduced with  the GBER represent 
a potential of future growth in terms of numb ers and volume of block exempted aid.      
During the same period, aid volumes granted under  notified schemes and individual aid were 
on a downward path. With respec t to notified schemes, the corresponding aid volume fell 
from 86% in 2003 to 76% in 2008. While ten Me mber States reduced aid volumes granted 
through schemes, the majority granted more aid through this type of aid measure.   
Even more positive is the downward trend of aid volumes granted under individual aid (either 
the individual application of schemes or ad hoc  aid which both are almost equal in terms of 
aid volumes involved), which stood at 10% in 2003 and came down to 4.8% in 2008. 
Expenditure on ad hoc aid is qu ite balanced among Member States . Since the increase of ad 
hoc aid is rather small in 2008 (around € 10 m illion), individual expenditure gave a rather 
dispersed picture.   
This overall positive development, i.e. incr easing numbers and volumes in block exempted 
aid combined with a downward trend on notif ied aid, allows the Commission to focus on 
examination of individual applications of a scheme and ad-hoc measures since both may 
potentially distort competition most and allo w to focus on unlawful aid. However, they 
represent only a small fraction of  State aid in the EU (4.8% in relative terms and € 2.5 billion 
in absolute terms). Due to the low numbers of  notifications represen ting such aid, they are 
under effective State aid control since the Commission is freed from examination of "routine" 
State aid cases. 
 Numbers and volume of crisis measures 
Crisis measures comprise eighteen aid schemes and twenty-three individual applications and 
ad hoc aid cases in 2008
127. In regard of their aid volume granted, it amounted in 2008 to 
€ 134.4 billion and € 77.7 billion for individual a pplications of schemes and ad hoc measures. 
                                                 
127 Including those approved in 2009 but granted in 2008 
 
EN 54   EN As argued in chapter 1 and 2, the crisis meas ures represent aid addr essing an exceptional 
situation due to the financia l and banking crisis which begu n in 2007 and continued in 2008. 
They represent aid schemes and largely ad hoc aid. See chapter 3 for more detail.  
5. ENFORCEMENT THE STATE AID RULES  
5.1. Unlawful aid 
Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty obliges Member St ates to not only notify state aid measures to 
the Commission before their implementation but also to await the outcome of the 
Commission's investigation before implementi ng notified measures. When either of these 
obligations is not respected, the state aid measure is considered to be unlawful. 
In the period 2000-2008, the Commission took 811 decisions on unlawful aid. In 22.8% of 
unlawful aid cases (187 cases) the Commission in tervened by taking a ne gative decision on an 
incompatible aid measure. This negative de cision normally requests the Member State 
concerned to recover the illegally awarded aid. In further 2% of unlawful aid cases (15 cases), the Commission took a conditional decision.  
In addition, there are roughly 140 pending unlawful aid cases which are still under 
Commission scrutiny. These case s are usually taken up by the Commission in reaction to a 
complaint or ex officio (case started at the Commission's ow n initiative). The figures also 
include cases notified by a Member State, but for which the measure was fully or partially 
implemented by the Member State before the Commission's final deci sion (i.e. cases where 
the standstill clause was not respected). 
The need for the Commission to intervene with a negative or conditional decision for at least 
a part of the aid unlawfully implemented by th e Member State concerned is around ten times 
higher than for notified aid decisions. The sh are of unlawful cases in where Commission has 
found it necessary to intervene varies considerab ly across the sectors: approximately 56% of 
all unlawful aid cases in the industry and serv ices sectors, followed by agriculture (around 
24%), transport and coal (11 %) and fisheries (around 9%). 
5.2. Recovery of unlawful aid 
 Recovery in industry and services 
The SAAP underlines that the effectiveness and credibility of state ai d control presupposes a 
proper enforcement of the Commission’s de cisions. The Commission therefore announced 
that it will seek to achiev e a more effective and immedi ate execution of the recovery 
decisions, which will ensure equality of treatment of all beneficiaries.  
 State of play 
The latest figures indicate that significant progress has been made in the execution of 
recovery decisions since the SAAP in 2005. By  the end of June 2009, there were only 43 
pending recovery decisions compared with 94 at the end of 2004. This improvement in the Commission's enforcement record of its deci sions should contribute to a higher state aid 
discipline by Member States. 
In the first half of 2009, three pending recove ry cases were closed and three new recovery 
decisions were taken. As of 30 June 2009, Spai n had the highest number of pending cases (14 
which represents 25 % of the EU total), although nine cases refer to Basque fiscal schemes for 
which the Commission has initiated infringement  proceedings against Spain for failure to 
implement the Decisions and the ECJ judgmen t. Italy had 13 pending cases followed by 
Germany (9) and France (6). It is also worth noting that there were no  pending cases in 14 of 
 
EN 55   EN the 27 Member States. Table 4-3 in Annex provide s the complete list of outstanding recovery 
decisions. 
Recovery of illegal incompatible State aid is  still a lengthy process: Of the 43 pending 
recovery cases, 22 were adopted more than four  years ago, and 6 more than eight years ago. 
Significant efforts have and are being made to  implement the oldest recovery decisions. 
 Amounts from recovery  
Table 4-1 in Annex provides data on the amounts of aid to be recovered under the 136 
recovery decisions adopted since 2000. For 130 of these decisions , relatively accurate 
information exists on the amount of aid invo lved. This information shows that the total 
amount of aid to be recovered on the basis of  decisions adopted between 1 January 2000 and 
30 June 2009 is more than € 10.3 billion. 
Of the € 10.348 billion of aid to be recove red under decisions adopted since 2000, some 
€ 8.130 billion of aid had been effectively re covered by 30/06/2006. A further € 1.277 billion 
of illegal and incompatible aid was “lost” in bankruptcy proceedings. This means that recovery has been completed in relation to a total amount of € 9.407 billion of illegal and 
incompatible aid (i.e. € 8.130 billion of aid ef fectively recovered and € 1.277 billion of aid 
lost in bankruptcy proceedings). This repres ents 90.9% of the total amount of illegal and 
incompatible aid to be recovered under rec overy decisions adopted since 1/1/2000 (compared 
to 90.7% on 31/12/2008). Taking  into account the further € 214 million of illegal and 
incompatible aid that has been registered in  ongoing bankruptcy proceedings (which represent 
1.7% of total aid to be recovered), we can th erefore conclude that, in money terms, the 
recovery decisions adopte d since 1/1/2000 have been executed for close to 92.6%. 
Another important step towards better execution of recovery decisions in the future was the 
adoption in October 2007 of the Notice on the Implementation of recovery decisions. The 
Notice emphasises that improving the enforcem ent of State aid decisions is a shared 
responsibility between the Commission and the Me mber States. It reca lls the principles 
applying to the recovery of State aid as conf irmed by the Community Courts and defines the 
respective role of the Commission and the Me mber States in the recovery procedures. 
The Commission is monitoring the execution of recovery decisions by Member States more 
closely. Where Member States do not take all measures available to implement such 
decisions, the Commission has taken the line to systematically initiate infringement 
proceedings against the Member State concerned in accordance with Articles 88(2)
, 226 and 
228(2)  of the EC Treaty. A complete list of thes e cases is available on the DG Competition 
website128 and in Table 4-4 in Annex. 
 Recovery in the agricultural sector 
While the Commission has taken 14 recovery de cisions since 1999, as of 30 June 2009, there 
were 10 pending recovery cases with around € 1.3 billion of aid yet to be recovered. One 
Italian case and one new French case have been added in comparison to the former 
scoreboard. No cases have been cl osed in the first semester of 2009. 
As indicated in the previous editions of the Scoreboard, the availability of information on 
amounts to be recovered is limited in the case of aid schemes. The Commission continues its 
efforts to obtain information from the Member States on the aid amounts involved. 
                                                 
128 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/recovery.html 
 
EN 56   EN So far, no infringement procedures have been  brought before the ECJ on the basis of article 
88(2) EC Treaty. 
 Recovery in the fisheries sector 
In the area of fisheries, there were 3 recovery  decisions involving Fran ce (2 in 2004 and 1 in 
2008) and 3 recovery decisions involving the United Kingdom in 2007. The total amount was 
significantly less than € 1 million. More de tail can be found in Table 4-2 in Annex. 
 Recovery in the transport sector 
As regards the air transport sector, the Commi ssion has taken a number of recovery decisions 
involving Italy (Alitalia) and Greece (Olympic Airways, Olympic Airways Services and 
Olympic Airlines) since 2000. The exact amount to  be recovered in each case is not known 
due to a lack of precise data from the national authorities but the total exceeds € 1.5 billion. 
Some recovery has already taken place and, with regard to the outstanding amounts, the recovery claims are/will be included in the li quidation processes of the respective companies. 
In the case of Alitalia, the Italian authoritie s are required to recove r EUR 300 million from the 
company in accordance with the Commissi on Decision of 12 November 2008. Italy has 
informed the Commission that this amount has b een registered before the relevant judicial 
authority responsible for the liquidation of Alitalia 
In the case of Olympic Airways, in D ecember 2002 the Commission found that Greece had 
granted illegal restructuring aid to the company between 1998 and 2002. On 12
th May 2005, 
the European Court of Justice confirmed that the Greek authorities had failed to recover EUR 
161 million of illegal aid fr om the airline. On 7th July 2009 the ECJ therefore imposed a lump 
sum penalty of EUR 2 million and a periodic penalty of EUR 16,000 per day on Greece for its 
partial failure to comply with the earlier judgement of 12 May 2005. The decision of the 
Court to impose both a lump sum payment and a periodic penalty payment was taken in view 
of the seriousness and duration of the infringement. 
5.3. Enforcement of State aid Law: Coop eration with national courts 
The Commission considers that State aid en forcement by national courts can play an 
important role in the overall system of State aid control. National cour ts are often well placed 
to protect individual rights affected by violations  of the State aid rules and can offer quick and 
effective remedies to third parties. 
In order to develop the poten tial of private State aid en forcement, the Commission has 
recently adopted a new Notice on the Enfor cement of State Aid Law by National Courts129. 
This new Notice replaces the existing 1995 Notice on Cooperation with National Courts130 
and has two main objectives: 
• The new Notice seeks to give cl ear guidance to national courts  and to potential claimants 
on the different issues which can arise in the context of domestic State aid litigation. This 
guidance is based on the jurisprudence of the Co mmunity courts and covers issues such as 
the remedies available to third parties, procedural matters (such as legal standing), the circumstances in which a national court shoul d issue interim measures and the conditions 
for claiming damages in the event of  a breach of the State aid rules. 
                                                
 
129 Commission Notice on the enforcement of State aid law by national courts (OJ C 85, 9.4.2009, p. 1). 
130 Commission Notice on cooperation between national courts and the Commission in the State aid field (OJ C 
312, 23.11.1995, p. 8).  
 
EN 57   EN • In addition, the Commission seeks, through the new Notice, to intensify its co-operation 
with national courts in indi vidual cases. This appears nece ssary given that the generic 
cooperation mechanism referred to in the 1995 Cooperation Notice has not been used 
extensively. The Commission has therefore now decided to introduce more practical and 
user-friendly co-operation mech anisms along the lines of those already available in the 
antitrust area131. 
Following the adoption of the New Notice the Commission plans to intensify its advocacy 
efforts in the area of private State aid en forcement. This will include, amongst other 
initiatives, making dedicated State aid res ources available to national judges and the 
publishing selected State aid materials. 
5.4. Ex-post monitoring 
With the entry into force, in August 2008, of th e GBER an increasing nu mber of aid measures 
are no longer subject to the notification obligation. By August 2009, about 2000 state aid 
measures have been implemented on the basis of  this Regulation. Article  10 of that regulation 
constitutes the basis for realising ex-post mon itoring on a sample basis. The purpose of such 
exercises is to ensure a continued proper enfo rcement of the State aid instruments allowing 
Member States to grant aid without prior notification and subseq uent individual prior 
approval of the Commission. 
In the light of the above, DG Competition has run in the years 2006, 2007 and 2008, a series 
of sample-based monitoring exercises coveri ng both approved aid schemes and measures 
adopted under BERs. As already indicated in  the Autumn 2008 Scoreboard (point 3.4), the 
Commission has, with these thre e combined exercises, covere d significant sections of the 
different substantive areas of aid. Monitoring ex ercises currently take place at two levels: a 
first check takes place at the level of the sc heme, with a view to examining whether the 
national legislation is in lin e with the approval decision /BER; a second level of check 
concerns important individual decisions im plementing such schemes. DG Competition has 
now addressed aid measures adopted by almost all Member States. 
The analysis of the results of the first three exercises shows that overall, existing state aid 
architecture allowing for the approval of ai d schemes and allowing  Member States to 
implement aid measures under BERs functions in  a satisfactory manner. In a small minority 
of cases, substantive problems or procedural issu es have been identified. The cases where no 
appropriate solution has yet been found with the Member State concerned are still under 
investigation. 
  
 
                                                
 
131 Commission Notice on the cooperation between the Commissi on and the courts of the EU Member States in 
the application of Articles 81 and 82 EC (OJ C 101, 27.4.2004, p. 54). 
 
EN 58   EN  
METHODOLOGICAL NOTES132 
The Scoreboard covers St ate aid as defined under Article 87(1)  of the EC Treaty that Member 
States granted up to the end of 2008. All State ai d data refer to th e implementation of 
Commission decisions but exclude cases which are still under examination. Figures may be 
different from those published in previous Sc oreboards: firstly, finalised data may now 
replace provisional figures or  estimates; second, when the Commission takes a decision on a 
non-notified aid measure, the aid in question is  attributed to the year(s) in which it was 
awarded. In cases resulting in  expenditure over a number of years, the total amount is 
generally attributed to each of  the years in which expenditure took place. All data are 
provided in million (or billion where appropriate) Euro at constant 2000 prices but have been 
re-referenced on the ye ar 2008. In this resp ect, expenditure figures  published in 2007 may 
change in the 2008 edition due to taking into account inflation. Community funds and instruments are excluded.  
It is important to bear in mind that some aid measures pose difficulty when quantifying
133. In 
particular tax schemes may invol ve substantial amounts of aid which may, if corrected at a 
later stage, contribute to a small shift in th e distribution of horizon tal or sectoral aid.  
With respect to figures expresse d in % of GDP, these are measured  in reference to the year to 
which expenditure data relate. 
As comparable data on transport and agriculture are not available to the necessary degree, in 
particular from EU-12, observations  on the underlying trend are base d on data for total aid for 
industry and services (i.e. total aid less  agriculture, fisher ies and transport). 
Aid measures qualify as crisis measures if they  were adopted under sector specific State aid 
rules introduced in the context of the current global financial crisis (for more detail on the individual Communications, see ch apter 3). Measures which respond to the financial crisis but 
were approved prior the State aid rules aforemen tioned do also count as crisis measures. In 
this respect, such aid measures  classify as sectoral aid. For the purpose of the analysis above, 
the volumes on crisis measures may be excluded fr om the total of sectoral aid with a view to 
achieve a true picture on State aid expenditure without the dist orting effect of the crisis 
measures.    
Where actual expenditure data were not availabl e, Member States provided an estimate on the 
aid element for measures implemented during 2008. In the absence of these estimates and 
only for the purpose of producing the Scoreboa rd, the Commission services have used the 
standard method of assessing th e aid element. With respect to the crisis measures, the 
standard method has been applied as follows: 
Guarantees: 
• For guarantee schemes the aid element has b een estimated at 10% of the guaranteed 
amount. 
                                                
 
132 More details on methodological remarks provide the online-version of the Scoreboard: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/conceptual_remarks.html  
133 For instance, the aid element of tax exemptions is difficult to de termine since the exact number of 
beneficiaries or amounts may not be known and authoritie s in the Member States appear to work with 
estimates.    
 
EN 59   EN • For ad hoc measures for sound banks the aid element has been estim ated at 10% of the 
guaranteed amount. 
• For banks in difficulty, usually notified as individual cases (res cue and restructuring cases) 
the aid element has been estimated  at 20% of the guaranteed amount. 
• The basis for the estimation has been the average outstanding guarantee volume for 2008. 
Recapitalisation and liq uidity measures: 
• The aid element estimated corresponds to the full recapitalisation amount for 2008. 
 Presentation of data in tables 
Where data show in tables, they may use the symbols: 
n.a.  not available 
-  real zero 0  less than half the unit used 
 
EN 60   EN ANNEX : STATISTICAL TABLES  
Table 1-1134: Key figures and trend on State aid as percentag e of GDP and share of horizontal objectives 
as percentage of total aid for industry and services and their t rend (all cases; 2008) 
State aid in billion EUR State aid as % of GDP  FIGURES 
INCLUDE CRISIS 
MEASURES 
Total State 
Aid less 
railways Total State 
Aid for 
industry and 
services135  Total State 
Aid less 
railways  Total State 
Aid for 
industry 
and 
services  Share of aid to 
horizontal 
objectives as % of 
total aid for 
industry and 
services Trend in the share 
of aid to horizontal 
objectives as a % 
of total aid, 2003 - 
2008 in % points 
(1) 
EU 27 279.6 265.0 2.2 2.1 17 -38.1 
EU 15 268,3 256.9 2.3 2.2 16 -47.0 
EU 12 11.3 8.1 1.14 0.8 77 43.5 
Belgium 19.4 19.0 5.63 5.52 6 -84.5 
Bulgaria 0.4 0.04 1.30 0.12 91 38.4 
Czech Republic 1.4 1.2 0.97 0.78 94 65.3 
Denmark 4.7 4.5 2.02 1.93 34 -34.5 
Germany 66.8 65.3 2.68 2.62 19 -37.7 
Estonia 0.05 0.05 0.29 0.09 100 0.0 
Ireland 37.5 36.3 20.20 19.53 2 -66.8 
Greece 1.0 0.8 0. 42 0.33 98 1.5 
Spain 6.2 5.3 0.56 0.48 65 2.8 
France 26.8 24.1 1.37 1.23 30 -21.6 
Italy 5.5 4.5 0.35 0.29 85 -10.4 
Cyprus 0.1 0.1 0.65 0.47 95 61.1 
Latvia 1.2 1.0 5.05 4.37 5 -78.0 
Lithuania 0.3 0.2 0.82 0.53 100 54.2 
Luxembourg 2.9 2.9 7.83 7.78 2 -95.0 
Hungary 2.5 1.9 2.38 1.81 81 19.0 
Malta 0.1 0.1 2.00 1.74 2 -2.1 
Netherlands 16.2 15.6 2.73 2.62 9 -69.9 
Austria 1.3 1.1 0.46 0.38 99 -20.7 
Poland 3.7 2.9 1.02 0.80 93 67.1 
Portugal 2.0 2.0 1.19 1.18 13 -4.5 
Romania 0.9 0.3 0.64 0.18 53 15.6 
Slovenia 0.2 0.2 0.66 0.47 89 8.7 
Slovakia 0.4 0.3 0.53 0.42 84 21.1 
Finland 2.1 0.8 1.13 0.44 98 -0.3 
Sweden 3.4 3.1 1.03 0.94 88 -4.3 
United Kingdom 72.5 71.8 4.00 3.96 4 -84.3 
Norway 2.3 1.7 0.74 0.56 n.a. (2) n.a. 
Iceland (3) 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.21 n.a. n.a. 
Liechtenstein (3) 0.001 0.001 0.03 0.03 n.a. n.a. 
                                                 
134Data cover all State aid measures as defined under Artic le 87(1) of the EC Treaty th at Member States awarded 
and the Commission examined. The Community rules on agricultural and fisheries policies are not covered by 
the EEA Agreement. Hence, aid to these sectors is not included for the EFTA countries. (1) Change in 
percentage points between annual average of 2003-2005 and 2006-2008. Source: DGs Competition, Energy 
and Transport, Agriculture, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries and EFTA Surveillance Authority. (2) Not 
available (3) The EFTA Surveillance Authority assesses crisis aid granted in the EFTA countries. Crisis 
measures are not yet included in this amount. 
135i.e. less agriculture, fi sheries and transport 
 
EN 61   EN  
Table 1-2: Key figures and trend on Stat e aid as percentage of GDP and share of 
horizontal objectives as percentage of total aid for industry and services and 
their trend (excl. crisis measures) 
State aid in billion EUR, 
2008 State aid as % of GDP, 
2008 Trend in the share of aid to 
GDP, 2003 - 2008 in % 
points of GDP(1) 
FIGURES 
EXCLUDE 
CRISIS 
MEASURES  Total State 
Aid less 
railways Total State 
Aid for 
industry 
and 
services 
(i.e. less 
agriculture, 
fisheries 
and 
transport) Total State 
Aid less 
railways  Total State 
Aid for 
industry 
and 
services 
(i.e. less 
agriculture, 
fisheries 
and 
transport)  Total aid 
less 
railways Total state 
aid for 
industry and 
services Share of 
aid to 
horizontal 
objectives 
as % of 
total aid 
for 
industry 
and 
services, 
2008 Trend in 
the share 
of aid to 
horizontal 
objectives 
as a % of 
total aid, 
2003 - 
2008 in % 
points (1) 
EU 27 67.4 52.9 0.54 0.42 -0.05 -0.05 88 10.8 
EU 15 57.1 45.8 0.50 0.40 -0.03 -0.02 88 4.3 
EU 12 10.3 7.1 1.05 0.72 -0.46 -0.50 87 48.1 
Belgium 1.6 1.2 0.46 0.36 0.08 0.09 99 -1.0 
Bulgaria 0.4 0.04 1.30 0.12 0.60 -0.20 91 38.4 
Czech Republic 1.4 1.2 0. 97 0.78 -0.47 -0.51 94 65.3 
Denmark 1.9 1.7 0.80 0.71 0.01 0.02 94 1.2 
Germany 15.7 14.2 0.63 0.57 -0.09 -0.08 87 7.5 
Estonia 0.05 0.01 0.29 0.09 0.00 -0.02 100 0.0 
Ireland 1.9 0.7 1.05 0.38 0.30 0.06 85 11.4 
Greece 1.0 0.8 0.42 0. 33 -0.04 0.06 98 1.5 
Spain 5.2 4.4 0.48 0.40 -0.02 -0.04 79 8.1 
France 10.3 7.6 0.53 0.39 -0.04 -0.01 96 18.7 
Italy 5.5 4.5 0.35 0.29 -0.07 -0.06 85 -10.4 
Cyprus 0.1 0.1 0.65 0.47 -1.12 -0.90 95 61.1 
Latvia 0.2 0.0 0.88 0.20 0.32 0.03 100 10.1 
Lithuania 0.3 0.2 0.82 0.53 0.18 0.10 100 54.2 
Luxembourg 0.1 0.1 0.20 0.15 -0.11 -0.04 100 0.0 
Hungary 2.5 1.9 2.38 1.81 -0.10 0.21 81 19.0 
Malta 0.1 0.1 2.00 1.74 -0.78 -0.86 2 -2.1 
Netherlands 2.2 1.5 0.36 0.25 -0.04 0.03 98 3.0 
Austria 1.3 1.1 0.46 0.38 0.06 0.07 99 -20.7 
Poland 3.7 2.9 1.02 0.80 -0.84 -0.82 93 67.1 
Portugal 1.6 1.5 0.93 0.92 0.15 0.19 16 -3.5 
Romania 0.9 0.3 0.64 0.18 -0.55 -0.99 53 15.6 
Slovenia 0.2 0.2 0.66 0.47 -0.10 -0.09 89 8.7 
Slovakia 0.4 0.3 0.53 0.42 -0.04 -0.07 84 21.1 
Finland 2.1 0.8 1.13 0.44 -0.13 0.02 98 -0.2 
Sweden 3.0 2.7 0.92 0.82 0.15 0.16 100 -0.3 
United Kingdom 3.8 3.1 0.21 0.17 -0.04 -0.02 91 -4.8 
Norway 2.3 1.7 0.74 0.56 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 
Iceland 0.02 0.02 0.21 0.21 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 
Liechtenstein 0.001 0.001 0.03 0.03 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 
 
 
EN 62   EN Table 1-3136:  State aid for primary objectives and sectoral aid as % of total aid (crisis 
measures excluded); 2008 
  
Total of horizontal objectives 
Environment  
Regional development 
Research and development 
SME 
Training 
Employment aid 
Other horizontal objectives (e.g. 
culture, natural disaster, social aid, 
etc.) 
Total Sectoral Aid137 
Coal 
Financial Services 
Manufacturing Sectors 
Other Non Manufacturing Sectors 
Other Services 
EU-27 87.6 24.1 25.8 16.3 9.1 1.7 6.1 4.5 12.4 5.2 2.4 1.7 1.7 1.4 
EU-15 87.7 26.8 22.9 18.0 9.8 1.6 4.0 4.6 12.3 5.7 2.8 0.7 1.8 1.4 
EU-12 87.2 6.4 44.4 5.6 4.5 2.8 19.3 4.2 12.8 2.1 0.0 8.7 1.0 0.9 
Belgium 99.0 11.0 9.8 47.5 18.8 3.6 4.0 4.3 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 
Bulgaria 91.3 0.0 13.3 14.5 61.5 1.9 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.0 
Czech 
Republic 93.8 0.5 68.2 18.0 6.4 0.6 0.1 0.0 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 0.2 
Denmark 93.7 15.5 0.0 9.2 0.3 0.3 65.7 2.6 6.3 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.0 4.9 
Germany 86.9 40.3 22.8 16.6 4.7 0.7 0.0 1.9 13.1 12.6 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.1 
Estonia 100.0 15.4 5.8 22.5 13.1 5.0 0.7 37.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Ireland 84.5 5.5 16.9 14.8 17.6 10.0 4.2 15.6 15.5 0.0 0.0 7.5 0.0 8.1 
Greece 97.6 2.3 75.6 1.5 16.4 0.1 0.0 1. 6 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.9 0.8 
Spain 78.9 11.7 39.9 18.8 3.4 1.4 0.8 3.0 21.1 18.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.7 
France 95.6 2.2 40.8 24.6 19.3 0.4 1.8 6.5 4.4 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 4.2 
Italy 85.3 2.4 18.3 19.3 25.8 6.8 7.3 5.2 14.7 0.0 0.0 0.8 11.7 2.2 
Cyprus 95.0 6.2 1.2 1.3 15.4 9.8 1.4 59.7 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 
Latvia 99.9 21.3 46.7 1.5 14.5 2.3 0.7 12.9 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 
Lithuania 100.0 12.6 73.0 0.0 1.2 9.7 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Luxembourg 100.0 15.1 10.2 35.9 24.4 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Hungary 81.2 4.7 41.3 3.9 3.0 2.9 18.4 6.9 18.8 2.0 0.0 16.8 0.0 0.0 
Malta 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.5 0.0 1.1 97.7 0.0 0.0 61.6 0.0 36.2 
Netherlands 97.8 65.1 1.1 18.5 6.0 0.0 3.0 4.1 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.7 0.0 1.3 
Austria 98.7 42.4 7.8 22.7 20.0 2.3 1.1 2.4 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 
Poland 93.3 8.4 39.1 0.7 4.5 3.6 34.7 2.2 6.7 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 
Portugal138 16.3 0.0 6.5 1.0 4.6 0.5 3.6 0.1 83.7 0.0 83.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Romania 52.9 6.0 14.7 25.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 6.3 47.1 36.5 0.0 1.9 0.0 8.7 
Slovenia 89.2 15.1 46.8 12.2 1.3 0.4 1.2 12.2 10.8 10.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 
Slovakia 83.9 12.8 64.2 1.3 3.5 0.8 0.2 1.1 16.1 1.3 0.0 14.7 0.0 0.0 
Finland 98.4 38.2 6.3 29.0 7.2 1.3 6.3 10.1 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.2 
Sweden 99.6 85.9 6.0 3.7 0.2 0.0 0.1 3.8 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 
United 
Kingdom 91.0 40.8 10.4 18.6 3.5 2.1 0.1 15.5 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.7 0.3 
                                                 
136Source: DG Competition, DG Energy and Transport 
137Aid for specific sectors awarded under measures for which there was no horizontal ob jective as well as aid for 
rescue and restructuring.  
138Aid which continues to be paid out under the aid scheme E 19/94 Zona Franca da Madeira (OJ C 290, 
3.10.1996, p. 13), as reviewed by the Commission, is classified as sectoral aid.  Aid granted under the aid 
scheme N 222/A/2002 Aid scheme for Zona Franca da Madeira for the period 2003-2006 ( OJ C 65 , 
19.3.2003, p.23 as corrected by OJ C134 , 7.6. 2003, p. 10) is classified as regional aid.  
 
EN 63   EN  
Table 1-4139:  Trend in share of primary object ives in total aid between 2003-2005 and 
2006-2008 as percentage point differen ce (crisis measures excluded) 
  
Total of horizontal objectives 
Environment   
Regional development 
Research and development 
SME 
Training 
Employment aid 
Other horizontal objectives (e.g. 
culture, natural disaster, social aid, 
etc.) 
Total Sectoral Aid 
Coal 
Financial Services 
Manufacturing Sectors 
Other Non Manufacturing Sectors 
Other Services 
EU-27 10.8 2.7 3.7 3.7 -1.7 0.1 1.5 0.8 -10.8 -6.9 -0.1 -3.8 1.2 -1.2 
EU-15 4.3 1.6 1.3 3.1 -2.8 -0.3 0.5 0.9 -4.3 -4.7 1.2 -2.6 1.4 0.4 
EU-12 48.1 2.3 22.5 4.4 4.4 2.6 11.2 0.8 -48.1 -20.2 -9.1 -7.8 -0.3 -10.8 
Belgium -1.0 12.1 -10.5 10.9 -11.7 -0.7 -0.9 -0.1 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 
Bulgaria 38.4 -1.0 15.3 15.6 22.0 1.3 -9.8 -5.0 -38.4 -2.3 0.0 -15.3 -8.0 -12.9 
Czech 
Republic 65.3 -3.1 38.6 14.9 7.3 3.0 1.9 2.8 -65.3 -0.4 -
61.5 -5.7 2.6 -0.3 
Denmark 1.2 -16.9 -0.2 4.4 0.2 -0.8 14.7 -0.2 -1.2 0.0 0.0 -1.0 0.0 -0.2 
Germany 7.5 1.6 0.7 4.5 0.4 0.2 -0.3 0.4 -7.5 -5.3 -0.4 -1.1 0.0 -0.6 
Estonia 0.0 4.4 -6.9 2.5 -4.9 6.2 1.6 -2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Ireland 11.4 1.1 -4.3 2.8 10.3 3.9 -8.6 6.2 -11.4 0.0 -6.2 -7.7 0.0 2.5 
Greece 1.5 -1.7 1.6 -0.4 10.2 0.1 -6.4  -1.8 -1.5 0.0 0.0 -2.2 0.4 0.3 
Spain 8.1 4.5 7.3 6.2 -3.4 -0.5 -0.3 -5.3 -8.1 -10.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 2.5 
France 18.7 0.0 18.1 6.6 -9.5 0.1 2.5 0.9 -18.7 -9.1 0.0 -12.3 0.0 2.6 
Italy -10.4 0.5 -6.3 -0.7 -0.9 -0.3 -2.7 0.0 10.4 0.0 1.0 -0.8 10.2 0.0 
Cyprus 61.1 1.9 2.7 1.8 14.9 7.5 1.0 31.2 -61.1 0.0 -0.6 -25.0 -11.1 -24.4 
Latvia 10.1 14.8 -16.6 0.9 0.5 2.8 0.3 7.4 -10.1 0.0 0.0 -1.4 0.0 -8.7 
Lithuania 54.2 15.5 20.4 -0.2 2.7 12.7 3.6 -0.5 -54.2 0.0 0.0 -33.1 -10.6 -10.6 
Luxembourg 0.0 5.7 -22.2 15.6 8.6 0.0 0.0 -7.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Hungary 19.0 2.3 4.5 1.5 -1.4 1.4 11.5 -0.8 -19.0 -2.5 0.0 -16.0 0.0 -0.5 
Malta -2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.1 0.7 0.1 -1.7 2.1 0.0 0.0 -12.8 0.0 14.9 
Netherlands 3.0 6.5 -1.4 -3.6 -2.4 0.0 3.1 0.8 -3.0 0.0 0.2 -2.6 0.0 -0.6 
Austria -20.7 -11.2 -4.5 -0.6 -1.0 -2.1 -1.0 -0.4 20.7 0.0 21.1 0.0 0.0 -0.3 
Poland 67.1 3.5 26.8 0.8 5.8 3.4 24.5 2.1 -67.1 -49.5 0.0 -4.6 -0.3 -12.7 
Portugal -3.5 0.0 0.8 -1.2 -3.1 -0.8 0.8 0.0 3.5 0.0 4.3 -0.6 0.0 -0.3 
Romania 15.6 2.0 1.3 9.4 -0.4 0.0 -0.3 3.7 -15.6 21.7 0.0 -23.4 4.0 -18.0 
Slovenia 8.7 -8.0 22.9 -5.0 1.2 -0.5 -7.5 5.7 -8.7 0.6 0.0 -7.9 -0.9 -0.5 
Slovakia 21.1 9.5 3.7 1.0 5.2 0.8 0.7 0.1 -21.1 0.4 0.0 -21.4 0.0 0.0 
Finland -0.2 -2.0 -2.4 0.9 -0.4 1.0 0.5 2.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 -1.1 
Sweden -0.3 1.8 0.7 -0.5 -0.5 0.0 0.0 -1.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 
United 
Kingdom -4.8 4.4 -12.8 -0.6 -8.4 -2.0 0.2 14.3 4.8 -0.9 0.0 -0.1 5.6 0.1 
                                                 
139 Source: DG Competition, DG Energy and Transport 
 
EN 64   EN Table 2: Main set of rules adopted since the launch of the SAAP in 2005 
As outlined in the SAAP roadmap in 2005, the Commission has revised a large number of its 
guidelines, frameworks and communications. The following table shows the main legislative 
acts adopted to date. 
Legislative act Validity Full title and official text 
2009  
Communication 
on public 
service broadcasting From 
28.10.2009* Communication from the Commission on the application of State aid rules 
to public service broadcasting.  OJ C 257 of 27.10.2009, p. 1
; press release: 
IP/09/1072   
 
Guidelines on 
broadband 
networks From 
01.10.2009*  
Review  no later 
than 2012 Community Guidelines for the application of State aid rules in relation to 
rapid deployment of broadband networks. OJ C 235 of 30.09.2009, p. 7 ; 
press release: IP/09/1332 , MEMO/09/396  
 
Communication 
on aid for large 
regional investment 
projects From 
16.09.2009* Communication from the Commission con cerning the criteria for an in-
depth assessment of regional aid to large investment projects. OJ C 223 of 
16.09.2009, p. 3 ; press release: IP/09/993 ,  MEMO/09/292   
Best Practice 
code From 
01.09.2009* Code of Best Practice for the conduct  of State aid control procedures. OJ C 
136 of 16.06.2009, p. 13 ; press release: IP/09/659 , MEMO/09/208   
Notice on 
simplified 
procedure From 
01.09.2009*  
Review in 2013  Notice from the Commission on a si mplified procedure for treatment of 
certain types of State Aid.  OJ C 136 of 16.06.2009, p. 3 ; press release: 
IP/09/659 , MEMO/09/208  
Communication 
on employment aid for 
disadvantaged 
and disabled workers From 
11.08.2009* Communication from the Commission — Criteria for the analysis of the 
compatibility of State aid for the employment of disadvantaged and disabled workers subject to individual notification. OJ C 188 of 
11.08.2009, p. 6 ; press release: IP/09/863 , MEMO/09/260  
Communication 
on training aid From 
11.08.2009* 
 Communication from the Commission — Criteria for the analysis of the 
compatibility of State aid for training subject to individual notification. OJ 
C 188 of 11.08.2009, p. 1 ; press release: IP/09/863 ; MEMO/09/260  
 
Prolongation of 
rescue and restructuring aid 
guidelines 09.07.2009 -  
09.10.2012   Commission Communication concerning the prolongation of the 
Community Guidelines on State aid for Rescuing and Restructuring Firms in Difficulty. OJ C 156, 9.7.2009, p. 3
 
Notice on 
enforcement by national courts From 
09.04.2009*  
Review in 2014 Commission notice on the enforcement of  State aid law by national courts. 
OJ C 85 of 09.04.2009, p. 1
; press release: IP/09/316 , Memo/09/82  
 
 
Cinema 
Communication 07.02.2009 – 
31.12.2012 
Extension of 
applying the 
current criteria until 31.12.2012 Communication from the Commission concerning the State aid assessment 
criteria of the Commission Communication on certain legal aspects relating to cinematographic and other audiovisual works (Cinema Communication) 
of 26 September 2001 . OJ C 31 of 07.02.2009, p. 1
; press release: 
IP/09/138 , Memo/09/33  
 
EN 65   EN 2008  
General block 
exemption 
regulation 29.08.2008 – 
31.12.2013 Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 on the 
application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty declaring certain categories 
of aid compatible with the common market. OJ L 214, 09.08.2008, p. 3 ; 
press release IP/08/1110  
Guarantee notice From 
20.06.2008* 
 Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC 
Treaty to State aid in th e form of guarantees. OJ C 155, 20.06.2008, p. 10 ; 
press release IP/08/764  
Amendment of 
procedural 
regulation From 
14.04.2008* Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending 
Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 
659/1999 laying down detailed rules for th e application of Article 93 of the 
EC Treaty. OJ L 82, 25.03.2008, p.1  
Environmental 
guidelines 02.04.2008 – 
31.12.2014 Community guidelines on state aid for environmental protection. OJ C 82, 
01.04.2008, p. 1 ; press release IP/08/80  
2007  
Communication 
on interest rates From 
01.07.2008* 
 Communication from the Commission on the revision of the method for 
setting the reference and discount rates. OJ C 14, 19.01.2008, p. 6 ; press 
release IP/07/1912  
Recovery Notice From 
15.11.2007* 
 Notice from the Commission – Toward s an effective implementation of 
Commission decisions ordering Member States to recover unlawful and 
incompatible State aid. OJ C 272, 15.11.2007, p. 4 ; press release 
IP/07/1609  
2006  
De minimis 
regulation 01.01.2007 – 
31.12.2013 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the 
application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis  aid. OJ L 379, 
28.12.2006, p. 5 , press release IP/06/1765  
RDI Framework 01.01.2007 – 
31.12.2013 Community Framework for State aid for Research and Development and 
Innovation. OJ C 323, 30.12.2006, p. 1 ; press release IP/06/1600  
Block 
exemption 
regulation for regional aid 21.11.2006 – 
31.12.2013 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 of 24 October 2006 on the 
application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to national regional 
investment aid. OJ L 302, 01.11.2006, p. 29
; press release IP/06/1453  
Risk capital 
guidelines 18.08.2006 – 
31.12.2013 Community guidelines on state aid to promote risk capital investments in 
small and medium-sized enterprises. OJ C 194, 18.08.2006, p. 2 ; press 
release IP/06/1015  
2005  
Regional aid 
guidelines From 
01.01.2007* Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013. OJ C 54, 4.03.2006, p. 
13; press release IP/05/1653  
Short-term 
export-credit 
insurance 01.01.2006 – 
31.12.2010 
 Communication of the Commission to  Member States amending the 
communication pursuant to Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty applying 
Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty to short-term export-credit insurance. OJ C 
325, 22.12.2005, p. 22   
SGEI Package From 
19.12.2005 (points (c), (d) 
and (e) of 
Article 4 and Article 6 from 
29.11.2006)* Commission Decision of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 
86(2) of the EC Treaty to State ai d in the form of public service 
compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation 
of services of general economic interest. OJ L 312, 29.11.2005, p. 67
; press 
release IP/05/937  
 29.11.2005 – Community framework for State aid in the form of public service 
 
EN 66   EN 29.11.2011 compensation 
OJ C 297, 29.11.2005, p. 4 ; press release IP/05/937  
 From 
19.12.2005* Commission Directive No 2005/81 of 28 November 2005 amending 
Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between 
Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency 
within certain undertakings. OJ L 312, 29.11.2005, p. 47 ; press release 
IP/05/937 ; cf. codified version of 16 November 2006, OJ L 318, 
17.11.2006, p. 17  
* No end of validity is specified in the text 
In addition to the legislative changes foreseen  in the SAAP, the Commission adopted also a 
set of temporary rules being a response to the crisis  in the financial se ctor and the real 
economy, the table below pres ents their overview.  
Legislative act Validity Full title and official text 
Financial sector  
Communication on 
restructuring aid in 
the financial sector 19.08.2009 – 
31.12.2010 Commission communication on the return to viability and the 
assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the 
current crisis under the State aid rules. OJ C 195 of 19.08.2009, 
p. 9; press release: IP/09/1180 , MEMO/09/350  
Communication on 
impaired assets From 25.02.2009* Communication from the Commission on the treatment of 
impaired assets in the Community banking sector. OJ C 72 of 
26.03.2009, p. 1 ; press release: IP/09/322 , MEMO/09/85  
Communication on 
the recapitalization of financial 
institutions From 15.01.2009* 
 Communication from the Commission — The recapitalisation of 
financial institutions in the current financial crisis: limitation of aid to the minimum necessary and safeguards against undue 
distortions of competition. OJ C 10 of 15.01.2009, p. 2
; press 
release: IP/08/1901  
Communication on 
application state aid 
rules to the financial 
sector From 25.10.2008* 
 Communication from the Commission — The application of 
State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial 
institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis.  OJ 
C 270 of 25.10.2008, p. 8 ; press release: IP/08/1495  
Real economy    
Temporary 
Framework 28.10.2009 – 
31.12.2010 Communication from the Commission amending the Temporary 
Community Framework for State aid measures to support access 
to finance in the current financial and economic crisis (limited amounts of aid for farmers) OJ C 261 of 31.10.2009, p. 2
 
 25.02.2009 – 
31.12.2010 Communication from the Commission amending the Temporary 
Community Framework for State aid measures to support access 
to finance in the current financial and economic crisis ).   OJ C 83 
of 07.04.2009, p. 1  (consolidated version of the Temporary 
Framework adopted on 17 December 2008, as amended on 25 
February 2009). 
 17.12.2008 – 
31.12.2010 
 Communication from the commission - Temporary Community 
framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in 
the current financial and economic crisis.   OJ C 16 of 
22.01.2009, p. 1 ; press release: IP/08/1993 , MEMO/08/795 ;  
* No end of validity is specified in the text 
 
EN 67   EN  
Table 3-1: Overview of measures reviewe d by the Commission under the Temporary 
Framework until 9 November 2009  
Member State EUR 
500.000 per 
under-
taking Guarantee Reduced-
interest rate 
loans Reduced-
interest rate 
loans for green 
products Risk capital 
aid Simplification of 
requirements of 
the Export Credit 
Communication 
Germany N668/2008  
30/12/2008  
 
N299/2009
140 
04/06/2009 
N411/2009
141  
17.07.2009 N27/2009  
27/02/2009 N661/2008  
30/12/2008 
N38/2009  
19/02/2009 N426/2009  
04.08.2009 N39/2009  
3/02/2009  
 
N384/2009  
05.08.2009 
 
France N7/2009  
19/01/2009 N23/2009  
27/02/2009 N15/2009  
04/02/2009 N11/2009  
03/02/2009 N119/2009  
16/03/2009 
N36/2009   
30/06/2009 N 449/2009  
 05/10/2009 
Italy N248/2009   
28/052009 N266/2009  
28/05/2009 N268/2009  
29/052009 N 542/2009  
 26/10/2009 N279/2009  
20/052009  
United 
Kingdom N43/2009  
04/02/2009 N71/2009  
27/02/2009 N257/2009  
15/05/2009 
N460/2009142 
14.08.2009 N72/2009  
27/02/2009   
Hungary N77/2009  
24/02/2009 N114/2009  
10/03/2009 
N203/2009  
24/04/2009 
N341/2009   
01.07.2009 N78/2009  
24/02/2009    
Greece N304/2009   
15.07.2009 N308/2009  
03/06/2009 N309/2009   
03/06/2009    
Luxembourg N99/2009  
27/02/2009 N128/2009  
11/03/2009    N50/2009  
20/04/2009 
Finland N224/2009  
03/06/2009 N82b/2009  
09/06/2009    N258/2009  
22/062009 
Czech 
Republic N236/2009   
07/05/2009 N237/2009   
06/05/2009     
                                                 
140 Amendment to the scheme N 668/2008 
141 Second amendment to the scheme N 668/2008 
142 Amendment to the scheme N 257/2009 
 
EN 68   EN Member State EUR 
500.000 per 
under-
taking Guarantee Reduced-
interest rate 
loans Reduced-
interest rate 
loans for green 
products Risk capital 
aid Simplification of 
requirements of 
the Export Credit 
Communication 
Spain N307/2009  
08/06/2009   N140/2009  
30/03/2009 
   
Latvia N124/2009  
19/03/2009 N139/2009  
22/04/2009     
Austria N47a/2009  
20/03/2009 
N317/2009
143 
18/06/2009    N47d/2009  
26/03/2009  
Slovenia N228/2009  
12/06/2009 NN34/2009  
12/06/2009     
Belgium  N117/2009  
20/03/2009    N 532/2009  
06/11/2009  
Denmark      N198/2009  
06/05/2009 
   N 554/2009  144 
29/10/2009 
Estonia N387/2009  
13.07.2009      
Ireland N186/2009  
15/04/2009      
Lithuania N272/2009  
08/06/2009      
Malta N118/2009   
18/05/2009      
Netherlands N156/2009   
01/04/2009     N 409/2009   
02/10/2009 
Poland N408/2009  
17.08.2009      
Portugal N13/2009  
19/01/2009      
Romania  N286/2009  
05/06/2009     
Slovakia N222/2009   
30/04/2009      
                                                 
143 Amendment to the scheme N47a/2009 
144 Amendment to the scheme N198/2009 
 
EN 69   EN Member State EUR 
500.000 per 
under-
taking Guarantee Reduced-
interest rate 
loans Reduced-
interest rate 
loans for green 
products Risk capital 
aid Simplification of 
requirements of 
the Export Credit 
Communication 
Sweden  N80/2009  
05/06/2009     
 
 
EN 70   EN  
Table 4-1: Trend in the number of recovery decisions and amounts to be recovered (1) 
2000- 2009 (by 30 June 2009) 
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20082009      
(as of 30 
June)
N u m b e r  o f  d e c i s i o n s  a d o p t e d 1 62 02 31 02 41 2 6 91 3 3 1 3 6
Total aid known to be recovered 
(in mio €)239 1268 1272.8 1027.95 5040.89 54.35 255.42 275.81 912.77 1.4 10348.39
Amounts recovered: (in mio €)   
Of which:217.7 1274.8 1561.6 1258.67 6388.96 28.98 295.1 64.8 691.29 0 11781.9
(a) Principal reimbursed/or 
in blocked account16.7 1069.2 1094.7 902.31 4160.57 20.46 199.41 49.19 618.38 0 8130.92
( b )  A i d  l o s t  i n  b a n k r u p t c y 2 0 1 7 6 . 3 6 3 . 3 2 1 . 2 5 8 7 1 . 0 90 4 5000 1 2 7 7 . 9 4
(c) Interest 129.3 403.6 335.11 1357.3 8.52 50.69 15.61 72.91 0 2373.04
Aid registered in bankruptcy 15.6 16.9 0 127.82 0 7.5 0 8.12 0 0 175.94
Amount outstanding (2) 21.3 122.5 114.8 104.39 9.23 33.89 11.01 226.62 294.39 1.4 939.53
% still pending to be 
recovered (2)8.9% 9.7% 9.0% 10.2% 0.2% 62.4% 4.3% 82.2% 32.3% 100% 9.1%
Source: DG Competition.
Notes: (1) Only for decisions for which the aid amount is known.
             (2) Total aid known to be recovered less principal reimbursed and aid lost in bankruptcy.  Amount excluding intere st.Date of Decision
Total
 
 
Table 4-2: Recovery in the fisheries sector 
Cases in France 
2 in 2004 - amounts unknown not recove red yet (C 76/2001 et C 91/2001) 
1 in 2008 - € 87 millions to be  recovered in 2009 (C 9/2006) 
Cases in the United Kingdom 
- £ 132 000 to be recovered in 2009 (C 39/2006)  - £ 29 000 covered by de minimis  aids (C 37/2006) 
- £ 100 000 recovered in 2008 (C 38/2006) 
 
 
EN 71   EN Table 4-3: Pending recovery decisions (by 30 June 2009) 
Case 
number Working title of the case Member 
State Date of the 
decision Number of 
the decision Official Journal of the 
European Union 
CR 47/2005  Aid to ELVO (Hellenic Vehicle 
Industry, S.A.) Greece 24/03/2009  Not yet published 
CR 5/2000  Alleged aid for SNIACE  Spain 10/03/2009  Not yet published 
CR 55/2007  BT Group plc UK 11/02/2009  Not yet published 
CR 19/2005  Restructuring aid for Szczecin 
Shipyard  Poland 06/11/2008  Not yet published 
CR 17/2005  Restructuring aid for Gdynia 
shipyard  Poland 06/11/2008  Not yet published 
CR 48/2006  DHL Leipzig Halle Germany 23/07/2008 2008/948/EC 
 OJ L 346 of 23.12.2008, p. 1 
CR 1/2004  Regional law nr 9/98 Italy 02/07/2008 2008/854/EC 
 OJ L 302 of 13.11.2008, p. 9 
CR 16/2004  Hellenic Shipyard Greece 02/07/2008  Not yet published 
CR 41/2005  Hungarian Stranded Cost Hungary 04/06/2008  Not yet published 
CR 56/2006  Bank Burgenland Austria 30/04/2008 2008/719/EC 
 OJ L 239 of 06.09.2008, p. 32 
CR 13/2007  Rescue aid to New Interline Italy 16/04/2008  Not yet published 
CR 38/2007  Alleged aid to Arbel Fauvet Rail SA France 02/04/2008 2008/716/EC 
 OJ L 238 of 05.09.2008, p. 27 
CR 36a / 
2006  Terni Companies Italy 20/11/2007 2008/408/EC OJ L 144 of 4.6.2008, p. 37 
CR 23/2006  Technologie Buczek Poland 24/10/2007 2008/344/EC OJ L 116 of 30.4.2008, p. 26  
CR 37/2005  Tax-exempt reserve fund for certain 
companies Greece 18/07/2007 2008/723/EC OJ L 244 of 12/09/2008, p. 11 
CR 16/2006  Restructuring aid to Nuova Mineraria 
Silius  Italy 21/02/2007 2007/499/EC OJ L 185 of 17/07/2007, p. 18 
CR 79/2001  Exemption from excise duty for the 
production of alumina in Gardanne France 07/02/2007 2007/375/EC OJ L 147 of 8/06/2007, p. 29 
CR 78/2001  Exemption from excise duty for the 
production of alumina in Shannon Ireland 07/02/2007 2007/375/EC OJ L 147 of 8/06/2007, p. 29 
CR 80/2001  Exemption from excise duty for the 
production of alumina in Sardinia Italy 07/02/2007 2007/375/EC OJ L 147 of 8/06/2007, p. 29 
CR 38/2005  Biria Gruppe Germany 24/01/2007 2007/492/ EC OJ L 183 of 13/07/2007, p. 27 
CR 52/2005  Digital Decoders - Italy  Italy 24/01/ 2007 2007/374/EC OJ L 147 of 8/06/2007, p. 1 
 
EN 72   EN Case 
number Working title of the case Member 
State Date of the 
decision Number of 
the decision Official Journal of the 
European Union 
CR 30/2005  Restructuring aid to Kliq NV Netherland
s 19/07/2006 2006/939/EC OJ L 366 of 21/12/2006, p. 40 
CR 2/2004  Ad hoc financing of Dutch public 
broadcasters Netherland
s 22/06/2006 2008/136/EC OJ L 49 of 22/272008, p.1 
CR 25/2005  Measures in favour of Frucona 
Kosice Slovakia 07/06/2006 2007/254/EC OJ L 112 of 30/04/2007, p. 14 
CR 37/2004  Aid to Componenta Corporation  Finland 20/10/2005 2006/900/EC OJ L 353 of 13/12/2006, p. 36 
CR 8/2004  Fiscal incentives for newly listed 
companies Italy 16/03/2005 2006/261/EC OJ L 094 of 1/04/2006, p. 42 
CR 43/2001  Aid to Chemische Werke Piesteritz 
GmbH Germany 02/03/2005 2005/786/EC OJ L 296 of 12/11/2005, p. 19 
CR 12/2004  Fiscal incentives for outward FDI Italy 14/12/2004 2005/919/EC OJ L 335 of 21/12/2005, p. 39 
CR 57/2003  Tremonti bis Italy 20/10/2004 2005/315/EC OJ L 100 of 20/04/2005, p. 46 
CR 13b/2003  France Telecom - Taxe 
professionnelle France 02/08/2004 2005/709/EC OJ L 269 of 14/10/2005, p. 30 
CR 95/2001  Aid to Siderurgica Anon Spain 16/06/2004 2005/827/EC OJ L 311 of 26/11/2005, p. 22 
CR 62/2003  Urgent measures in support of 
employment Italy 30/03/2004 2004/800/EC OJ L 352 of 27/11/2004, p. 10 
CR 57/2002  Article 44 septies CGI France 16/12/ 2003 2004/343/EC OJ L 108 of 16/04/2004, p. 38 
CR 39/2001  Aid to Minas Rio Tinto sal Spain 27/05/ 2003 2004/300/EC OJ L 098 of 2/04/2004, p. 49 
CR 62/2000  Aid to Kahla (Porzellan GmbH) Germany 13/05/2003 2003/643/EC OJ L 227 of 11/09/2003, p. 12 
CR 94/2001  Export aid scheme Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern Germany 05/03/2003 2003/595/EC OJ L 202 of 9/08/2003, p. 15 
CR 70/2001  Aid to Hilados y Tejidos Puigneró 
S.A. Spain 19/02/2003 2003/876/EC OJ L 337 of 23/12/2003, p. 14 
CR 35/2002  Fiscal aid scheme – Açores Portugal 11/12/2002 2003/442/EC OJ L 150 of 18/06/2003, p. 52 
CR 27/1999  Aid to Municipa lizzate Italy 05/06/2002 2003/193/EC OJ L 077 of 24/03/2003, p. 21 
CR 44/2000  Aid to SKL Motoren- und 
Systemtechnik GmbH Germany 09/04/2002 2002/898/EC OJ L 314 of 18/11/2002, p. 75 
CR 60/2000  Fiscal aid - Province of Vizcaya (III) Spai n 20/12/2001 2003/86/EC OJ L 040 of 14/02/2003, p. 11 
CR 58/2000  Fiscal aid - Province of Alava (III) Spai n 20/12/2001 2003/28/EC OJ L 017 of 22/01/2003, p. 20 
CR 59/2000  Fiscal aid - Province of Guipuzcoa 
(III) Spain 20/12/2001 2003/192/EC OJ L 077 of 24/03/2003, p. 1 
CR 53/1999  Fiscal aid - Province of Guizpuzcoa 
(II) Spain 11/07/2001 2002/894/EC OJ L 314 of 18/11/2002, p. 26 
 
EN 73   EN Case 
number Working title of the case Member 
State Date of the 
decision Number of 
the decision Official Journal of the 
European Union 
CR 54/1999  Fiscal aid - Province of Vizcaya (II) Spai n 11/07/2001 2003/27/EC OJ L 017 of 22/01/2003, p. 1 
CR 52/1999  Fiscal aid - Province of Vizcaya (I) Spai n 11/07/2001 2002/806/EC OJ L 279 of 17/10/2002, p. 35 
C 50/1999  Fiscal aid - Province of Guipuzcoa 
(I) Spain 11/07/2001 2002/540/EC OJ L 174 of 4/07/2002, p. 31 
CR 48/1999  Fiscal aid - Province of Alava (I) Spai n 11/07/2001 2002/820/EC OJ L 296 of 30/10/2002, p. 1 
CR 49/1999  Fiscal aid - Province of Alava (II) Spai n 11/07/2001 2002/892/EC OJ L 314 of 18/11/2002, p. 1 
CR 41/1999  Aid to Lintra beteiligungsholding 
Gmbh Germany 28/03/2001 2001/673/EC OJ L 236 of 5/09/2001, p. 3 
CR 38/1998  Aid for Kimberly Clark/Scott Group France 12/07/2000 2002/14/EC OJ L 012 of 15/01/2002, p. 1 
CR 10/1999 Salzgitter Ag Germany 28/06/2000 2000/797/EC
SC OJ L 323 of 20/12/2000, p.5 
CR 81/1997  Social security reductions - Venezia 
et Chioggia Italy 25/11/1999 2000/394/EC OJ L 150 of 23/06/2000, p. 50 
CR 49/1998  Employment aid measures (Loi Nr 
196/97) Italy 11/05/1999 2000/128/EC OJ L 042 of 15/02/2000, p. 1 
CR 44/1997 Aid for Magefesa Spain 14/10/1998 1999/509/EC OJ L 198 of 30/07/1999, p. 15 
CR 18/1996 Borotra aid scheme France 09/04/1997 1997/811/EC OJ L 334 of 5/12/1997, p. 25 
CR 28/1994 Aid for Hamburger Stahlwerke 
GmbH Germany 31/10/1995 1996/236/EC OJ L 078 of 28/03/1996, p. 31 
 
 
 
EN 74   EN  
Table 4-4: Pending recovery cases where the Commission has decided to bring the case 
before the Court of Justice and where illeg al and incompatible aid has not yet 
been recovered (30 June 2009) 
Case 
number Working title Member 
State Court case State of play and recent developments 
CR 38/1998   Aid for Kimberly Clark/Scott Group France C-232/05  05/10/06: art. 88.2 action - Judgment ECJ - ECJ 
rules that France has failed to fulfill its Treaty 
obligation 
29/03/07: art. 225 ECT - Judgment CFI - 
Annulment of COM decision for the part of the 
aid 
related to the sale of land 
11/12/08: art. 225 ECT - Judgment ECJ – ECJ 
annuls the CFI judgment of 29/03/2007 and 
sends the case back to the CFI. One appeal still 
pending. 
CR 13b/2003  France Telecom – Business Tax 
Scheme France C-441/06  19/07/06: Commission decision to initiate Art. 
88(2) action against France 
18/10/07: ECJ judgment condemning France for 
failing to execute CEC decision  
Press release: IP/06/1014  
30/06/08: aid amount+ interest have been paid 
into a blocked account. 
CR 57/2002  Exonérations fiscales  en faveur de la 
reprise d'entreprises en difficulté - 
Article 44 septies CGI France  C-214/07  24/10/06: Commission decision to initiate Art. 
88(2) action against France  
Press release: IP/06/1471  
13/11/08: art. 88.2 action - Judgment ECJ - 
France condemned for non implementation of 
the decision 
CR 62/2000  Thuringen Porzellan (Kahla) Germany C-39/06  16/02/05: Commission decision to initiate Art. 
88(2) action against Germany 
24/01/06: Application lodged at the ECJ 
pursuant to Art. 88(2) 
Press release: IP/05/189  
19/06/2008: ECJ judgment condemning DE for 
failing to implement CEC decision 
CR 49/1998   Employment aid measures (Loi Nr 
196/97) Italy C-99/02  01/04/04: ECJ judgment condemning Italy for 
failing to implement CEC decision  
19/07/07: Commission sent letter of formal 
notice to Italy 
21/01/08:Commission deci sion to send a 
Reasoned Opinion to Italy 
25/06/2009: Commission decision to initiate 
228.2 Action against Italy 
Press release: IP/09/1028  
 
EN 75   EN Case 
number Working title Member 
State Court case State of play and recent developments 
CR 27/1999   Aid to Municipalizzate Italy C-207/05  01/06/06: ECJ judgment condemning Italy for 
failing to execute CEC decision 
19/07/07: Commission sent a letter of formal 
notice to Italy 
21/01/08: Commission decision to send a 
Reasoned Opinion to Italy 
CR 62/2003  Urgent employment  measures Italy C-280/05  06/04/05: Commission decision to initiate Art. 
88(2) action against Italy 
11/07/05: Application lodged at the ECJ 
pursuant to Article 88(2) 
06/12/07: ECJ judgment condemning Italy for 
failing to execute CEC decision 
Press release: IP/05/395  
CR 57/2003  Tremonti Bis Italy  C-303/09  25/01/06: Commission decision to initiate Art. 
88(2) action against Italy  
Press release: IP/06/77  
11/03/08: Commission decision to initiate Art. 
88(2) action against Italy 
CR 8/2004  Fiscal incentives for newly listed 
companies Italy  C-304/09  19/07/06: Commission decision to initiate Art. 
88(2) action against Italy  
Press release: IP/06/1040  
11/03/08: Commission decision to initiate Art. 
88(2) action against Italy 
Press release: IP/08/435  
CR 81/1997  Social security reductions – Venezia 
e Chioggia Italy C-302/09  10/05/07: Commission decision to initiate Art. 
88(2) action against Italy  
Press release: IP/07/648  
11/03/08: Commission decision to initiate Art. 
88(2) action against Italy 
CR 16/2006  Restructuring aid to Nuova 
Mineraria Silius 
 Italy  13/02/08: Commission d ecision to initiate art. 
88.2 proceedings against Italy 
CR 12/2004  Fiscal incentives for outward FDI Italy C-305/09  11/03/08: Commission decision to initiate Art. 
88(2) action against Italy 
Press release: IP/08/435   
 
CR 23/2006  Technologie Buczek Poland  11/03/08: Commission decision to initiate Art. 
88(2) action against Poland 
Press release: IP/09/777  
 
CR 25/2005  
 Measures in favour of Frucona 
Kosice Slovakia C-507/08  17/06/08: Commission decision to initiate art. 
88.2 proceedings against Slovalia 
 
EN 76   EN Case 
number Working title Member 
State Court case State of play and recent developments 
Press release: IP/08/952  
 
CR 44/1997 Aid to Magefesa Spain C-499/99  02/07/02: ECJ judgment condemning Spain for 
failing to implement CEC decision 
CR 48/1999  
CR 49/1999  
CR 50/1999  
CR 52/1999  
CR 53/1999  
CR 54/1999  Fiscal aid – Province of Alava (I)  
Fiscal aid - Province of Alava (II) 
Fiscal aid – Province of Guipuzcoa 
(I) 
Fiscal aid – Province of Vizcaya (I) 
Fiscal aid - Province of Guizpuzcoa 
(II) 
Fiscal aid - Province of Vizcaya (II)  
(Basque fiscal aid schemes) Spain C-485/03 , 
C-486/03 , 
C 487/03 , 
C-488/03 , 
C-489/03 , 
C-490/03  14/12/06: ECJ judgment condemning Spain for 
failing to implement CEC decision 
11/07/07: Commission sent letter of formal 
notice to Spain 
26/06/08: Commission decision to send a 
Reasoned Opinion to Spain 
CR 58/2000  
CR 59/2000  
CR 60/2000  Fiscal aid - Province of Alava (III) 
Fiscal aid - Province of Guipuzcao 
(III) 
Fiscal aid - Province of Vizcaya (III) 
(Basque fiscal aid schemes) Spain  C-177/06  21/12/05: Commission decision to initiate Art. 
88(2) action against Spain 
04/04/06: Application lodged at the ECJ 
pursuant to Article 88(2) 
20/09/07: ECJ judgment condemning Spain for 
failing to execute CEC decision 
Press release: IP/05/1655  
 
 
EN 77   EN  
Table 5: Summary of rules for the transport sector 
Land transport (road, rail, inland waterways)  
- Article 73 of the EC Treaty contains rules for the comp atibility of State aid in the area of coordination of 
transport and public service obligation in transport. The Commission considers in its constant practice that 
Article 73 constitutes lex specialis with respect to Article 87(2) and Article 87(3), as it contains special rules 
for the compatibility of State aid. In addition, Article 73 of the EC Treaty constitutes a lex specialis also with 
respect to Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty, and therefor e, Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty cannot be applied in 
the area of coordination of transport and public  service obligation in the inland transport sector145. 
 
- Until 2 December 2009, Article 73 is in practice implem ented by means of three Council Regulations which 
have been adopted under it - Council Regulations 1191/69146, 1107/70147 and 1192/69148. Regulation 
1370/07149 will replace Regulations 1191/69 an d 1107/70 as from 3 December 2009. 
 
- In addition, the Commission adopted on 30 April 2008 the Community guidelines on State aid for railway 
undertakings150. 
Aviation   
- Communication on the Application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA 
agreement to State aids in the aviation sector151.  
 
- Community guidelines on financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines departing from regional airports152. 
Maritime transport   
- Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport153.  
 
- Communication from the Commission providing guidance on State aid complementary to Community 
funding for the launching of the motorways of the sea154. 
 
- Communication from the Commission providing guidance on State aid to ship management companies155. 
 
 
                                                 
145 See recital 17 of the Commission decisi on of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC 
Treaty to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with 
the operation of services of general economic interest (OJ L 312, 29.11.2005, pages 67 - 73). 
146 Regulation (EEC) No. 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the 
obligations inherent in the concept of a public servi ce in transport by rail, road  and inland waterway, as 
amended 
147 Regulation (EEC) No. 1107/70 of the Council of 4 June 1970 on the granting of aid for transport by rail, road 
and inland waterway, as amended. 
148 Regulation (EEC) No. 1192/69 on common rules for the no rmalisation of accounts of railway undertakings is 
particularly important from a State aid monitoring perspective as it exempts from the notification procedure a 
number of different compensations from public authorities to railway undertakings, as amended. 
149 Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public 
passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 
1107/70 (OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 1–13). 
150 OJ C 184, 22.7.2008, p.13 
151 OJ C 350, 10.12.1994, p.5 
152 OJ C 312, 9.12.2005, p.1 
153 OJ C 13, 17.1.2004, p.3 
154 OJ C 317, 12.12.2008, p.10 
155 OJ C 132, 11.6.2009, p.6