EN    EN EN 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 1.12.2010 
SEC(2010) 1462 final 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
  
Facts and figures on State aid in the Member States  
  
Accompanying the 
 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
State Aid Scoreboard 
 
- Autumn 2010 Update - 
   
{COM(2010) 701 final}  
EN 2   EN Table of contents 
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ... 5 
State aid in the context of the economic crisis ........................................................................... 5 Scope and content.............................................................................................................. ......... 6 
State aid as defined unde r Article 107 TFEU ............................................................................ 7 
1. State aid in 2009 in absolute and relative terms........................................................... 8 1.1. Total State aid and State ai d per sector as % of GDP .................................................. 8 
1.2. Impact of crisis measures on total State aid................................................................. 9 1.3. Total State aid and State ai d per sector as % of GDP (c risis measures excluded)..... 10 
1.4. Broad sectoral distribution of aid (w ith and without crisis measures)....................... 13 
2. Trends and patterns of state aid e xpenditure in the Member States........................... 14 
2.1. Levels of State aid to industry and services............................................................... 14 2.2. State aid for horizontal obj ectives of common interest.............................................. 18 
2.2.1. Horizontal versus se ctoral aid in 2009....................................................................... 19 
2.2.2. State aid to horizontal objectives ............................................................................... 20 2.2.3. Trend in State aid for horizontal ob jectives and sectoral objectives.......................... 25 
2.2.4. State aid for research and development and innovation............................................. 27 
2.2.5. State aid for SMEs including risk capital................................................................... 29 2.2.6. State aid for environmental protection....................................................................... 30 2.2.7. State aid supporting regional development and cohesion.......................................... 31 
2.3. State aid earmarked for specific sectors..................................................................... 32 2.3.1. State aid for rescue and rest ructuring firms in difficulty ........................................... 32 
2.3.2. State aid to the shipbuilding sector ............................................................................ 33 2.3.3. State aid to the steel sector......................................................................................... 33  
2.3.4. State aid to the coal sector.......................................................................................... 33  
2.3.5. State aid to the transport sector .................................................................................. 34 2.3.6. State aid to the agricultural sector.............................................................................. 37 2.3.7. State aid to the fisheries sector................................................................................... 38 
2.4. State aid instruments .................................................................................................. 38 2.4.1. State aid instruments and aid volumes in 2009.......................................................... 39 2.4.2. Trend in the use of aid instrume nts (crisis measures excluded)................................. 40 
3. State aid in the context of th e financial and economic crisis ..................................... 42 
3.1. General background ................................................................................................... 42 3.2. Commission's response to the financial crisis in the field of State aid ...................... 43 
3.2.1. Trends in the financ ial sector 2009 - 2010................................................................. 44 
EN 3   EN 3.2.2. The main highlights 2010........................................................................................... 45 
3.3. General trends in State aid granted to the financial sector in 2009............................ 47 
3.3.1. Guarantees on bank debt ............................................................................................ 50 3.3.2. Recapitalisation measures .......................................................................................... 52 3.3.3. Impaired assets......................................................................................................... .. 53 
3.3.4. Liquidity interventions other than guarantees............................................................ 54 3.3.5. Restructuring........................................................................................................... ... 55 
3.4. Aid granted under the Te mporary Framework........................................................... 55 
3.4.1. Context and purpose of the Temporary Framework .................................................. 55 3.4.2. Measures approved under the Temporary Framework .............................................. 56 3.4.3. Aid granted in 2009.................................................................................................... 5 7 
3.4.4. Special reference to the car sector.............................................................................. 58 4. Simplification of the State aid rules........................................................................... 59 4.1. A new architecture for State aid control .................................................................... 59 4.2. Types of aid measures used by Member States ......................................................... 60 5. Enforcement the state aid rules .................................................................................. 63 5.1. Unlawful aid.............................................................................................................. . 63 
5.2. Recovery of unlawful aid........................................................................................... 64 5.3. Enforcement of State aid Law: Cooperation with national courts ............................. 66 
5.4. Ex-post monitoring..................................................................................................... 67 Methodological Notes ........................................................................................................... ... 68 
Annex: Statistical tables...................................................................................................... ..... 71 
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; 2009)................................................................................................................ 71 
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; 2009)................................................................................................ 72 
Table 1-3: State aid for primary objectives and se ctoral aid as % of tota l aid (crisis measures 
excluded); 2009.......................................................................................................... 73 
Table 1-4: Trend in share of primary object ives in total aid be tween 2004 - 2006 and 2007 - 
2009 as percentage point differen ce (crisis measures excluded) ............................... 74 
Table 2: Main set of rules adopted si nce the launch of the SAAP in 2005.............................. 75 
Table 3-1:  Overview of measures revi ewed by the Commission under the Temporary 
Framework (until 1 October 2010) ............................................................................ 79 
Table 4-1: Trend in the number  of recovery decisions and am ounts to be recovered (1) 2000-
2010 (by 30 June 2010).............................................................................................. 83 
Table 4-2: Recovery in the fisheries sector.............................................................................. 83 
EN 4   EN Table 4-3: Pending recovery decisions (by 30 June 2010) ...................................................... 84 
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 2010)........................................................................................... 88 
Table 5: Summary of rules for the transport sector.................................................................. 92 
 
EN 5   EN  
INTRODUCTION 
 State aid in the context of the economic crisis  
Until the financial crisis, the EU was experiencing steady economic growth and GDP 
increased on average by roughly 1.5% per annu m. Between 2002 and 2007, the level of State 
aid to industry and services, expressed as a percentage of  GDP, decreased on average by 
around 2% per year and stood at slightly below 0.5% in 2007. Me mber States continued their 
effort to reduce budget deficits reaching lower levels than at the beginning of the millennium. 
The rate of unemployment fell in line with the positive economic trend and stood at approximately 7% EU-wide in 2008. 
The financial crisis brought GDP growth, low le vels of State aid expenditure and decreasing 
budget deficits to an abrupt e nd. Economic activity contracted  in the second half of 2008 
leading to a fall in GDP of approximately 1.4% in 2008. It declined further by almost 4% in 
2009. It only began to stabilise in  the third quarter of  2009, mainly due to the reaction of the 
Commission and Member States to  the financial crisis through exceptional stimulus packages. 
Budget deficits have increased substantially albeit with significant  variations between 
Member States. As can be expe cted, State aid expenditure has also risen since most Member 
States have given support to their economies to stab ilise the financial sector. 
After the break-down of the inter-bank lending  in September 2008, Member States injected 
substantial amounts of aid into th e banking sector in order to pr event the collapse of banks in 
the EU and with the aim of countering the sy stemic risk which many banks posed to the 
functioning of the financial markets.  It is this kind of aid which still contributed mostly to the 
significant amount of State aid expenditure in 2009. 
A stable banking system is key to provide th e economy with liquidity, mainly in form of 
credit. This is essential for business operations but is particularly important for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises ("SME") with a view to ensuring new investments, especially in 
the technologies needed to achieve European  objectives. Improving th e business environment 
notably for SMEs and the development of a strong and sustainable industrial base able to compete globally is indeed one  of the flagship initiatives under the Commission's Europe 
2020 Strategy
1  to achieve smart, sustainable and in clusive growth.  Support measures to the 
financial sector and aid to the real economy were put in place by Member States to ease 
business's financing constraints. The massive injections of aid wh ich contributed to stabilising 
the banking sector should eventually reap futu re dividends in the form of maintaining jobs 
and creating new ones and ensuring that many enterprises are able to stay in business because 
of continued access to finance (though this is admittedly more difficult than in previous 
years).  
Needless to say, State aid expenditure has to retu rn to pre-crisis levels over the coming years 
and budget deficits will al so have to decrease. A real challenge for Member  States will be the 
sharp rise in unemployment over the next few years. Only by returning to economic growth, 
can public spending be reduced over time. Curre nt State aid contribu tes to stabilising the 
economy in order to boost return  to growth. By gradually en ding crisis-induced state support 
over the coming years, the path of economic grow th will not be jeopardised by a sudden lack 
                                                 
1    Communication from the Commission "Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive 
growth" of 3 March 2010; COM (2010) 2020.  
EN 6   EN of resources and a smooth transition towards sustainable growth will be ensured. Read 
Chapter 3 for more detail. 
  Scope and content 
This autumn 2010 update of th e State aid Commission Sta ff Working Document ("the 
Scoreboard")2 focuses on the State aid situation in  the 27 Member States for the year 2009. 
The Staff Working Document (ava ilable in English only)  is an annex to th e Report adopted by 
the College of Commissioners on the State Ai d Scoreboard. While the Commission Report 
outlines the principal developments as regards State aid expenditure, this staff working document gives detail on the underlying facts and trends. 
The Scoreboard is the European Commission's inst rument to monitor State aid expenditure in 
the Member States. In recent years, the Scor eboard also made reference to the Lisbon 
objectives by which to assess Member States' progress towards meeting successive European 
Councils' call for “less and better targeted aid”. In future, th e Scoreboard will continue 
monitoring aid expenditure with reference to the main goals of the recently introduced Europe 
2020 strategy
3.  
When starting to analyse State aid expenditure  in 2009, a high aid volume was still expected 
due to aid in response to the financial and ec onomic crisis. Many Member States continued to 
grant substantial aid to the financ ial sector, be it in the form of  rescue and restructuring aid or 
aid directed to remedy a serious  disturbance of the economy, but they also made use of the 
Temporary framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current 
financial and economic crisis4 ("Temporary Framework"). By pr esenting State aid expenditure 
including the aid volumes granted to crisis-related  measures, i.e. financial crisis and aid to the 
real economy ("crisis measures")5, the report would probably draw the wrong conclusions 
since high aid volumes related to crisis meas ures distort the overall picture on State aid. 
Where appropriate the report henceforth iden tifies State aid volumes excluding crisis 
measures, thereby being able to focus on the esse ntial developments, as if there were no crisis 
measures. Crisis measures will be reported on separately and will use a different reference 
period in order to provide a full picture of crisis-induced aid. 
This update of the Scoreboard also reports on progress towards delivering a comprehensive 
and coherent reform package for State aid that began w ith the State Aid Action Plan6 
("SAAP") in 2005. 
The Scoreboard comprises five chapters. Key st atistical information on State aid awarded by 
each Member State in 2009 is included in Chapte rs 1 and 2, where detailed data show the 
trend of State aid expenditure. Chapter 3 pr ovides an update of the spring 2010 Scoreboard7 
                                                 
2  Any reference to the Scoreboard in this text refers to this document (the Commission's staff working 
document).  
3  Europe 2020 – A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; 
http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/index_en.htm .    
4  Communication from the Commission – Temporary Framework, OJ C 83, 7.4.2009, p. 1; Modification 
of the Temporary Framework – to allow separate limited amount of aid to farmers, OJ C 261, 31.10.2009, p. 1; 2
nd Modification of the Temporary Framework – technical modification to further 
facilitate access to finance and encourage long-ter m investment, OJ C 303, 15.12.2009, p. 6.   
5  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 or adopted under the Temporary 
Framework. Measures responding to the financial crisis but which were approved prior to the adoption of these specific State aid rules also count as cr isis measures. For more details see chapter 3. 
6 COM(2005) 107 final, 7.6.2005. 
7    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Le xUriServ.do?uri=C ELEX:52010DC0255:EN:NOT .   
EN 7   EN with respect to State aid cases de aling with the financial crisis. It  also provides, to the extent 
possible, an outlook for the future, based on th e latest developments. Furthermore, this 
chapter 3 contains for the first time the aid expenditure which Member States granted under 
Temporary Framework. Chapter 4 provides an over view on the simplification of State aid rules 
that have been put into place since the SAAP in 2 005. In particular, it prov ides for an 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 unlaw ful aid. Finally, tables in the annexes show 
key figures concerning State aid expenditure, the follow-up  on the SAAP and the case lists 
relating to the financ ial and economic crisis and on recovery. 
The Directorate-General for Competition publishes this Sc oreboard on its website
8, 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 scoreboard9 on the volume of 
State aid granted in Icela nd, Liechtenstein and Norway. 
 State aid as define d under Article 107 TFEU10 
The Scoreboard covers St ate aid as defined under Article 107(1)  TFEU (ex Article 87(1)  of 
the EC Treaty) that Member St ates granted up to the end of 2009. All State aid data refer to 
the implementation of Commission decision s but exclude cases which are still under 
examination. General measures implemented by Member States do not constitute State aid as defined by Article 107(1) TFEU.  
The economic advantage passed onto undertaki ngs through State aid measures can be 
measured in different ways: for grants, the advantage passed on to the beneficiary normally corresponds to budgetary e xpenditure. For other aid instrument s, advantage to the beneficiary 
and cost to government may differ. For guarant ees, for example, the beneficiary avoids the 
risk associated with the guarant ee, since it is carried by the St ate. Such risk-carrying by the 
State should normally be remunerated by an appr opriate 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 State. Thus, even if it turns out that no payments are ever made by the State 
under a guarantee, there may nevertheless be Stat e aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) 
TFEU. The aid is granted at th e moment when the guarantee is given, not when the guarantee 
is invoked nor when payments are made  under the terms of the guarantee.  
                                                
 
8  http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/studies_reports.html  . 
9  http://www.eftasurv.int/information/sascoreboard/ .   
10    Treaty on the Functioning  of the European Union.  
EN 8   EN  
1. STATE AID IN 2009  IN ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE TERMS  
2009's State aid expenditure in the EU covers to tal State aid, aid to i ndustry and services and 
aid granted through crisis measures. The indicator  of 'State aid as percentage of GDP' takes 
into account the general economic situation in the partic ular Member State as  well as that of 
the EU as a whole. The static picture (i.e. fo cus on the data of the year under review) shows 
aid levels in absolute and relative terms. It w ill set the tone for a comparative analysis of aid 
expenditure since the Scoreboard also deals with the impact of the financial crisis on State aid. 
1.1. Total State aid and State ai d per sector as % of GDP 
Figure 1
11: Total State aid as % of GDP (all sect ors; crisis measures included); 2009  
Total State aid as  %  of GDP; 2009
02468 1 0 1 2BelgiumUnited KingdomIrelandGreeceLatviaGermanyDenmarkAustriaEU- 15Sw edenEU- 27LuxembourgCyprusFranceBulgariaNetherlandsMaltaHungarySloveniaSpainFinlandEU- 12PortugalPolandLithuaniaCzech RepublicRomaniaItalySlovakiaEstonia
Industry and services as % of GDP
Agriculture, fisheries and transport as % of GDP 
                                                 
11  Source: DG Competition, 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 Artic le 107(1) TFEU (ex Article 87(1) TEC) that have 
been awarded by Member States and examined by  the Commission. All sectors are included except 
railways and Services of General Economic Interest. 
EN 9   EN Total State aid12 granted by the Member States amounted to approximately € 427.2 billion in 
200913. In absolute terms, the United Kingdom reco rded the highest aid level (€ 124 billion), 
followed by Germany (€ 116.8 billion), France (€  42.3 billion), Belgium (€ 34.3 billion) and 
Greece (€ 14.3 billion). 
In relative terms, State aid amounted to 3.6% of EU-2714 GDP in 2009. This average masks 
significant disparities between Member States: th e share of total aid to GDP amounts to less 
than 1% (of GDP) in 7 countries and exceeds the average in 9 countries. The sharp increase in 
State aid in some of these countri es was due to crisis measures. 
1.2. Impact of crisis measu res on total State aid 
Crisis measures implemented and reporte d by Member States in 2009 amounted to 
approximately € 353.9 billion or around 3% of GDP.  
Figure 215: Total State aid to industry and services  as % of GDP (all cases versus crisis 
measures excluded); EU-27; 2009  
Total State aid to industr y and services as %  of GDP (a ll ca se s 
versus crisis cases excluded); EU-27; 2009
3.5
0.130.5
0.13
0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0
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 shows the impact the crisis measures  had on total State aid granted by Member 
States to industry and services. 
Aid granted by 22 Member States to financial ins titutions in response to the crisis contributed 
most to the big increase in Stat e aid to industry and services at  EU-27 level. Many of the EU-
1216 countries saw no need to support their banki ng sector. Hence their aid levels remained 
unaffected by crisis measures. Chapter 3 provides more detail on crisis measures. 
                                                 
12 The total covers aid to manufacturing, services, coal, agriculture, fisheries and part of the transport 
sector but excludes aid to the railway sector and ai d for compensation for services of general economic 
interest due to the lack  of comparable data. 
13  Crisis measures included. 
14  EU-27 means all Member States of the EU.  
15  Source: DG Competition, DG Agriculture and DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries.  
16  EU-12 includes Member States which acceded to the EU in 2004 or later. 
EN 10   EN  
1.3. Total State aid and State aid per sect or as % of GDP (crisis measures 
excluded)  
Figure 317: Total State aid (crisis measures excl uded) as % of GDP (all sectors); 2009  
Total State aid as  %  of GDP; 2009
(cris is  meas ures  excluded)
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50BulgariaMaltaHungaryFinlandLatviaCyprusPortugalDenmarkPolandIrelandEU-12SloveniaSwedenGreeceLithuaniaFranceGermanyCzech RepublicRomaniaAus triaEU-27EU-15BelgiumSpainSlovakiaNetherlandsItalyEstoniaLuxembourgUnited Kingdom
Industry and services as % of GDP
Agriculture, fisheries and transport as % of GDP 
                                                 
17  Source: DG Competition, 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 Artic le 107(1) TFEU (ex Article 87(1) TEC) that have 
been awarded by Member States and examined by  the Commission. All sectors are included except 
railways. 
EN 11   EN Figure 418: Total State aid to industry and serv ices as % of GDP (crisis measures 
excluded); 2009 
Total State aid as  %  of GDP; 2009 
(cris is  meas ures  excluded)
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00MaltaHungaryPortugalDenmarkSwedenGreecePolandSloveniaGermanyFranceEU-12Czech RepublicEU-27EU-15BelgiumSpainFinlandIrelandCyprusAus triaSlovakiaItalyNetherlandsLithuaniaLuxembourgUnited KingdomRomaniaLatviaBulgariaEstonia
Industry and services as % of GDP
 
Excluding crisis measures, total State ai d amounted to around € 73.2 billion in 2009. In 
absolute terms, Germany granted most ai d (around € 16.7 billion), followed by France 
(€ 14.7 billion), Italy (€ 5.7 billion), Sp ain (€ 5.7 billion) a nd the United Kingdom 
(€ 4.1 billion). 
                                                 
18  Source: DG Competition. Note: Member States ar e 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 
107(1) TFEU (ex Article 87(1) TEC) that have been  awarded by Member States and examined by the 
Commission.  
EN 12   EN In relative terms, total State aid amounted to 0.62% of EU-27 GDP in 2009. This average 
masks significant disparities between Member St ates: the share of total aid to GDP amounts 
to less than the average in 16 Member States.  
In sectoral terms, around € 46.9 billion of ai d was earmarked for the manufacturing and 
services sectors, roughly € 2.5 billion for the other non manufacturing sectors19, € 2.7 billion 
for coal, € 11.8 billion for agriculture and fish eries and approximately € 3.3 billion for the 
transport sector (excluding railways)20.  
Significant differences were found between Member  States regarding the sectors to which aid 
was directed. In 2009, aid dire cted at manufacturing and se rvices, other non manufacturing 
sectors and coal represented 75% or more of total aid inter alia  in Denmark, Germany, 
Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal and Sweden. In a few Member States, aid to agriculture, 
fisheries and transport still a ccounts for more than 50% of the total, namely in Bulgaria, 
Estonia, Ireland, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Ro mania and Finland. Due to the particularities 
associated with aid to agricultu re, fisheries and transport, it is  worth looking at total aid less 
these sectors i.e. total aid to industry and services.  
Aid to industry and services 
Total aid to industry and services am ounted to approximately € 412.1 billion21 in 2009. In 
absolute terms, the United Kingdom granted mo st aid (€ 123.2 billion) followed by Germany 
€ 115.4 billion), France (€ 39.3 billion), Belgiu m (€ 33.9 billion), and Greece (€ 14.1 billion). 
In relative terms, State aid to industry and services amount ed to 3.49% of EU-27 GDP in 
2009. This second indicator produces a rather diffe rent ranking of Member States. 18 Member 
States granted aid representing less than  the EU-27 average expressed in GDP.  
Excluding crisis measures, aid awarded to indus try and services amounted to € 58.1 billion in 
2009. Germany granted most aid (around € 15.3 bill ion) followed by France (€ 11.7 billion), 
Spain (€ 4.9 billion), Italy (€ 4.6 billion)  and the United Kingdom (€ 3.3 billion). 
In relative terms, State aid to industry and services amounted to 0.49%22 of EU-27 GDP in 
2009. This average masks significant disparities be tween Member States: the ratio of total aid 
to GDP is less than the average in 16 countries. 
Aid to industry and services repr esents 79.3% of total State aid. Co al, as part of sectoral aid, 
amounted to € 2.7 billion or 3.7% of total aid. The remainder of aid is spread between 
agriculture (15.9% of  total aid), fisheries (0.3% of total aid), and transport23 (4.5% of total 
aid). 
16 Member States lie below the EU-27 aver age (0.49% of GDP) for aid to industry and 
services. Aid expenditure in 2009 was expected to rise in view of the continuing fragility of 
the economic situation throughout that year. 
                                                 
19 It includes aid for mining and quarrying, oil and gas extraction, aid for electricity, gas and water supply 
and aid for construction. 
20  DG Agriculture is responsible for aid to the agricu ltural sector, DG Maritime and Fishery Affaires for 
aid to fisheries; aid to railways is monitored by DG Mobility and Transport while since 2010 DG 
Competition is in charge of aid granted to the rema inder of the transport sector (previously this task 
belonged to DG Transport and Energy).  
21  Crisis measures included. 
22  Crisis measures excluded. 
23  Excluding railways. 
EN 13   EN  
1.4. Broad sectoral distribution of ai d (with and without crisis measures) 
Figure 524 : Total State aid (all cases); EU-27; 2009 
Total State Aid by sector; EU-27; 2009
Industry+ services
96.4%Transport 
(Excl.Railways)
0.8%Agriculture+ Fisheries
2.8%
 
Figure 625 : Total State aid (crisis measures excluded); EU-27; 2009  
Total State Aid by sector; EU-27; 2009
(cris is  meas ures  excluded)
Agriculture+ 
Fisheries
16.2%
Transport 
(Excl.Railways)
4.5%Industry+ services
79.3%
 
                                                 
24  Source: DG Competition, DG Agriculture, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, DG Energy. 
25  Source: DG Competition, DG Agriculture, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, DG Energy. 
EN 14   EN Figures 5 and 6 present the dist ribution of State aid per sector . Due to the high volumes of 
crisis aid, Member States channelled most ai d to industry and servi ces (96.4%) in 2009. The 
other sectors represent only a sm all aggregated share of 3.6%.  
Excluding crisis measures, Member States aw arded roughly 79.3% of aid to industry and 
services. The remainder of the aid is spread  between agriculture and fisheries (16.2%) and 
transport (4.5%)26.  
2. TRENDS AND PATTERNS OF STATE AID EXPENDITURE IN THE MEMBER STATES  
In contrast to the static view given above, tren ds and patterns of State aid expenditure in the 
Member States will now be examined. 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 also by looking at th e aid granted over a numb er of years in order 
to eliminate annual fluctuations and delayed reporting27. The periods into which expenditure 
data were grouped are 2004 - 2006 and 2007 - 2009. 
2.1. Levels of State aid to industry and services 
Since data on aid to agriculture, fisher ies and transport c ontain particularities28 which prevent 
the production of aggregate inform ation across all sectors, all ob servations will exclude these 
sectors. 
Total State aid to industry and services obviously includes cris is measures (€ 353.9 billion) 
which is the main cause of the higher level of total State aid to industr y and services in 2009 
compared with 2008. This would influence most key data and undermine the comparability of data between individual years.  Furthermore, crisis measur es represent aid granted under 
exceptional circumstances and most of it is attributed to the financial sector (only a small part 
represents "crisis" aid to the real economy) . Where appropriate, State aid expenditure for 
crisis measures is therefore not taken into acco unt when analysing trends and patterns. Read 
more about crisis measures in Chapter 3.   
                                                
 
26  Excluding railways. 
27  In spite of the Member States’ obligation (Annex III of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 
21 April 2004 ) to report State aid expenditure  for the year t-1, a few Member  States are able to report 
only estimates for some measures and the actual expenditure follows the year after. In addition, 
unlawfully granted State aid is included in the Scoreboard data only if the Commission has issued a 
negative decision and hence expenditure is retroactively attributed to the year(s) in which the aid was granted. For this reason, overall aid levels might  be underestimated for the most recent year. 
28  For instance, aid to the agricultu ral sector is earmarked through a se t of particular objectives which are 
different from those for industry and services.     
EN 15   EN  
Figure 729: State aid to industry and services since 1992  
State aid to industry and services as % GDP as of 1992; EU-27
00.511.522.533.54
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009% of GD P
EU-27 EU-27 (excluding crisis measures) 
Figure 7 shows the long-term trend for State aid expenditure for industry and services in the 
EU. During the 1990s, the overall le vel of aid was around 0.7% of GDP30 on average and 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 control was strengthened in the 1990s mainly as a result of preparation for Economic and 
Monetary Union. 
New impetus from the Lisbon Strategy launched by the European Council in 2000 and then 
the SAAP in 2005 resulted in a further declin e in aid to industry and services, which 
fluctuated between 0.4% and 0.6% of GDP between 2000 and 200731.  
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 Rock32 and Sachsen LB33. Both 
cases are now treated as crisis measures. Se cond, 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. Th ird, pre-accession commitments and continued 
efforts after accession both contributed to th e downward trend since the EU-12 Member 
States continued to adjust their State aid policies and practices to  the requirements of EU State 
aid law and policy.   
This positive downward trend was brought to an abrupt end due to the financial crisis. The 
strong upward curve in 2008 can be almost exclus ively attributed to crisis measures, which 
was roughly two-thirds higher than in 200734. Aid granted in 2009 was higher still again due 
to the focus which Member States put on the financial sector. 
                                                 
29  Source: DG Competition. 
30  1997 had a peak due to the Credit Lyonnais aid.   
31   The aid to BGB in 2002 contributed to another peak in the long-term trend.  
32  NN 70/2007 Northern Rock.   
33  C 9/2008 Restructuring aid to Sachsen LB.   
34  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 radar, e.g. rescue and restructuring of Northern Rock and 
Sachsen LB. 
EN 16   EN In order to examine expenditure  developments without the dist orting effect of the crisis 
measures, they will be excluded from total aid to industry and services in following analysis. 
On this basis, the trend shows a small upw ard move in 2009. Compared with 2008, aid for 
industry and services increased by approximately  0.03% of GDP. For instance, France granted 
more aid to regional development as well as fo r research and development, Germany more on 
regional aid and aid to SMEs. Aid earmarked for these horizont al objectives contributed the 
most to the increase. That sa id, the increase in aid volumes witnessed in 2008 and 2009 do not 
yet allow a conclusion to be drawn as to wh ether the long-term downward trend in EU-27 
State aid expenditure has been reversed; the data is for just two years and remains within the average for the period 2000 - 2007.  
EN 17   EN  
Figure 835:  Trend in State aid to industry and services as % of GDP (crisis measures 
excluded) 
Trend in State aid to industry and services (excl. crisis 
measures) as % of GDP
00 . 511 . 522 . 53GreecePortugalCzech RepublicHungaryLithuaniaBelgiumSlovakiaFranceDenmarkIrelandFinlandSpainLuxembourgNetherlandsUnited KingdomLatviaEU-15PolandEU-27EstoniaSwedenAustriaItalyBulgariaGermanyEU-12CyprusRomaniaMaltaSlovenia
% of GDP
2004-2006 2007-2009
 
                                                 
35  Source: DG Competition. 
EN 18   EN The trend in State aid ex penditure to industry and services, as  shown in figure 8, indicates that 
some Member States were able to reduce aid ex penditure despite the im pact of the financial 
and economic crisis, i.e. 11 Member States reduced aid levels in  the period 2007 - 2009 as 
compared with 2004 - 2006. While many of the EU-12 Member States were able to reduce 
their aid levels, Cyprus, Romani a and Slovenia achieved a more  significant reduction of 0.5% 
of GDP or more. As a result, the average EU-12 expenditure reduced by 0.13% of GDP in 
2007 - 2009 as compared to 2004 - 2006. Some EU- 15 countries e.g. Germany, Italy, Austria 
and Sweden were also able to slightly reduce aid levels in te rms of percentage of GDP during 
the period 2007 - 2009 when compared with 2 004 - 2006. The EU-27 aid level in the period 
2007 - 2009 decreased slightly by 0.003% of  GDP while it increased by 0.006% of GDP 
when looking at EU-1536. Greece, the Czech Republic, Portugal and Belgium contributed 
most to the increase, each increasing expe nditure by 0.1% of GDP or more. The slight 
increase in aid to industry and services in 2009, and more in 2008, is also reflected in the 
trend – see above. Again, it would be too early to identify a reversal of the long-term 
downward trend in EU-27 State aid expenditure; the data is just for two years and remains 
within the average for the period 2000 - 2007.  
Some Member States increased aid expend iture in 2007 - 2009 compared to 2004 - 2006. For 
instance, the Czech Republic granted more aid to  regional development, as did Greece, France 
and Latvia. Sweden again granted substant ial aid earmarked for protection of the 
environment, mainly through fiscal aid. Belgiu m also granted more aid for environmental 
protection. The United Kingdom in creased aid for research and development.     
2.2. State aid for horizontal objectives of common interest 
The Treaty sets out a general prohi bition on State aid but the original drafters were not blind 
to the fact that, in some circumstances, gove rnment interventions are necessary for a well-
functioning and equitable economy. Therefore, the Treaty leaves room for a number of policy 
objectives according to which St ate aid can be found to be co mpatible with the internal 
market. State aid measures can be effective t ools for a number of policy objectives. The most 
prominent horizontal objectives pursued using State aid include suppo rt to Research and 
Development and Innovation (hereinafter "R&D &I"), safeguarding the environment including 
energy saving and renewable energies, support to SMEs, employment creation, the promotion 
of training and regional economic development. 
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 
sectoral37 or ad hoc  aid.  
Following the call at various European Councils Me mber States have, in recent years, shifted 
their efforts from supporting individual compan ies or sectors towards tackling horizontal 
objectives of common interest, including cohesi on objectives. This section provides detailed 
information on horizontal and sect oral aid and re levant trends. 
                                                 
36   EU-15 comprises Member States that joined the EU before 2004.  
37  Including rescue and restructuring aid. 
EN 19   EN  
2.2.1.  Horizontal versus sectoral aid in 2009 
Figure 938: Total State aid, aid to industry and servic es as % of GDP, share of horizontal  
Figures in (…) 
include crisis 
measures Total State 
Aid less 
railways in 
billion EUR Total State 
Aid for 
industry and 
services in 
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 
for industry 
and services 
EU 27 73.2 (427.2) 58.1 (412.1) 0.6 (3.6) 0.5 (3.5) 84 (12) 
EU 15 65.1 (417.3) 53.4 (405.6) 0.6 (3.8) 0.5 (3.7) 85 (11) 
EU 12 8.1 (9.9) 4.7 (6.5) 0.9 (1.1) 0.5 (0.8) 76 (55) 
Belgium 2.0 (34.3) 1.6 (33.9) 0.6 (10.2) 0.5 (10.1) 100 (5) 
Bulgaria 0.7 (0.7) 0.03 (0.0) 2.1 (2.1) 0.1 (0.1) 100 (100) 
Czech Republic 0.9 (0.9) 0.7 (0.7 ) 0.7 (0.7) 0.5 (0.5) 88 (88) 
Denmark 2.1 (10.2) 1.9 (10.0) 1.0 (4.6) 0.9 (4.5) 97 (19) 
Germany 16.7 (116.8) 15.2 (115.4) 0.7 (4.8) 0.6 (4.8) 86 (11) 
Estonia 0.04 (0.04) 0.01 (0.01) 0.3 (0.3) 0.1 (0.1) 100 (100) 
Ireland 1.5 (12.6) 0.7 (11.8) 0.9 (7.7) 0.5 (7.2) 89 (6) 
Greece 2.0 (14.3) 1.8 (14.1) 0.8 (6.0) 0.7 (5.9) 87 (11) 
Spain 5.7 (13.2) 4.9 (12.4) 0.5 (1.3) 0.5 (1.2) 80 (32) 
France 14.7 (42.3) 11.7 (39.3) 0.8 (2.2) 0.6 (2.1) 79 (23) 
Italy 5.7 (10.2) 4.6 (9.2) 0.4 (0.6) 0.3 (0.6) 84 (45) 
Cyprus 0.2 (0.4) 0.1 (0.3) 1.0 (2.4) 0.4 (1.7) 95 (21) 
Latvia 0.2 (1.1) 0.0 (0.9) 1.0 (5.8) 0.1 (4.9) 100 (2) 
Lithuania 0.2 (0.2) 0.1 (0.1) 0.8 (0.8) 0.3 (0.3) 100 (100) 
Luxembourg 0.1 (1.0) 0.1 (1.0) 0.3 (2.8) 0.2 (2.7) 100 (9) 
Hungary 1.4 (1.9) 0.9 (1.5) 1.5 (2.0) 1.0 (1.5) 76 (50) 
Malta 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 2.0 (2.0) 1.7 (1.7) 23 (23) 
Netherlands 2.4 (12.1) 1.7 (11.4) 0.4 (2.1) 0.3 (2.0) 99 (15) 
Austria 1.7 (11.2) 1.0 (10.5) 0.6 (4.1) 0.4 (3.8) 99 (10) 
Poland 2.9 (2.9) 2.2 (2.2) 0.9 (0.9) 0.7 (0.7) 71 (71) 
Portugal 1.6 (1.7) 1.6 (1.6) 1.0 (1.0) 0.9 (1.0) 19 (18) 
Romania 0.8 (0.8) 0.2 (0.2) 0.7 (0.7) 0.1 (0.1) 50 (50) 
                                                 
38   Source: DG Competition, DG Agricultu re, DG Maritime and Fisheries Affairs. 
EN 20   EN Slovenia 0.3 (0.5) 0.2 (0.4) 0.9 (1.5) 0.7 (1.3) 91 (47) 
Slovakia 0.3 (0.3) 0.2 (0.2) 0.5 (0.5) 0.4 (0.4) 90 (89) 
Finland 2.1 (2.1) 0.8 (0.8) 1.2 (1.2) 0.5 (0.5) 99 (98) 
Sweden 2.6 (11.1) 2.4 (10.9) 0.9 (3.8) 0.8 (3.7) 100 (22) 
United Kingdom 4.0 (124.2) 3.2 (123.2) 0.3 (7.9) 0.2 (7.9) 91 (2) 
 
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, most of the aid granted to  "remedy a serious disturbance in the economy" 
(crisis measures) is aid granted to the financial s ector and hence classified as sectoral aid. The 
Temporary Framework, which allowed Member St ates to address the effects of the credit 
squeeze on the real economy, is however a horizontal  instrument to support all sectors of the 
economy. Given the high volumes of crisis aid granted to financial institutions the relative 
share of horizontal aid as part of total aid to industry and services de creased significantly in 
2009. If the corresponding ai d volumes were included in the total of the sectoral aid for 2009, 
the share of horizontal objectives  in relation to total aid to  industry and services would 
amount to approximately 12%. Around 88% would be sectoral aid, of which the financial 
crisis measures represent the largest part (more than 96%).  
However, the analysis of horiz ontal aid is more informative when looking at State aid to 
industry and services excluding crisis measures. It then appears that horizontal objectives 
represent a share of around 84% of aid granted in 2009 while s ectoral aid stands at around 
16%. These shares have been relatively stable for the last four years (between 82% and 84%) 
in EU-27. It should be stressed that in EU-12, the share of horizontal objectives has increased 
in recent years from 28% in 2004 to achieve in  2009 a share of 76% of aid to industry and 
services, approaching the 84% EU-27 average.  
In absolute terms, aid earmarked for horizon tal objectives amounted to roughly € 48.7 billion 
in 2009 and sectoral aid to about € 9.4 billion. It is worth noting with respect to sectoral aid 
that the trend shows a slight  decrease in sectoral aid between the period 2004-2006 and 2007-
2009, mainly due to lower aid granted to the coal sector.  
2.2.2.  State aid to horizontal objectives  
In 23 Member States, at least three-quarter s of all the aid awarded in 2009 was for 
horizontal objectives of common interest 
Aid earmarked for horizontal objectives accounted for 84% of total aid to industry and 
services in 2009. It comprises notified aid and aid granted under block exempted measures. 
The remaining 16% was aid directed at specific sectors39: financial services other than crisis 
measures (2%), coal (5%), ot her services (1%), manufacturing sectors (6%) and other non-
manufacturing sectors (2%).  
In 15 Member States, 90% or more of all the aid awarded in 2009 was earmarked for 
horizontal objectives. In Spain, France, Italy, Hungary and Pola nd, the share of horizontal aid 
was between 70% and 85% while the share was si gnificantly lower in Malta (23%), Portugal 
                                                 
39 These percentages exclude those measures with a horizontal objective that are nevertheless earmarked 
for the manufacturing and services sectors. 
EN 21   EN (19%) and Romania (50%). The low share of horiz ontal aid (and thus relatively high share of 
sectoral aid) in Malta can be explained by a tax relief measure unde r the Maltese Business 
Promotion Act40, (most of the sectoral aid is granted to the manufacturing sector). The low 
share of horizontal aid in Portugal is due to a large regional aid tax scheme (which is being 
phased out) in Madeira which benefits a limited number of sectors. In  Romania, a significant 
proportion of aid continues to be awarded to the coal sector.  
In absolute terms, aid to horizontal object ives amounted to around € 48.7 billion in 2009. 
Compared with 2008, it increased  by roughly € 1.2 billion (less th an 3% of aid granted in 
2008). Regardless of the individual horizont al objective to which aid was earmarked, 
individual Member States contri buted differently to this increas e. 15 of the 27 Member States 
augmented aid to horizontal objectives. France, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Greece, Germany, Poland and the Netherlands were the countries w ith the greatest increases in comparison to 
the previous year (France increased by around € 990 million, Belgium by € 426 million, 
Denmark by € 321 million and the other countrie s by between € 309 million and € 228 million 
each). The remainder of the extra aid for horiz ontal objectives in 2009 is spread between a 
few other countries such as Bu lgaria, Luxembourg, Malta, Portuga l, Slovenia, Finland and the 
United Kingdom. 
In 12 Member States aid levels for horizontal  objectives decreased. Th e countries with the 
biggest decrease were the Czech Republic (€  457 million less in 2009 compared to 2008), 
Hungary (€ 443 million less), Slovakia (€ 418 m illion less) and Austria (€ 394 million less).  
Looking at the share for horizontal objectives of  total aid to industry and services, in 2009 
five countries showed a reduction in comparison  to the year before. Greece sharply reduced 
its share from 98% in 2008 to 87% in 2009, followed by the Czech Republic (from 93% in 2008 to 88% in 2009) and Romania (from 54% in 2008 to 50% in 2009). In Greece, the 
reduction is due to the si gnificant government contribution to the Hellenic 
Telecommunication Operator's (OTE) vol untary early retirement scheme (VRS)
41 which is 
classified as sectotal aid. 
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 aid42. The largest proportion of aid was earmarked for 
regional development  (around € 14 billion, roughly 24% of  total State aid for industry and 
services), which was used in particular in the EU-12 countries (ar ound 30%), but also in 
Greece (76%), Ireland (39%) and France (35%). 
The second largest proportion of aid concerni ng horizontal objectives was allocated to the  
environment and energy savings  (€ 13 billion, roughly 23% of total State aid for industry and 
services). Sweden (82%), the Netherlands (6 2%), Latvia (51%), Finland (41%), Germany 
(37%), the United Kingdom (36%), and Austria ( 35%) devoted a substantial part of aid to 
these objectives. In contrast, the average for the EU-12 count ries was 11%, therefore much 
lower than the average for the whole of the EU. 
                                                 
40 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. 
41  Case C 2/2006 , OTE- Early retirement scheme. 
42 With respect to GBER measures which have obj ectives but no primary objective, groups of these 
objectives have been mapped into the corresponding primary objective in order to calculate the total aid 
earmarked for horizontal objectives. 
EN 22   EN In third position was aid earmarked to R&D&I  activities (around € 10.6 billion, 19% of total 
State aid for industry and servi ces). Luxembourg (63%), Belgiu m (46%), Bulgaria (40%) and 
the Czech Republic (36%) devoted the highest shar es of aid to these objectives. In EU-12, the 
average was around 11%, again lower than in EU- 27. 
Together, these three objectives (regional deve lopment, environment and energy savings and 
R&D&I) represent around 66% of total aid to industry and serv ices in EU-27 and hence are 
the most widely used horizontal objectives of common interest.  
All other objectives taken t ogether account for roughly 18% of  total aid to industry and 
services: SMEs (7% of total aid)43, social support for individual consumers (2%)44, 
employment (4%), culture and heritage conser vation (3%), training (2 %), risk capital and 
other horizontal objectives  including objectives such as commerce and internationalisation and natural disasters (roughly 1%). 
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 (30%), followed by employment aid 
(14%), R&D&I (11%), environmental aid and energy savings (11%) and training and 
culture (3% each). The relatively high share of employment aid in EU-12 is due mainly to a 
Polish block exempted scheme for disabled people
45. 
Block exempted measures 
Block exempted aid can be granted through measures adopted under the Block Exemption 
Regulations (hereinafter "BERs") and al so under the new General Block Exemption 
Regulation (hereinafter "GBER"46). The GBER entered into force in 2008, but it was only in 
2009 that the implementation of most of the measures fulfill ing the conditions of the new 
regulation took effect. The GBER consolidates  into one text and harmonises the rules 
previously existing in the BE Rs and enlarges the categories of state aid covered by the 
exemption. Since 2001 the Commission had adopted  individual block exemption regulations 
for aid to SMEs, aid for research and deve lopment, aid in favour of SMEs, aid for 
employment, training aid and re gional aid. To those existing aid measures the GBER adds 
five new categories of block exempted aid: environmental aid, innovation aid, research and 
development aid for large companies, aid in the form of risk capital and aid for enterprises 
newly created by female entrepreneurs. In 2009 , more than 51% of total aid granted under 
block exempted measures fell under the new GBER. 
In absolute terms, Member St ates awarded in 2 009 a total of roughly € 10.8 billion of aid 
under block exemptions for industry and services . In relative terms, block exempted aid 
represented a share of approximate ly 22% of total horizontal aid to industry and services in 
2009.  
                                                 
43 This figure only captures aid excl usively earmarked for SMEs for wh ich 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 excl usively directed to SMEs. Indeed to tal aid granted to SMEs is much 
higher since most schemes for other horizontal objectives such as environment, regional development, 
research and development are open to companies regardless of their size. 
44 Most of the aid granted was in France under C43/2006, Réforme du mode de financement des retraites 
des fonctionnaires de l’Etat rattachés à La Poste.  
45 X 306/2009  Miesieczne dofinansowanie do wynagrodzen pracowników niepelnosprawnych . 
46 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).  
EN 23   EN In the period 2004 - 2006, the share was stable at  between 6% and 7% of total aid. However, 
since 2007, Member States have made more use of  this simplified and qu icker instrument and 
the share of total aid granted under the GBER ha s increased progressively to more than 22% 
in 2009. Looking at the most releva nt categories, in 2009 € 4.9 b illion of aid was awarded for 
regional investment aid . The main contributing factor here  was a regional investment scheme 
of around € 863 million in Germany.47 Compared with 2008, the figur e represents an increase 
of around € 660 million. Although only introduced in 2007, block exempted aid earmarked for regional investment aid re ached a share of almost 31% of total aid awarded under the 
same objective only one year later. In 2009, the share in creased to 35%.  
The second largest category was block ex empted aid for SMEs and risk capital
 (addressed 
only to SMEs) which amounted to € 2.4 billion in 2009, a decrease of € 147 million compared 
to the amount granted in 2008. In relative terms,  this represents 53% of total aid granted to 
similar objectives. Risk capital accounted for only with € 39 million. Aid for enterprises 
newly created by female entrepreneurs is also  included in this cate gory and amounted to 
around € 0.3 million. Germany and Italy are the largest contributors to the SMEs objective, granting € 0.8 billion and € 0.5 billion respectively. 
In third position was employment
 aid which amounted to € 1 billion in 2009. Aid granted for 
this objective decreased by € 215 million compar ed to 2008, mostly due to an important 
reduction in Hungary (from € 367 million in 2 008 to € 13 million in 2009). Block exempted 
employment aid represents a share of 42% of total aid awarded to the same objective. More 
than half of the aid granted relates to a Polish scheme for disabled workers48. Italy is the 
second largest contributor. Both countries con centrated more than 82% of total employment 
aid granted in 2009 under block exempted measures. 
The main reason for the comparatively low perc entage of block exempted aid for employment 
and SMEs in total aid for the same objective can be explained by ongoing high expenditure under a few large schemes authorised prior to the entry into force of the block exemption 
regulations
49. In addition, large French SME schemes th at do not meet all criteria for block 
exempted aid account for almost half of all other aid to SMEs50.  
Member States earmarked roughl y € 0.8 billion as training aid under block exempted 
measures which represents almost 88% of total training aid in 2009. When looking at the 
trend, training aid had been granted at a hi gh rate through block exemption since 2004 (see 
figure 11 below). Italy (€ 166 million), German y (€ 148 million), and Spain (€ 110 million) 
were the main contributors to this objective.  
Block exempted aid earmarked as research, development and innovation  aid amounted around 
€ 1 billion in 2009. This represents 9% of total aid granted to the same objective. Spain (€ 282 
million), Italy (€ 267 million) and Belgium (almo st € 130 million) were the countries that 
made most use of this instrument. 
Finally, Member States granted € 732 million of environmental protection  aid under block 
exempted measures corresponding to around 6% of  total aid for environmental objectives. 
                                                 
47 XR 31/2007  Gemeinschaftsaufgabe „Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur“ (GA); 36. 
Rahmenplan: Teil II A – Gewerbliche Wirtschaft.  
48 X 306/2009  Miesieczne dofinansowanie do wynagrodzen pracowników niepe łnosprawnych.  
49 In particular a Danish scheme for soci al 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 ). 
50 N 119/2009  (approved on 13.03.2009), N 596a/2007  (approved on 11.03.2008), N 70a/2006  
(22.06.2006), N 211/2003  (16.12.2003). 
EN 24   EN The low share of environmental aid granted under bloc k exempted measures can be explained 
by the existence of some ongoing tax measures approved before the adoption of the GBER 
which account for most of the environmental aid in EU51. 
Almost half of the environmental aid under block exempted measures was granted by 
Germany. This country together with Spain an d Belgium contributed to around 91% of total 
environmental aid granted using block exempted measures in 2009.  
                                                 
51 See section 2.2.6 of the State aid Scoreboard on State aid for environmental protection. 
EN 25   EN  
Table 1052: 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,
 2004-2009
0102030405060708090100
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Year%Employment
Environmental protection
Regional development
R&D&I
SMS( including risk capital
Training
 
Figure 1153: Trend in the share of block exempted aid in total aid directed at the same 
horizontal objective, industr y and services (EU-27; 2004-2009)   
Year2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Horizontal ob jectives in € billion
Share of exempted aid in %
Aid for SME (incl. risk capital for SMEs) 6 . 15 . 95 . 55 . 45 . 74 . 6
Share of exempted aid in aid for SME (incl. R&D for SMEs)(in %) 24 28 33 43 45 53
Employment 2 . 23 . 43 . 72 . 92 . 92 . 4
Share of exempted aid in employment aid (in%) 91 31 72 74 34 2
Training 0 . 90 . 60 . 90 . 70 . 80 . 9
Share of exempted aid in training aid (in %) 82 81 78 87 93 88
Regional development 9.3 9.5 10.6 10.2 13.4 13.9
Share of exempted aid in regional development (in %) 0.004 0.001 0.004 23 31 35
R&D&I 5.9 6.3 7.2 7.8 8.8 10.6
Share of exempted aid in R&D&I aid (in %) 0 . 1 0 . 31119
Environmental protection 12.4 13.5 14.6 12.3 13.1 13.2
Share of exempted aid in environmental protection aid (in %) 0 0 0 0.005 0.05 6
Total horizontal aid 38.1 41.3 44.4 42.1 47.5 48.7
Share of exempted aid in total horizontal aid (in%) 6.2 6.4 7.1 14.6 18.7 22.2  
  
2.2.3.  Trend in State aid for horizontal objectives and sectoral objectives 
When looking at the trend with re spect to aid earmarked for horiz ontal objectives it has been 
broadly stable since 2006 (between 82% a nd 84%), it represents around 84% of aid to 
industry and services. Compared with previ ous periods, 72% in 2004 and around 50% in the 
mid-1990s, it shows a clear upward move. The underlying trend also confirms the upward 
move on aid designed to ach ieve horizontal objectives . During the period 2004-2006 on 
                                                 
52 Source: DG Competition. 
53 Source: DG Competition. 
EN 26   EN average 78% of aid was earmarked for horiz ontal objectives while during 2007-2009 it 
increased to 84%. This trend was accompanied by a parallel decrease54in sectoral aid.  
While the long-term trend still shows that Member States direct a relatively high level of aid 
towards sectoral objectives, a clear positive tr end can be observed, to varying degrees, in 
many Member States. In particular, all EU-12 Me mber States are progressively redirecting aid 
towards horizontal objectives. During the period 2004-2006, aid to hor izontal objectives 
represented in new Member States only 45% of total aid while the share increased to 75% for 
the period of 2007-2009. 
Looking at individual objectives , the orientation of aid at EU-27 level shifted in favour of 
regional development and research and develo pment. Environmental aid, aid to SMEs and 
employment aid has fallen in recent years.  
Figure 12: Trend in share of primary object ives as % of total aid (2007-2009 compared 
with 2004-2006)55 
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
2004-2006
Aid objectives EU-272007-2009
 
                                                 
54 Crisis measures excluded. 
55 Source: DG Competition. Note: Data cover industry and services only. 
EN 27   EN Figure 13: Trend in level of aid by primary objective, EU-27, 2004-200956 
Trend in level of aid (horizontal objectives and sectoral aid) as % of GDP;
EU-27 (crisis measures excluded)
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.6
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009% of GDPOther sectoral aid
Financial Services
Coal
Other Horizontal
objectives
R&D&I
Environment andenegy saving
Regionaldevelopment
SME & risk capital
Employment &training
 
 
2.2.4.  State aid for research and development and innovation 
Overall Research and Development spending  
Investment in research, development and innovati on (hereinafter "R&D&I")  is a crucial factor 
to strengthen the competitiveness of the EU  economy and to ensure sustainable growth. 
However, since the Barcelona European Council in 2002 recogni sed this by setting a 3% of 
GDP target for expenditure on R&D by 2010, progre ss has remained slow. Two thirds of this 
expenditure should be funded by the private se ctor and the other third by public funding. 
Europe 202057, the new European strategy for jobs and growth, has maintained the overall 
R&D&I investment target of 3% of GDP. "Innovati on Union" is one of th e flagship initiatives 
of the new strategy. The aim is  to re-focus R&D and innova tion policy on the challenges 
facing our society, such as climate change, energy and resource efficiency, health and 
demographic change. In the Competiveness Council of October 2010, following the presentation of the Inno vation Union Communication
58, EU ministers discussed the essential 
elements of a new strategy for innovation to be  addressed at the Decem ber European Council 
summit. In the field of research, the Counc il approved the launching of joint programming 
projects for research in three areas correspond ing to major societal challenges: agriculture, 
food security and climate change; cultural heri tage and prevention of nutritional problems.  
                                                 
56 Source: DG Competition. Note: Data cover industry and services only. 
57  "Europe 2020: a strategy for smart,  sustainable and inclusive growth", COM (2010) 2020 . 
58  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European 
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions: Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative, 
Innovation Union COM(2010) 546 final . 
EN 28   EN 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 greatest extent 
while minimising distortions of competition. In the context of the new Europe 2020 strategy, Member States must now implement the policy pr iorities at their level and establish their 
national targets taking into account th eir relative starting positions and national 
circumstances
59.  
State aid expenditure on R&D&I amounted to € 10.6 billion in 2009 (around 19% of total 
State aid to industry and services). This repres ented a relatively sma ll share in public R&D&I 
funding although there are signifi cant differences between Member  States: while State aid to 
R&D&I accounted for 0.09% of GDP in 2009, the overall public funding for R&D was 0.64% 
of GDP60. 9 Member States awarded R&D&I aid above the averag e level: Belgium (0.22%), 
Slovenia (0.19%), the Czech Republic (0.18 %), Luxembourg (0.16%), Finland (0.14%), 
Spain (0.13%), France and Austria (0.11%), an d Hungary (0.10%). Cyprus, Slovakia, Greece, 
Latvia,  Poland and Estonia granted 0.01% or le ss of GDP. More than 9% of aid to R&D&I 
was granted under block exempted measures. 
For the Union as a whole, the level of R&D&I aid increased from 0.05% of GDP in the period 
2004 – 2006 to 0.07% of GDP in 2007 - 2009. 
                                                 
59 Conclusions of the European Council of 17 June 2010. 
60 Public R&D expenditure in 2008 – data for 2009 not available. 
EN 29   EN Figure 14: Public expenditure on R&D as % of GDP, 200961 62 
Public expenditure on R&D as % of GDP, 2009
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20Cyprus (0.46)Slovakia (0.47)Bulgaria (0.49)Malta (0.54)Greece (0.58)Romania (0.58)Latvia (0.61)Poland (0.61)Lithuania (0.8)Hungary (1)Italy (1.18)Estonia (1.29)Spain (1.35)Ireland (1.43)Czech Republic (1.47)Portugal (1.51)Luxembourg (1.62)Netherlands (1.63)Slovenia (1.66)United Kingdom (1.88)EU 27 (1.9)Belgium (1.92)France (2.02)Germany (2.63)Austria (2.67)Denmark (2.72)Finland (3.73)Sweden (3.75)
%o f  G D P
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 € 4.6 billion in 2009, of which 
risk capital represents around € 0.6 billion. In re lative terms, roughly 7% of aid to industry 
and services was exclusively earmarked for SM Es. Risk capital accounted for around 1% of 
total aid. For the first time, more than half (53%) of aid to SMEs was granted under block 
exempted measures. 
                                                 
61 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 many countries, data 
are not available for 2008. Nevertheless, the graph prov ides 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 (public and private) as a percentage of GDP. This shows progress towards the Barcelona target of 3% of GDP. 
62 Member States sorted by the overall (public and private) R&D expenditure – presented in brackets as % 
of GDP. 
EN 30   EN In 2009 aid granted to SMEs a nd risk capital decreased by € 1.1 billion compared to 2008, or 
a decrease of 20% in the amount granted. Only  Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Spain, Romania 
and Finland increased the amounts granted to SMEs.  
Looking at the trend, aid expend iture to SMEs has been rela tively stable over time but 
suffered a slight reduction in 2009. Expressed as a % of GDP, it rema ined at a level on 
average of around 0.047% of GDP.  
2.2.6.  State aid for environmental protection 
Aid earmarked for environmental protection amounted to € 13.2 billion in 2009, of which 
€ 732 million63 was granted through block exemption64. In relative terms, it represents 22.6% 
of total aid or 0.11% of EU-27 GDP. 
For the EU as a whole, the tr end of aid for environment decreased from 25.5% to 23.3% of 
total aid to industry and serv ices between 2004 - 2006 and 2007 - 2009. In absolute terms, it 
however increased by € 0.8 billion. Over the last six years on average 75% of aid was granted by indirect forms (e.g. tax exemptions or allowances), while direct aid instruments (e.g. grants or subsidies) represented on averag e 25% of total environmental aid.  
Environmental aid covers a wide range of  objectives, including support measures for 
renewable energy, energy-saving, waste manageme nt and remediation of contaminated sites
 
and improvement of production processes. For these types of measures, aid granted by 
Member States pursues a direct benefit to the environment. State aid expenditure can 
therefore be taken as a proxy to  indicate the intended environmen tal benefit, regardless of the 
form in which the aid may be  awarded (grant, tax exemp tion, guarantee, etc.). This 
represented 35.5% of environmental aid in 2009 (around € 4.7 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 m odification of such taxes. Expe nditure under this category of 
aid scheme indicates the amount of tax revenu e foregone and can therefore not serve as a 
proxy measure of the environmental benefit wh ich the taxes themselves have brought. In 
2009, 56.1% of environmental aid (around € 7.4  billion) fell under this category. 
The overall level of expenditure in  environmental aid in the EU is strongly influenced by the 
largest aid grantors, Germany, Sweden, the Un ited Kingdom and the Netherlands, and in 
Germany and Sweden tax exemptions account for a large share of total environmental aid. A tax exemption from the energy tax on electricity  for industry has been the most significant aid 
expenditure for Sweden from 2005 onwards and represents more than half of the 
environmental aid in Sweden. In Germany, expe nditure rose steadily up to 2006 following the 
approval in 2002 of measures that prolonged seve ral tax exemptions from the German energy 
taxation on electricity and mineral oils. Followi ng modifications to these tax exemptions in 
Germany, aid granted under environmental ta x exemption schemes fell significantly, by 
€ 3.2 billion between 2006 and 2009. 
                                                
 
63 Expenditure data currently available for this category of aid measures indicate the amount of tax 
revenue foregone and can therefore not serve as a pr oxy measure for the environmental benefit the taxes 
themselves have brought. In 2009, around 73% of total expenditure (€ 9.7 billion) was aid granted 
through tax exemption. 
64  A total of 131 aid measures implemented by 16 Memb er States represent block exempted aid. 74% of 
that aid was handed over in the form of direct grants and interest subsidies, around 26% in loans and a 
small part by tax exemption.  
EN 31   EN The Commission's Climate Change/Energy Packag e adopted in 2008 implemented a series of 
targets for the year 202065: reduction by 20% of CO 2 emissions, a 20% share for renewable 
energy in EU energy consumption and a 20% in crease in energy efficiency. The package 
included a policy mix of regulatory measures, including new Community Guidelines on State 
aid for Environmental Protection.66 These have since been complemented by the new GBER 
adopted in July 2008 which included specific provisions for environmental protection. 
The Climate Change/Energy Package targets have been subsequently reflected in the Europe 
2020 Strategy, the key elements of which the European Council agreed in March 201067. 
2.2.7.  State aid supporting regional development and cohesion 
Aid earmarked for regional development 
The Commission Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-201368, applicable as of 
1 January 2007, clarify the general approach taken by the Commission to consider whether 
aid granted to promote the economic developmen t of certain disadvantaged areas within the 
European Union is compatible with the internal  market. The aim of regional 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. These schemes should lay 
down the general conditions under which a Memb er State can grant regional aid, normally 
without the need to notify individual cases  to the Commission. In October 2006, the 
Commission adopted a block exem ption regulation concerning na tional regional investment 
aid69 which remains applicable until the end of  2013, although Member States may also grant 
regional aid measures under GBER. 
Member States granted aid earmarked for regi onal development of about € 13.9 billion in 
2009, which includes € 4.9 billio n granted using a block exemption. This represents 
approximately 29% of total horizontal aid for industry and services or 0.1% of EU-27 GDP. 
The share of regional aid has remained relatively stable in the long term. It has increased from 
24% to 27% between the periods 2004 - 2006 and 2007 - 2009. France, Greece, Germany, 
Spain, the Czech Republic and Poland significan tly increased their regional aid (between 
€ 124 million and € 1 788 million) while the United Kingdom and Italy decreased, respectively by around € 398 million and € 348 milli on, the level of regional aid granted.. 
 Aid pursuant to Article 107(3)(a) and (c) TFEU 
Aid for regional development can also be assess ed directly under Articl e 107(3)(a) or Article 
107(3)(c) TFEU. Article 107(3)(a) authorises aid that promotes  the economic development of 
areas where the standard of living is abno rmally low or where there is a serious 
underemployment, so-called category 'a' re gions. The regional aid angle under Article 
107(3)(c) refers to aid to  facilitate the development of cer tain economic areas, where such aid 
does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest, so-
called category 'c' regions. 
It is worth recalling that aid earmarked for categor y 'a' or 'c' regions need not necessarily have 
regional development as a horizontal objective but could be earmarked for other objectives. 
                                                
 
65 Targets set by the March 2007 European Council. 
66 OJ C 82 of 01.04.2008, p. 1 . 
67  http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/113591.pdf .  
68 OJ C 54/13 of 4.3.2006 . 
69  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 of 24 October 2006; OJ L 302, 01.11.2006 p. 29. 
EN 32   EN For this reason, the figures presented below are different from those quoted in the previous 
section "aid earmarked for regional development".  
In 2009, more than € 14 billion of aid was direct ed to 'a' regions. While many EU-15 Member 
States have identified some 'a' regions within their country, the entire territory of the EU-12 
Member States is eligible as an 'a' region wi th the exception of Cyprus and the cities of 
Prague, Bratislava and Budapest.  
Aid to 'a' regions increased in 2009 by 8%  compared to 2008 (from € 13 billion to 
€ 14 billion), with France, Italy, Germany and Gr eece the main contributors to this increase.  
The long-term trend shows a decrease from € 15 billion on average in the period 2004-2006 to 
€ 13 billion in the period 2007-2009. Disparities be tween the Member States in the levels of 
aid reserved for assisted 'a' re gions may reflect not only differen ces in regional policy but also 
in the size of each country's eligible population as well as th e extent to which each Member 
State grants aid at a sub-central level. 
Around € 1.7 billion was reported as aid for assi sted 'c' regions in 2009 (compared to € 0.9 
billion in 2008, an increase in 2009 of 9%). A ll EU-15 Member States as well as some EU-12 
countries have identified some 'c' regions in their country. The main contributor to this 
increase was Germany  
In some instances Member States also reporte d aid aggregated for 'a' and 'c' regions which 
amounted to € 11.4 billion in 2009 (€ 9.5 billion in 2008). 
2.3. State aid earmarked for specific sectors 
2.3.1.  State aid for rescue and restru cturing firms in difficulty 
Disregarding the crisis–related cases, € 399 m illion was granted as rescue and restructuring 
aid in 200970. This strengthened a downward trend obser ved in recent years. On average, in 
the period 2004-2006 the total resc ue and restructuring aid amounted to € 3.0 billion per year 
while it was only € 445 million annually in the period 2007 - 2009. Almost two thirds of all 
2009 rescue and restructuring aid was gr anted by the United Kingdom (€ 246 million), 
followed by Poland (€ 35 million), France (€ 34 million), Italy (€ 33 million) and 8 other 
Member States (Germany, the Czech Republic, Sp ain, Austria, Slovenia,  Romania, Denmark, 
Portugal). 
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 va ried considerably. 6 Member States accounted 
for 92% of all rescue and restructuring aid: France (23%), Romania (19%), Poland (17%), 
Slovenia (13%), the United Kingdom (12%) a nd Austria (8%). 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 su fficient to place them in this  group. At the other end of the 
scale are 7 Member States (Estonia, Ireland Cyprus, La tvia, Luxembourg, Hungary and 
Sweden) who did not award any ad hoc  rescue and restructuring aid to ailing firms (in the 
industry and services s ectors) between 2004 and 200971. Over this six-year period, the 
banking sector (excluding the cris is measures) accounted for, on av erage, 8% of all rescue and 
restructuring aid (excluding crisis measures). 
                                                 
70  Rescue and restructuring aid as guided by the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and 
restructuring firms in difficulty, OJ C 244, 1.10.2004, pp. 2-17 , as extended by OJ C 156, 9.7.2009, p.3 . 
71  It is worth recalling that rescue and restructuring aid granted to the financial sector in these Member 
States is analysed in the chapte r dealing with crisis measures.  
EN 33   EN 2.3.2.  State aid to the shipbuilding sector 
In 2009, an estimated € 606 million was granted to the shipbuilding sector mainly by 
Germany (€ 349 million), Spain (€ 185 million), Poland (€ 29 million) and Italy (€ 75 million). The amount of State aid to the shipbuilding sector increased from an annual 
average of € 414 million for the period 2004 - 2006 to € 569 million annually for the period 2007 - 2009. 
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 to 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.
72 In 
2009, only two ad hoc aid measures were author ised by the Commission for the steel sector, 
in Latvia (a guarantee under the Temporary fr amework, i.e. a crisis measure) and Germany 
(environmental aid under the GBER). Ongo ing expenditure however, amounted to 
€ 108 million; this was granted by the United Kingdom (€ 90 million - climate change levy) as environmental aid and by Slovakia (€ 18 million)
73. There is a clear and continuing 
decreasing trend in the aid to the steel sector from an annual average of € 359 million in the 
period 2004 - 2006 to € 167 million annually in the period 2007 - 2009. The downward trend can be largely explained by the fact that so me Member States either stopped or reduced 
considerably (e.g. the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Italy) granting St ate aid after 2004 to 
companies in the steel sector. 
2.3.4.  State aid to the coal sector 
State aid to the coal industry is governed  until 31 December 2010 by a specific legal 
framework, the Coal Regulation 1407/2002
74. 
The downward trend continued reducing thus the global aid amount to € 2.7 billion in 2009. 
In 2009 the Commission finalised the Spanish plan for access to the coal reserves and 
approved the relevant annual aid for 2008 – 2010. Two annual aid decisions were adopted in 
2009 – 201075 regarding the implementation of th e German restructuring plan 2006 – 2010. 
During 2010, the Commission approved aid to the co al sector in Poland. The aim of the Polish 
scheme is to support access to coal reserves . In 2010, another case in Spain approved by the 
Commission provides for an aid to  replace the supply of free coal to some former coal miners. 
In view of the forthcoming expiry of Regulation 1407/200276 (on 31 December 2010) it 
appears useful to record the work already unde rtaken as regards future regulation in this 
sector. The Commission adopted on 20 July  2010 a proposal for a Council Regulation on 
State aid to the hard coal industry77, following a public consultation78. 
                                                 
72 Aid under the Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6.August 2008 declaring certain categories 
of aid compatible with the common market in a pplication 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)). 
73  Ad hoc aid to the steel sector was also granted in 2009 in Latvia as crisis aid, under the temporary 
framework.  
74  Council Regulation (CE) N° 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002, EUOJ L205, 2.8.2002 p.1. 
75  For the purpose to give a complete overview on aid granted to the coal industry, the report includes data 
already available for 2010.  
76  Council Regulation (CE) N° 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002, EUOJ L205, 2.8.2002 p.1. 
77  http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/energy/coal_regulation_20_07_2010_en.pdf. 
78  http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/cia_2010_en.htm#comp. 
EN 34   EN The aim of this proposal is to progressively end operating subsidies to uncompetitive mines. 
Instead, any State subsidies should be increasingly  directed at the financ ing of the social and 
environmental consequences of th e closure of those loss-making mines. In this context, the 
Commission took into consideration the necessity  to close uncompetitive hard-coal mines in 
the EU, but also the social impact of such closure, in particular in certain regions. 
In accordance with this proposal, Member States might grant : 
– Aid to cover the production of coal in the c ontext of a closure plan whose deadline does 
not extend beyond 1 October 2014; 
– Aid to cover exceptional costs in connection with the closur e of mines but which are not 
related to production (in particular social welf are, rehabilitation of sites, and removal of 
waste water…). 
The proposal for a Council Regulation was transmitted to the Council for decision under 
Article 107(3)(e)79. 
2.3.5.  State aid to the transport sector 
 Introduction 
State aid to the transport sector  is partially governed by a specific rule in the Treaty (Article 
93 TFEU), as well as secondary legislation and ru les of soft law (cf. table 5 in the Annex). 
 Expenditure and trend 
For the period 2007–2009 an average amount of € 2.8 billion per year of State aid was granted 
to the transport sector. For comparison, for 2004 – 2006 this sum amount ed to € 2.4 billion80. 
The increase of some 12% is mainly due to a more intensive public support in all sectors, 
except in the inland passenger and freight navi gation, where the averag es were significantly 
reduced. 
 Maritime transport 
More than € 1.8 billion was awar ded to the maritime sector in  2009. In comparison with the 
2007 – 2009 average of over € 1.5 billion per year, the volume of aid remains rather constant. 
Most cases in this sector concern social aid to  seafarers and special ta xation rules for shipping 
companies ("tonnage tax" schemes). There we re also a few cases where Member States 
notified public financing of port infrastructure. 
The Communication on State aid to  ship management companies81 adopted in June 2009 
extends the possibility to qualify for State aid (granted under the form of tonnage tax or other 
tax arrangements) to the technical and crew managers even when operating one shipping 
vessel separately. Unde r the 2004 Guidelines82 the eligibility was limited to the joint 
provision of both technical and crew management for a same vessel ("full management"). 
In 2009, positive decisions were adopted rega rding State aid to seafarers in Italy  and Finland. 
The Commission also concluded the formal procedure opened  in 2007 regarding the DIS 
                                                 
79  This provision stipulates that other categories of aid as may be specified by decision of the Council on a 
proposal from the Commission may be found to be compatible with the internal market  
80  Having regard its exceptional nature, the aid amount  of € 21 billion reported by France this year, 
corresponding to the implementation of the Reform of the RATP pension scheme in 2006 (approved by the Commission on 13 July 2009, OJ L 327, 12.12.2009, p. 21), is not taken into account in this figure. 
81  OJ C 132, 11.03.2009, p. 6. 
82  Community guidelines on State aid to mar itime transport, OJ C 13, 17.1.2004, p. 3. 
EN 35   EN regime83 in Denmark. It accepted the extension of the DIS regime to cable-laying vessels by 
applying by analogy the Maritime Guidelines. In addition, it concl uded the investigation 
procedures regarding tonnage tax scheme s in Ireland and Denmark and approved an 
amendment to the Dutch tonnage tax scheme  and the introduction of a tonnage tax scheme in 
Slovenia  and in Poland. 
Also in 2009, the Commission partially authorised a Greek  and a Latvian  port infrastructure 
development project and initiated a formal inve stigation procedure regarding certain fiscal 
measures in favour of the port sector in France. In addition, it concluded the formal 
investigation procedure initiated in 2008 regard ing the public financi ng of ferry shipping 
services between the Scottish mainland and th e islands of the west and north coasts of 
Scotland. With the exception of one route, th e Commission confirmed that the public service 
obligations for the western and northern islands were legitimately defined and entrusted to the 
operators. 
 Land transport 
The new Council Regulation 1370/2007 on public pa ssenger transport services laying down 
the rules applicable to the compensation of public  service obligations in inland traffic entered 
into force on 3 December 200984. It repealed Council Regulations (EEC) N° 1191/6985 and N° 
1107/7086. A three year transitional period is howe ver foreseen for freight transport. The 
decision adopted in the Danish railway case cons titutes a first example of application of this 
Regulation87. 
Railways 
As in previous years, the Commission adopted several State aid decisions to promote rail 
transport and combined transport in several Member States, including Bulgaria, the Czech 
Republic, Germany  and the UK (restructuring of Eurostar). 
With regard to the specific rules established in the Community guidelines on State aid for 
railway undertakings88, no aid under the form of debt cance llation has been notified until now 
to the Commission. 
Since 1 January 2010 Member States cannot notify measures under the specific rules 
applicable to the restructuring of the freight division of a railway undertaking.   
Road transport 
Pursuant to Regulation 1191/69, ce rtain public financing initiativ es for bus services operated 
under a public service contract we re exempted from the notifi cation obligation. As a result, 
the aid amounts reported for the road and comb ined transport sector during the period 2007 – 
                                                 
83  This regime exempts ship-owners from the payment in Denmark of the income tax of their seafarers.  
84  OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 1. 
85  Regulation (EEC) N° 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning 
the obligations inherent in the concept of a public se rvice in transport by rail, road and inland waterway, 
OJ L 156, 28.6.1969, p. 1. 
86  Regulation (EEC) N° 1107/70 of the Council of 4 June 1970 on the granting of aids for transport by 
rail, road and inland waterway, OJ L 130, 15.06.1970 p. 1. 
87  Decision not yet published. 
88  OJ C 184, 22.07.2008, p. 13. 
EN 36   EN 2009 – € 641 million per year on average – understate the volume of the public financing of 
these services. Under the new Regulation 137 0/2007, the scope of the exemption has been 
widened but reporting requirements have been stre ngthened such that, in the future, there will 
be a higher degree of accuracy. 
Concerning bus transport, formal investigatio ns procedures are ongoing as regards Ireland, the 
Czech Republic and Germany. The Commission is also assessing several complaints in this 
sector. In the field of the urban transport, a formal investigation procedure was closed 
regarding the reform of the fi nancing method for the special pe nsion scheme for the staff of 
RATP, the French public transport company. 
With regard to the improvement of public tran sport infrastructure, several major projects were 
authorised, among which the constr uction and maintenance of the A1  and A2 motorways  in 
Poland. 
In line with the wider Community object ives of the common transport policy and 
environmental protection, the Commission author ised a scheme in Slovenia promoting the 
purchase of heavy goods vehicles satisfying th e Euro V pollution standard.  The Commission 
also authorised a German aid scheme aiming at supporting market acceptance of available 
highly efficient vehicle technologies  and an aid scheme supporting the purchase of low-carbon 
buses in England. 
 Aviation 
Over the period 2007 – 2009, an annual average of € 338 million of aid was reported by 
Member States for the air transport sector. Thes e figures show a certain increase compared to 
the annual average of € 242 million for the period 2004 – 2006. 
The airline industry faced significant turbulen ce in 2009, with a fall in passenger and cargo 
demand which resulted in significant losses  for many carriers. During that year the 
Commission authorised rescue aid for the Aust rian Airlines Group in the form of a loan 
guarantee. It also found the re structuring plan of Austrian Airlines compatible with the 
common market. Furthermore, subject to obser vance of several conditions, the Commission 
decided on certain changes that the Greek au thorities intended to introduce in the sales 
processes of Olympic Airlines and approved the inten tion of the Greek authorities to cover 
part of the costs of the vol untary redundancy scheme to be implemented by Olympic Catering 
SA in respect of certain of its staff. 
In 2009 the Commission approved a number of projects for financ ing airport infrastructure 
(concerning Germany, Poland, Ireland, Malta, Cypr us and the United Kingdom). Four start-up 
aids for establishing new lines  and increasing existing freque ncies were approved in the 2009 
- 2010 period. Since the operation of airports  constitutes an economic activity, the 
Commission must assess whether the public financing has an impact on competing airports in 
particular. In most cases, th e Commission considered that the planned investments had a 
positive impact on the accessibility of the re gion, which outweighed the negative impact on 
competition. On the basis of the criteria, set out in paragraphs  61 and 79 of the 2005 
Community guidelines on financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines de parting from 
regional airports89, the Commission concluded th at public support in relation to these projects 
was compatible with the internal market. 
                                                 
89   OJ C 312, 9.12.2005, p. 1. 
EN 37   EN The Commission is also examining a large numbe r of complaints concerning investment aid 
and start-up aid. In some of these cases, th e formal investigation procedure is ongoing. The 
public financing of new routes may be found to  be in accordance with the behaviour of a 
private investor acting under normal market c onditions and in such cases no State aid is 
involved. However, if the public investment does constitute State aid it may still be declared 
compatible if the relevant conditions, la id down in the 2005 guidelines, are fulfilled. 
Finally, the Commission accepted that the measur es taken by France brought to an end the 
differentiation in passenger charge s as between national and EU f lights, which in fact granted 
an advantage to airlines operating domestic flights. 
2.3.6.  State aid to the agricultural sector 
New cases registered and decisions taken in 2009 
139 new measures were notified to DG Agricultu re and the Commission took decisions in 141 
cases. 
Based on the primary objective for aid in this sector, it appears that almost 24.3% of the 141 
decisions involved aid for investment; 16.6% i nvolved investments in agricultural holdings 
and 7.6% investments in processing and mark eting. Forestry aids accounted for the next 
largest category, representing 14.6 % of the number of decisions  taken (including under the 
new rules concerning the co-financed measur es of the rural development programmes). 
11.6% of decisions involved environmental pr otection aids, and 10.4% aid to make good the 
damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional  occurrences. Only 4.6% related to aid to 
compensate farmers for losses caused by adverse weather conditions. 7.6%  involved aids for 
technical support and for adver tising of agricultural products. Aid for agro environmental 
commitments accounted for 6.2% of the total. Ai d for combating animal diseases represented 
only 4.6% of decisions taken in 2009. 
Of the new aid measures, 20.8% were notified by Spain, followed by Italy (17.2%), Germany 
(14.3%) and France and the Netherlands (5.7%). 
The breakdown by country is marginally differe nt when looking at block-exempted measures: 
Spain had 28.8% of the 267 measures, foll owed by France (15.3%), Italy (13.1%) and 
Germany (10.1%). Slovenia, that in 2008 was the third country for block exempted measures, 
communicated only 4 meas ures in 2009 (1.5%). 
 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 se ctor in 2009 is € 11.18 billion90 
compared with € 11.82 billion in 2008. The di screpancy with the total for 2008 (€ 12.1 
billion) published in the autu mn 2009 Scoreboard is due to  corrections made by Member 
States in their annual reports s ubmitted in 2010 for the period 2002-2009. 
The highest expenditure was re ported by France (€ 2.2 billi on), Finland (€ 1.2 billion) and 
Germany (€ 0.8 billion). 
As can be seen by comparing the figures for 2008 and 2009, 13 Member States increased their 
State aid expenditure; all other countries (in order: Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, 
                                                 
90  Aid measures to the agricultural sector granted under Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 amounted to 
roughly € 0.4 billion.  
EN 38   EN Ireland, Spain, Italy, Lithuania, Hungary, Malt a, Austria, Portugal Slovenia and Finland) 
spent less. 
 Block-exempted aid 
267 measures allowed aid to be granted via a block exemption in 2009 which was 
considerably lower compared to 2007 (496) and 2008 (433). Until now, only Luxemburg and 
Malta have not granted block exempted aid. 
In 2009, all block-exempted aid was granted pursuant to Co mmission Regulation (EC) No 
1857/2006. Aid measures to the agricultural sector but earmarked for research and 
development, aid in the form of risk capital,  training aid, environm ental aid and aid for 
disadvantaged and disabled workers (to the extent  that these categories of aid are not covered 
by Regulation 1857/2006) are granted under the GBER . For this reason, expenditure reported 
on aid measures granted under Regulation (E C) No 70/2001 is included only until August 
2008. 
The total of BER expenditure in 2009 was € 1.46 bi llion, corresponding to  13.1% of the total 
State aid expenditure in agri culture, when in 2008 it was 12.7% . Analysing the results per 
country, it appears that 94.81% of the Latvia n aid expenditure concerned BER measures, 
followed by Greece (65.93%), Spain (63.41%), It aly (40.8%), Slovenia (24.8%) and Belgium 
(17.48%). 
2.3.7.  State aid to the fisheries sector 
 Expenditure 
The total amount of State aid awarded to the fish eries sector was estimated at more than € 200 
million in 200991. The data are based on the figures received from Member States' annual 
reports on existing aid schemes. France (€ 88 million92) reported the highest figures, followed 
by Spain (more than € 36 million), the Czech Republic (more than € 26 million) and Denmark (almost € 17 million). Further breakdown of expe nditure figures is not available for the 
fisheries sector. 
 Block exemption 
The total amount of block-exempted aid paid  out in 2009 is about € 8.32 million, with Greece 
accounting for 25% of this total. This amount  corresponds to 23 block exempted measures, 
granted by 11 Member States. 
16 aid measures have been block-exempted under the new block exem ption regulation in 
force since 19
 August 2008 (Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2008 of 22 July 2008 on 
the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Tr eaty to State aid to small and medium-sized 
enterprises active in the production, proces sing and marketing of  fisheries products)93.  
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. However, in some cases the actu al aid element may differ from the nominal 
amount as in the case of s ubsidies, loans or guarantees94.  
                                                 
91  Estimate. 
92  Estimate. 
93  XF n°1/2009, 2/2009, 4/2009, 5/2009, 6/2009, 7/ 2009, 8/2009, 9/2009.11/2009, 12/2009, 14/2009, 
16/2009, 1/2010, 2/2010, 5/2010, 10/2010. 
94  For details on the calculation of ai d element, see methodological notes. 
EN 39   EN 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 2009 
Figure 1595: Share of aid instruments in total aid for industry and services;  
    EU-27; 2009  
Aid instruments as %  in 2009
 (EU 27)
Tax 
exemptions
6%Guarantees
36%Grants
10%
Soft loans
1%Tax deferrals
0%
Equity 
participation
47%
 
As regards total State aid gran ted for industry and services (all cases) in 2009, the aid 
instrument used the most frequently was the equity participation (roughly 47%), followed by 
guarantees (36%) and grants (10 %). Less frequently used were the other instruments like tax 
exemptions (6%) and soft loans (around 1%). It comes as no surpri se that equity participation 
was the most prominent instrument used in  2009, given the predom inance of the crisis 
measures under which Member States of ten entered as share holder in banks. 
Figure 1696: Share of aid instruments in total aid for industry and services  
(crisis measures excluded); EU-27; 2009 
                                                 
95  Source: DG Competition. 
96  Source: DG Competition. 
EN 40   EN Aid instruments as % in 2009 (EU 27) 
(cris is  meas ures  excluded)
Tax exemptions
42%Guarantees
2%
Grants
51%Soft loans
4%Tax deferrals
0%
Equity 
participation
1%
 
When crisis measures are excluded from the total aid, the aid instrument most frequently used 
by Member States was grants (roughly 51%), followed by tax exemptions (approximately 
42%). Much less used were the other instruments i.e. soft loan (4%), guarantee (around 2%), and equity participation (less than 1%). 
6 Member States (Luxembourg, Denmark, Slovenia , Austria, Bulgaria, and Cyprus) gave 90% 
or more of aid through grants, while Portugal,  Sweden, Malta, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, 
Ireland, France and Germany granted at least 50% of  state aid to industry and services in 2009 
using tax exemptions. 
2.4.2.  Trend in the use of aid instrume nts (crisis measures excluded) 
Figure 17
97: Aid instruments EU-27 as % of 3 year average (2004 - 2006)   
                                                 
97  Source: DG Competition. 
EN 41   EN Aid instrument (EU-27 ) as  %  of 3 year avera ge (2004-2006 ) 
(crisis measures excluded)
Tax exemptions
38% Grants
55%Guarantees
2%Tax deferrals
1% Soft loans
3%
Equity 
participation
1%
 
Figure 1898: Aid instruments EU-27 as % of 3 year average (2007 - 2009) 
Aid instruments EU-27 as % of 3- year avera ge (2007-2009 ) 
(cris is  meas ures  excluded)
Equity 
participation
1%
Soft loans
3%
Tax deferrals
0%Tax exemptions
44%
Grants
50%Guarantees
2%
 
The comparison between the periods 2004 - 2006 and 2007 - 2009 shows that on average the 
use of aid instruments was generally stable with  grants and tax exemptions confirmed as the 
preferred instruments.   
When looking at the period 2007 - 2009 in isol ation, grants accounted for roughly 50% of 
total aid to industry and serv ices (compared to 55% in the period 2004 - 2006). Many Member 
                                                 
98  Source: DG Competition. 
EN 42   EN States i.e. Slovenia, Denmark, Luxembourg, Aust ria, Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia and Romania 
awarded 80% or more of their aid through gran ts. State aid granted through tax exemptions 
represented the second largest use of aid inst ruments, roughly 44% (compared to 38% in the 
previous three-year period). Use of other aid instruments is relatively uncommon.  
This situation on the use of aid instruments varies when the data  is split for EU-15 and EU-12. 
In the period 2007 - 2009, EU-15 awarded 49% of total state aid to industry and services 
through grants and 45% using tax exemptions. Th e figures for EU-12 are 64% for grants and 
31% for tax exemptions. 
3. STATE AID IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS  
3.1. General background 
The global financial crisis which hit Europe tw o years ago was the greatest in its severity 
since the Great Depression and left a prof ound mark on the European economy. Critical 
liquidity issues which rocked European financia l industry started to em erge well before the 
end of 2008. In several cases, the financial inst itutions engaged in extremely risky investment 
strategies fell into difficulti es and sought relief from Memb er States in 2007 and early 2008. 
Once the full force of the financial crisis hit in late 2008, even the more risk-averse financial 
institutions started experiencing the negative ef fects of the credit squeeze. Already in the 
autumn of 2008, the financial crisis and advanc ing recession started to  reinforce each other 
and the real economy was sent spiralling dow n as a result of scarce credit flows. 
Since then, the financial and economic conditions  in EU have improve d significantly and now 
most of the Member States are on the cour se to economic recovery. That said, some 
uncertainty regarding banking sector pers ists. The EU's latest economic forecast99 predicts 
that the recovery in the EU w ill remain fragile facing challenges ahead. It appears that global 
trade and exports will be the main driving fact ors of the European recovery, however, weak 
domestic demand and investment, coupled with  high unemployment and slow wage growth 
will have a significant impact on the pace of the current economic upturn. GDP growth will 
be slow in the first three quarters of 2010 and should gain ground only at the end of that year. 
That could be viewed as a sign of fading impact  of the temporary support that helped to avoid 
economic meltdown.  
The stabilisation of the European  economy can be attributed in the main to the exceptionally 
wide instruments put in place to stimulate demand in the shor t-run. However, that kick-start to 
the economy had its cost, weighing heavily on public finances. The general government 
deficit has tripled in recent years. The yearly  budgetary deficit reached 6.8% of GDP in the 
EU in 2009 (6.3% in euro-area), while the debt-to-GDP ratio ro se to 73.6% (78.7% in euro-
area) and is projected to rise  to around 84% in 2011 (88% in euro-area). Together with the 
drop in public revenues, the crisis exposed wea knesses in the fiscal policies of some Member 
States. The crisis also exposed  some of the problems which certain members of the euro-area 
face in regard to their high debt-to-GDP ratio and the subsequent difficulties as regards refinancing the public debt. These factors adde d additional turmoil to the fragile recovery, 
especially in the southern Member States of th e euro-area and in Ireland. The next hurdle for 
the recovery might come from the fiscal co nsolidation which is under way in the most 
Member States and which might have stronger than currently estimated negative effects on 
domestic demand. 
                                                
 
99  European Commission, Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs, European economic 
interim forecast September 2010 . 
EN 43   EN In addition to monetary and fiscal measures taken in 2009, the EU an d its Member States 
continued their efforts to agree on regulatory action to address the causes of the financial 
crisis and prevent its repetition in  the future. The first concrete steps were taken in the form of 
recommendations by the de Larosière  group100, which were subsequently endorsed by the 
Commission101. Next, legislative proposals were pr esented by the Commission in September-
October 2009 to reform prudential supervision in Europe102. In addition, the Commission has 
also taken steps to ensure th e protection of bank depositors, ma ke credit rating agencies more 
reliable and transparent, strengthen capital base requirements, make more transparent operating conditions for hedge funds and adopt  recommendations on remuneration policies 
and on bank resolution funds
103. On 2 June 2010, the Commission outlined its actions in the 
Communication on regulati ng financial services for sustainable growth104. More recently, the 
Commission outlined its plans how to addr ess crisis management in the future105. 
3.2. Commission's response to th e financial crisis in the field of State aid 
State aid was one of the main instruments in help ing to battle the financial crisis. The situation 
deteriorated sharply after th e collapse of Lehman Brothe rs in September 2008. Poorly 
performing assets, severe rating downgrades, a poor earnings outlook and markets players' 
uncertainty about exposure to impaired assets disrupted no rmal functioning of interbank 
(wholesale) markets. Those main factors led to  serious difficulties in accessing liquidity and 
banks became reluctant to lend to each other and to the real economy. Moreover, market 
participants also started requiring capitalisation ratios far in excess of the minimum statutory 
capital requirements. The result was considerable  solvency problems for a number of financial 
institutions. 
It is generally accepted that af ter October 2008 the 'credit' cr isis became systemic and no 
longer affected just financial institutions wh ich could be considered as 'undertakings in 
difficulty' under the existing Rescue  and Restructuring guidelines106. The Commission 
responded with specific and st ructural action based on Articl e 107(3)(b) TFEU  and in the 
course of just a few months  adopted four communications107 aimed at preserving financial 
stability and ensuring legal certainty. That de cisive coordination of Member States' actions 
allowed them to address the severe liquidity shortages which had led spreads on interbank markets to increase exponentially in the wake of the crisis and help ed calm down the markets 
                                                
 
100  The High Level Group on Financial Supervision in the EU , chaired by Jacques de Larosière, Report, 
Brussels 25 February 2009. 
101  The Commission adopted a Communication on the European financial supervision, 
COM (2009) 252 final . 
102  For more details, please consult http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finances/committees/index_en.htm . 
103  The relevant documents can be found on http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finances/index_en.htm .  
104  Please refer to http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finances/docs/general/com2010_en.pdf . 
105  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliame nt, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Central Bank on 'EU Framework for Crisis 
Management in the Fina ncial Sector'. The docum ent can be consulted at  
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/doc s/crisis-management/ framework/com2010_579_en.pdf . 
106  Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, OJ C 244, 
1.10.2004, pp. 2-17 , as extended by OJ C 156, 9.7.2009, p. 3 . 
107  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, 25.10.2008, pp. 8-14 , Communication from the 
Commission — The recapitalisation of fi nancial institutions in the current financial crisis: limitation of 
aid to the minimum necessary and safeguards  against undue distortions of competition, OJ C 10, 
15.1.2009, pp. 2-10 , Communication from the Commission on the treatment of impaired assets in the 
Community banking sector, OJ C 72, 26.3.2009, pp. 1-22 , Communication from the Commission on the 
return to viability and the assessment of the restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current 
crisis under the State aid rules, OJ C 195, 19.8.2009, pp. 9-20 . 
EN 44   EN and ease deleveraging by upgrading banks' capital ba se and cleaning impair ed assets from the 
financial institutions balance sheets108. 
With the financial crisis deepening, financia l institutions were deleveraging and becoming 
significantly more risk-averse than in the prev ious years. Companies started experiencing 
difficulties in accessing credit. As part of it s response, in January 2009 the Commission 
adopted the Temporary Framework109. Applicable until the e nd of 2010, it gives Member 
States additional possibilities to address the effects of the credit squeeze on the real economy. 
For more detail on the Temporary Framework, read section 3.4. 
This chapter will look at the dynamics of the financial sector in 2009, the most important 
action taken by the Commission in 2009 and the hi ghlights for 2010.  In contrast to the other 
chapters, and in order to present a full picture of  crisis-related aid, the analysis here will not 
be limited to 2009 but will take into account the entire period from the beginning of the crisis 
up to a cut-off date of 1 October 2010. 
3.2.1.  Trends in the financial sector 2009 - 2010 
It is observed that the situa tion in the financial sector im proved. First, in 2009 banks used 
favourable market conditions to restore thei r capital position. That development allowed 
many of the larger banks to increase their Ti er-1 capital ratio  to above 10%, although smaller 
banks still have not regained the capitalis ation they had before autumn 2008. Second, the 
banking sector had a rather strong performan ce in terms of earnings and profit throughout 
2009. Finally, financial asset prices recovered, contributing to the good results on the earnings 
side. Admittedly, this was in part fuelled by r ecord lows in central banks' interest rates, 
allowing low refinancing costs. 
Another sign of the situation in interbank markets having improved is significantly lower 
reliance of the financial institutions on State gua ranteed liabilities. According to the data 
available to the Commission, guaranteed bonds cons tituted less than 5% of the total amount of 
banks' funding by the end of 2009 (compared to more than 30% in January 2009)110. These 
positive signs led the Commission, upon the reco mmendation from the Council, to review 
some of the existing State aid guarant ee schemes for existing and new debt. 
Those positive signs must be accompanied by some caveats. The improvements mentioned 
are not felt equally across Europe with the fi nancial institutions in the countries with 
sovereign debt issues being in a more difficult situation than those elsewhere in Europe. Next, 
the positive trends in capital ratios could possibly be  offset by the fact that the extent of the 
impaired assets was never fully disclosed by the financial institutions, contributing to some degree of uncertainty. Next, the strong rebound in  earnings and profits appears to be of a 
temporary nature and without su stained strong performance by the real economy it will not be 
sustainable in the long term. Therefore, furt her success in bringing the situation in the 
                                                
 
108  For more detailed analysis of the main notions of these communications and also for deeper analysis of 
context of the crisis please refer to previous editio ns of the Scoreboard, in particular the Autumn 
Scoreboard 2008, Spring special edition 2009, Autumn Scoreboard 2009 and Spring special edition 2010. Also see the Report on Competition Policy for 2009. 
109  Communication from the Commission – Temporary Framework, OJ C 83, 7.4.2009, p. 1; Modification 
of the Temporary Framework – to allow separate limited amount of aid to farmers, OJ C 261, 
31.10.2009; 2nd Modification of the Temporary Framework – technical modification to further 
facilitate access to finance and encourage long -term investment, OJ C 303, 15.12.2009, p.6 
110  The dynamics of this dependence is shown in Figure 1 of the Spring Scoreboard 2010 and Staff 
working paper on the application of state aid rules to government guarantee schemes covering bank 
debt to be issued after 30 June 2010, p.11. 
EN 45   EN financial sector closer to market conditions depends on a number of factors including the 
strategies of the banks themselves. 
3.2.2.  The main highlights 2010 
The current year111 is proving to be very important in dealing with the new challenges. This 
chapter thus captures the main events a nd their implications for State aid policy112. 
Regardless of the turmoil over sovereign de bt issues, discussions started on how to 
progressively reduce banks' relia nce on State support. Demonstrab le falling reliance on State 
guarantees in the banking se ctor called for action. The Ec ofin Council welcomed the 
preliminary analysis of the Commission's in tention to introduce specific pre-requisites 
regarding the renewed provisi on of guarantees after 30 J une 2010, which included the 
increase of the guarantee fees based on banks' creditworthiness. Those actions paved the way 
for bringing funding costs closer to market cond itions and requiring a vi ability review for the 
banks still heav ily reliant on government guarantees113. Reacting to these policy lines, on 30 
April 2010 the Commission released a staff wo rking paper on the application of State aid 
rules to government guarantee schemes coveri ng bank debt to be issued after 30 June 2010114. 
Staff working paper on the application of state aid rules to government guarantee schemes covering 
bank debt to be issued after 30 June 2010 
The Staff working paper constitutes the first step  towards the exit from gua rantee schemes within a 
coherent framework for a coordinated approach across Member States maintaining the progress in 
reinforcing financial stability. In general, a certa in exit process has already begun at the level of 
individual banks. Sound in stitutions have largely withdrawn fro m the use of guarantees in order to 
benefit from more favourable conditions for un secured market funding and to avoid conditions 
attached to State assistance. Further, some Member  States have decided not to prolong their guarantee 
schemes. As a consequence of the general improvement  in  conditions , the risks for financial stability 
have subsided, and the distortions of competition be tween those financial institutions that issue State 
guaranteed bonds but are not currently under restruct uring obligations and those that issue strictly 
under market conditions has become greater . These concerns were addressed by tackling 
simultaneously guarantee fees and subjecting users that  continue to heavily rely on State guarantees, 
but that are currently not under restructur ing obligations, to undergo a viability check. 
1. Increasing guarantee fees . Moderate increase in guarantee fees is seen as the right incentive for exit 
without at the same time jeopardising the stabilit y of financial institutions, although Member States 
are free to apply more stringent conditions. Under th e schemes in force before 30 June 2010, in case of 
a bond with maturity over one year, the minimum fee comprised a flat charge of 50 basis points 
augmented by each bank's median five-year senior de bt credit default swap (CDS) spread observed in 
the period 1 January 2007 to 31 August 2008. For guarantee schemes prolonged beyond 30 June 2010, 
this pricing formula is made de pendent on a bank's rating and is a ugmented in the following manner: 
(a) by 20 basis points for banks with a rating of A+ or A, 
                                                 
111  Previous developments of 2009 and 2010 were captured in the Autumn Scoreboard 2009 and the Spring 
Scoreboard 2010. In order to reflex better the most current situation, this edition provides overview of the situation as of April 2010. 
112  The overview of the most important restructuring cases for 2009 can be found  in the Commission staff 
working document accompanying the Report on the competiti on policy 2009, p. 49-54; 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/annual_report/2009/part_2_en.pdf  . 
113  See 3015th Council meeting, Economic and Financial Affairs, Brussels, 18 May 2010, 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/114495.pdf . 
114  The document can be consulted on 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/phase_out_bank_guarantees.pdf .  
EN 46   EN (b) by 30 basis points for banks rated A-, and 
(c) by 40 basis points for banks rated below A-. Unra ted banks are considered to have a BBB rating. 
2. Viability check.  Until 30 June 2010, the mere use of gua rantees did not automatically trigger the 
obligation to submit a viability review or a rest ructuring plan. Under the Banking Communication and 
the decisional practice of the Commission, a restructuring or liquidation plan had to be notified only if 
the guarantee was called upon because the bank defau lted on a covered liability. However, current 
market conditions no longer represent a serious obs tacle for banks across the board to access liquidity 
as in the more acute crisis period. Hence it is a ppropriate to introduce a differentiation on conditions 
attached to the use of State guarantees based on the extent to which banks rely on them. Therefore, 
while limited usage of State guarantees can be allowe d without scrutiny, a larger use in both absolute 
terms or in relation to the bank's total amount of  liabilities should trigger the viability review as a 
prerequisite for conformity of the extension of  guarantee schemes under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. For 
guarantee schemes prolonged beyond 30 June 2010, this th reshold is set at a ratio of 5% of outstanding 
guaranteed liabilities over total liabilities and at a to tal amount of guaranteed debt of € 500 million. 
Another significant event was the second round of stress tests carried out by the Committee of 
European Banking Supervisors under th e mandate from the Ecofin Council115. The stress tests 
took into account various macro-eco nomic parameters to assess banks ' resilience to credit and 
market risks, in particular  exposure to sovereign debt  and reliance on public support 
measures. It covered a sample of major cros s-boarder banking groups representing over 60% 
of the EU banking sector in terms of total asse ts (91 banks) using agreed  baseline and adverse 
scenarios for 2010-2011. Under the adverse scenari o, the total amount of impaired assets and 
trading losses would amount to € 56 6 billions according to the test  results. Tier 1 capital ratio 
would fall from 10.3% in 2009 to 9.2% by the end of 2011 (compared to the regulatory 
minimum of 4% and to the threshold of 6% set up for that exercise). In the selected adverse 
conditions, seven banks would see their Tier 1 ca pital drop below the leve l of 6% taken as a 
benchmark for the test. They were Spanish cajas , Hypo Real Estate from Germany and 
Greece's ATE bank116. As regards implications for State ai d, nearly all of those banks (except 
a few cajas ) were already undergoing restructuring pursu ant to the EU State aid rules. It is 
also important to mention that any future st ress test would not auto matically mean that 
granting State aid was required as banks re main free to raise funding on the market. 
Furthermore, on 22 September 2010, the European Parliament approved new rules on the 
revamped system of prudential supervision in the EU. The reform will enable newly created 
supervisory institutions to spot systemic risks within the European banking system and contribute to avoiding a repetition of the financial crisis. In concrete terms, the new 
framework will reinforce financial stability, en sure the consistent application of basic 
technical rules, put in place an early warnin g system and effectively solve disagreements 
between financial supervisors. The framework will create new institutions, namely a European Systemic Risk Board and three ne w European Supervisory Authorities for the 
financial services sector: a European Banking Authority (EBA), a European Insurance and 
Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) and a European Securities and Markets Authority 
(ESMA). Each of the new authorities will be made up of the 27 nationa l supervisors. Other 
                                                
 
115  The first round of stress tests was conducted in 2009 and their results released in October 2009. See 
Council conclusions of 9 December 2009, http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/111706.pdf
.  
116  For more detailed information on stress tests a nd their outcome, please refer to CEBS homepage at 
http://www.c-ebs.org/ .  
EN 47   EN important aspects of crisis management were outlined in the Communication on the EU 
Framework for Crisis Management in the Financial Sector117. 
3.3. General trends in State aid grante d to the financial sector in 2009 
In the period between 1 October 2008 and 1 October 2010,118 the Commission took more than 
200 decisions in the financial services sect or based on Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. Aiming to 
remedy a serious disturbance in Member Stat es economies, these decisions authorised, 
amended or prolonged 41 schemes and addressed with individual decisi ons the situation in 
more than 40 financial institutions. The financia l crisis called for wide-ranging action with the 
Commission authorising financial crisis measur es in the field of State aid in 22 Member 
States, i.e. all Member States except Bulg aria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Malta and 
Romania. 
The maximum volume of Commission-approv ed measures including schemes and ad hoc  
interventions amount to € 4 588.90 bil lion or 39% of EU-27 GDP for 2009119. The total 
volume approved for schemes (€ 3 478.96 billion) was considerably highe r than for individual 
financial institutions (€ 1 109.94 billion). Th e large amounts of support approved under 
schemes can be explained by the fact that so me Member States adopted blanket guarantee 
schemes which covered all their banks' debt120. In terms of aid instruments used, the greatest 
bulk was approved as guarantees including schemes and ad hoc  interventions representing 
€ 3 485.25 billion (30% of EU-27 GDP for 2009) or 76% of all aid approv ed for the financial 
sector. € 546.08 billion (4.5% of  GDP) was approved as recapit alisation measures, followed 
by € 401.79 billion (3.3% of GDP) fo r impaired assets interventi ons. The volume of liquidity 
instruments approved was € 155.77 billion (1.3% of  GDP). It appears that Member States 
relied principally on guarantee measures which ha d a stabilising effect for the financial sector 
without weighing heavily on the public finan ces as opposed to mo re interventionist 
instruments such as recapitalisations or the cleaning of impaired assets. In addition, nearly 70% of approved aid relates to just 5 Member  States (the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, 
Germany and France). 
Distinction between approved aid, actually used amounts and aid element for the financial 
institutions 
Three different concepts are used in this Scor eboard to better explain the volumes approved, 
subsequently used and the benefit ob tained by the financial institutions. 
• The maximum approved volume (budget)  of crisis measures represents the overall 
maximum amount of State aid measures (such as guarantees, capital injec tions and other) set 
up by Member States and approved by the Comm ission. This figure corresponds to the upper 
limits of support which Member States are allowe d to grant to the financial institutions. This 
figure, however, neither expresses the amounts actually implemented nor the benefit which 
individual financial in stitutions obtained. 
                                                 
117  The document can be consulted at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/docs/crisis-
management/framework/com2010_579_en.pdf . 
118  This chapter aims to capture the most recent developments and provides an overview of approved 
financial crisis aid up to 1 October 2010. However, data on expenditure at the time of writing is only 
available for the years 2008 and 2009. Therefore, this staff working document focuses on expenditure in 
2009. Where the trends need to be highlighted, expenditure data for 2008 is provided. 
119  The reference period for approved amounts and decisions taken in the context of financial crisis cases 
taken in this Scoreboard is from 1 October 2008 till 1 October 2010. 
120  Blanket guarantee schemes were adopted in Denmark and Ireland. 
EN 48   EN • The actually used amount (nominal amount)  of the aid measure expresses the actual 
volume of the aid measure which Member States implemented. For example,  in the case of a 
guarantee or liquidity measure,  actually used amount would represent the volume of a 
guarantee or loan handed through a particular sc heme or to a particular financial institution. 
Typically, these amounts would be much lower than maximum approved volumes as not the 
whole amount authorized by the Commission is taken-up. 
• The aid element (gross grant equivalent)  of State aid measures expresses the 
monetary advantage granted to indivi dual banks either through schemes or ad hoc  
interventions. The exact volume of the aid elem ent depends on the case and the aid instrument 
in question (guarantee, recapitalisation etc). In most cases the aid element is much lower than 
actually used amounts because not the whole am ount actually used can be considered as a 
benefit passed on to a beneficiary. For example, the aid element of a guarantee is the benefit 
expressed as a difference between a guarantee fee offered by Member State and the market. 
However, accounting the exact amount of the aid element in some cases might be difficult due 
to the lack of information on the prevailing mark et prices. Therefore, Member States and the 
Commission use particular proxy methods as de scribed in the Methodological notes annexed 
to this Staff working document. 
In 2009, the amount actually used (nominal amount) of aid reported to the Commission by 
Member States was € 1 106.54 b illion or 9.3% of EU-27 GDP.121 As regards the overall take-
up rate, only slightly more than half of the approved maximum volumes were used by 
Member States (take-up rate of 56%)122. 
According to the annual reports on State aid expenditure for 2009,123 Member States reported 
the aid element (gross grant equivalent) of  that amount to cons titute € 351.68 billion124. That 
total is more than five times higher than non- crisis aid granted for the whole industry and 
services sector (€ 61.9 billion for 2009). Furthe r breakdown of the aggregate figures can be 
found in the summary table below. 
Table 1125 – Summary table on maximum approve d volumes, nominal amount and aid 
element, in € billion   
 Approved 
volume 2008-
2010 Actual use i.e. 
nominal 
amount126  
2009 Aid element 
2009 Total crisis 
aid granted 
as a % of 
GDP127 
Schemes  3 478.96 727.38 180.91 1.53% 
                                                 
121  Data on actual use is drawn from Member States' annual reports on State aid. 
122  The take-up rate constitutes actual use of State aid measures for 2008 and 2009 relative to the total 
approved amount (minus approved budgets for 2010). Actual use for 2010 cannot be reflected as the 
Commission is still not in a possession of expenditure data for 2010. This figure would be reflected in 
the autumn scoreboard 2011. 
123  In the absence of data of actual expenditure and/or estimations provided by Member States, in some 
instances Member States were asked to confirm estimations made by the Commission's services. For 
exact estimation methods applied, please refer to the Methodological notes. 
124  Data on aid element is drawn from Member States' annual reports on State aid. For more information on 
distinction between actual use and ai d element, exact definitions of ai d element for each aid instrument 
(guarantees, recapitalizations and impair ed assets) in regard of the financial crisis cases, please refer to 
the Methodological notes of the Scoreboard. 
125  Source: DG Competition. 
126  The nominal amount is the amount approved by the Commission, e.g. for guarantees the amounts which 
can be covered by the State.  
127  This percentage constitutes aid element for 2009 relative to the EU-27 GDP for 2009. 
EN 49   EN           for guarantees 3026.28 612.59 77.33 0.6% 
          for recapitalisation measures 348.64 95.15 95.15 0.8% 
          for asset relief interventions 62.17 1.4 1.4 0.01% 
          for liquidity measures other than 
guarantee schemes 41.87 18.23 8.6 0.05% 
Ad hoc  interventions in favour of 
individual financial institutions 1109.94 379.16 170.76 1.44% 
          for guarantees 458.97 214.3 50.81 0.4% 
          recapitalszation measures 197.44 46.36 44.49 0.3% 
          for asset relief interventions 339.63 108.38 73.87 0.6% 
          for liquidity measures other than 
guarantees 113.9 11.11 1.5 0.01% 
TOTAL 4 588.90 
 1 106.54 351.68 2.9% 
As regards the distribution within the aid inst ruments, guarantees remained the most used 
support measures with € 826.89 billion being actually used in 2009. The gross capital injections into financial institutions were € 141. 51 billion, and the cleani ng of impaired assets 
amounted to € 109.78 billion. Finally, € 28.34 billi on were used for liquidity interventions 
throughout the EU. 
The evolution of the aid element in the financ ial crisis cases, however, reveals a slightly 
different trend. State aid (aid elem ent) granted for both schemes and ad hoc  cases in the form 
of recapitalisations amounted to € 139.64 billion or approximately 40% of  total State aid (aid 
element) granted in the context of the financial crisis
128, followed by guarantees (€ 123.47 
billion), measures related to impaired assets (€  75.27 billion) and liquid ity injections (€ 8.6). 
A more detailed picture is presented in the follo wing table which presents  aggregated data per 
Member State relating to overall approved amount and actual use both for schemes and ad 
hoc measures. 
                                                 
128  This trend can be explained by the methodology to assess the aid el ement of recapitalization measures. 
For more information please see the sub-section on recapitalization and the Methodological notes. 
EN 50   EN Table 2  – Approved amounts, actual use and expend iture per Member State (all schemes and 
ad hoc  measures)129 
Approved amounts 2008-2010 Actual use 2008 Aid element 2008 Actual use 2009 Aid element 2009Aid element as a % of 
national GDP 2009
United Kingdom 850.30 182.34 62.28 282.41 119.91 7.65%
Ireland 723.31 0.34 0.03 11.29 11.03 6.74%
Denmark 599.66 586.22 56.48 14.44 8.03 3.60%
Germany 592.23 192.07 51.08 262.68 100.00 4.15%
France 351.10 81.37 25.59 129.48 26.75 1.40%
Spain 334.27 99.35 0.94 60.31 7.32 0.70%
Netherlands 323.60 17.03 14.04 75.00 9.70 1.70%
Belgium 328.59 55.86 21.47 120.43 32.29 9.57%
Sweden 161.56 1.29 0.34 79.39 8.50 2.90%
Austria 91.70 10.79 0.99 30.94 9.35 3.37%
Greece 78.00 0.00 0.00 25.12 12.18 5.13%
Finland 54.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 Not used
Portugal 20.45 4.76 0.52 0.65 0.07 0.04%
Italy 20.00 0.00 0.00 4.05 4.05 0.27%Slovenia 12.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.20 0.57%Luxembourg 11.59 3.98 2.78 2.72 0.88 2.33%
Hungary 10.33 0.00 0.00 2.57 0.35 0.38%
Poland 9.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Not usedLatvia 8.78 0.94 0.94 0.86 0.86 4.62%
Slovakia 3.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Not used
Cyprus 3.00 0.00 0.00 2.23 0.23 1.36%
Lithuania 1.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Approved in 2010
Total 4588.90 1236.47 237.48 1106.54 351.68
 
3.3.1.  Guarantees on bank debt 
Guarantee schemes have proven to be an approp riate and effective tool  to address liquidity 
problems and have played a key role in preven ting the financial system from collapsing. The 
detailed guidance on the criteria for compatibility  with the internal market was provided in the 
Commission's Banki ng Communication130. Seeking to ensure the temporary nature of these 
measures, the guarantee schemes have been approve d for periods of 6 months at a time with 
the possibility to prolong them. Since autumn 2008 and up to 1 October 2010, the 
Commission approved or renewed 41 schemes and individual interventions relating to more 
than 40 financial institutions.  
While the use of guarantees was at its height at the end of 2008 and the first half of 2009, it 
decreased significantly thereafte r. In the wake of the onslaught of the crisis, the mere 
availability of such guarantee  schemes was in itself a reassuring signal to the market even 
without them being fully exploited after the summer 2009. The following figure further 
illustrates the decrease in the number of guaranteed bonds issued after the summer 2009. 
                                                 
129  Source: DG Competition. Please note that figures fo r 2008 actual use and aid element are different from 
the ones announced in the Autumn Scoreboard 2010 because of the data adjustments carried out by 
Member States (or proposed by the Commission), as for example in the case of Denmark (including the scheme NN51/2008 into the year 2008). 
130  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, 25.10.2008, pp. 8-14 . 
EN 51   EN Figure 19131 – Number of guaranteed bonds issued  through schemes (October 2008 – August 
2010) 
02040608010 012 0
09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08
2008 2009 2010
 
As follows also from the spri ng edition of th e Scoreboard 2010132, the share of guaranteed 
bonds in the overall funding of th e financial institutions had d ecreased significantly since the 
second half of 2009. In addition, the evidence clearly  showed that as from the second half of 
2009 guarantees were mostly used by the fi nancial institutions having lower ratings133. 
These factors coupled with the generally improving situation led to discussions on a gradual 
phase-out of State support. On 2 December 2009, the Ecofin Council concluded on the need to disengage from various forms of tem porary support for the financial sector. The 
conclusions stressed in particular that the unw inding of State aid measures should start with 
guarantee schemes. In that regard, the Commis sion presented a preliminary analysis of the 
intention to introduce specific pre-requisites for the renewed provision of  guarantees after 30 
June 2010. The main changes concerned the incr ease of the guarantee fees based on banks' 
creditworthiness
134. The Ecofin Council of 18 May 2010 welcomed the Commission analysis 
and work started on bridging the difference in funding costs and, thus, encouraging sound 
financial institutions to exit from State guarantee s while requiring others to assess their long-
term viability and address weaknesses through restructuring where necessary. 
However, the actual disengagement in some c ountries started even earlier. Some Member 
States (Italy, France and the UK)  discontinued their schemes in  late 2009 or early 2010. The 
Netherlands tightened the conditions of its guarantee scheme as of 1 January 2010. After 30 
June 2010, 13 Member States135 have prolonged their schemes and a new guarantee scheme 
was approved for Lithuania in line with the po licy conditions set out in the Staff working 
paper of 30 April 2010. Total ope rational schemes across the EU  now stand at 14. Cyprus, 
Finland and Slovakia chose to pha se-out their guarantee measures . The relatively high number 
of Member States which still kept guarantee measures can be explained by Member States' 
                                                 
131  Source: Commission services. 
132  Please refer to Figure 1 in the Spring Scoreboard 2010. 
133  Please refer to Figure 8 of Staff working paper on the application of state aid rules to government 
guarantee schemes covering bank debt to be issued after 30 June 2010. 
134  For summary details please refer to the previous section of this paper. 
135  Austria, Germany, Denmark, Greece, Spain, Hunga ry, Ireland, Latvia, Nether lands, Poland, Portugal, 
Sweden and Slovenia. 
EN 52   EN willingness to reiterate their commitment to support financial institutions in the case of 
unforeseen future shocks. 
The total volume of guarantee measures authorised by the Commission from 1 October 2008 
until 1 October 2010 equals € 3 485.25 billion. Reports from Member States on State aid 
expenditure reveal that € 826.89 billion (7% of EU-27 GDP) has been ef fectively used with 
the aid element of € 128.15 billion representing roughly 1% of EU-27 GDP. The take-up rate 
for the guarantees is 65%. The further aggregate breakdown between schemes and ad hoc  
interventions is summarised in the table below. 
Table 3136 – Guarantees granted for liabilities of financial institutions in 2009 (schemes and 
ad hoc ), € billion 
 Approved volumes 
(1.10. 2008- 
31.7.2010) Actual use in 2009 Aid element for 
2009 % of aid element 
in relation to Eu-
27 GDP for 2009 
Schemes 3026.28 612.59 77.33 0.6% 
Ad hoc  interventions 458.97 214.3 50.81 0.4% 
Total 3485.25 826.89 128.14 1% 
Member States granted € 77.33 billion through schemes of which € 32.14 billion for Germany 
(1.3% of national GDP), € 16.21 billion for th e UK (1% of national GDP) and € 7.87 billion 
for Sweden (2.6% of national GDP). As regards ad hoc  measures, of the € 50.81 billion 
reported, Belgium tops the list with € 19.15 b illion (5.6% of national GDP), followed by 
Germany (€ 17.13 billion, 0.7% of national GDP). 
3.3.2.  Recapitalisation measures 
A second important measure in response to the financial crisis  was recapitalisation 
instruments. First dealt with in the Banking Co mmunication and later addr essed separately in 
the Recapitalisation Communication,137 recapitalisation measures seek to boost capital base of 
a financial institution This type of action is primarily aimed at restoring confidence in the financial markets and ensuring lending to the re al economy. Recapitalisation is also viewed as 
an indispensible State aid en forcement response to reduced levels of capita lisation which 
mostly concern financial inst itutions with riskier busin ess or investment models. 
The Recapitalisation Communication established a number of conditions on matters such as 
remuneration, review clauses and preven ting undue distortions of competition
138. In addition, 
it also set important principles for encouraging exit of financial institutions from State capital 
participation. Exit strategies, which are normally  enshrined in the deci sion authorising the aid, 
should be achieved in principle through prici ng conditions (including in crease of capital price 
over time), constraints on dividend payments and other redemption clauses which generally 
encourage private capital raising. The criter ia to assess recapitalisation schemes are 
summarised in the Commission staff working document of 7 August 2009139. 
The total volume of approved recapita lisation measures (both schemes and ad hoc ) in the 
reference period amounted to € 546.08 billion. Me mber States reported having actually used 
                                                 
136  Source: DG Competition. 
137  Communication from the Commission — The recapitalization 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, 15.1.2009, pp. 2-10 . 
138  For more detail description please refer to the Spring edition of the Scoreboard 2009, p.12. 
139  Staff working document of 7 August 2009, DG Comp etition’s review of guarantee and recapitalization 
schemes in the financial sector in the current crisis ("Review paper"), from p.9 ff. 
EN 53   EN € 141.3 billion in 2009140, of which € 139.43 billion can be considered as State aid. In 2008, 
the figures showed that State aid for recapitalisation instrume nts amounted to € 94.87 billion 
while actual use was € 99.57 billion. The take-up rate for the recapitalisat ion measures stands 
at 62%. A more detailed picture is provided in the table below. 
Table 4141 – Recapitalisation measures for 2009, in € billion 
 Approved volumes 
(01.08.2008-
31.7.2010) Actual use in 2009 Aid element for 
2009 % of aid element 
in relation to Eu-
27 GDP for 2009 
Schemes 348.64 95.15 95.15 0.8% 
Ad hoc  interventions 197.44 46.36142 44.49 0.3% 
Total 546.08 141.51 139.64 1.1% 
The relatively small difference between actual use of aid measures and aid element can be 
explained by the fact that recapitalisation in most cases could not be done on market terms. 
Therefore, the aid element of recapitalisation measures is, in most of the cases, the whole 
amount of the recapitalisation143. It singled out Member States as the only 'investors' willing 
to participate in the financial institutions capital at the time.  
If approved amounts in the tabl e above are compared to the Spring 2010 Scoreboard, more 
sizable approvals can be re gistered only as regards ad hoc  interventions whereas total figures 
for schemes changed only very slightly144.  
Roughly 70% of all recapitalisation aid in 2009 was reported from 3 Member States, namely 
the UK (€ 51 billion), Germany (€ 40.73 billion) and Ireland (€ 11 billion) comprising both schemes and ad hoc  interventions. 
So far 15 Member States chose to address cap italisation issues throug h schemes with 9 of 
them being devoted purely to recapitalis ation and the remainder including both 
recapitalisation measures and other instrument s such as guarantees, impaired assets or 
liquidity support. 9 schemes are still in pl ace: France, Italy, Denmark, the United Kingdom, 
Sweden and, more recently, Slovakia phased- out their support in th e form of capital 
interventions. As in the case of guarantees , one of the main reasons provided by Member 
States for retaining recapitalisa tion schemes in place is the perc eived risks of potential future 
volatility, even if the overa ll situation had stabilised. 
Recapitalisation measures were take n regarding slightly more than 30 financial institutions in 
12 Member States. Some of the cases required ac tion from two or even more Member States.  
3.3.3.  Impaired assets 
Impaired assets are often referred to as root cause s of the current financial crisis. In a nutshell, 
in the years preceding the financial crisis, th e importance of securitisation markets grew 
significantly as financial institutions traded in considerable volumes of various forms of asset-
backed securities. The complexity of those fi nancial instruments and the fact that many of 
them fell outside the scope of banking regulati on created huge information asymmetries on 
the actual value of assets backed by them. While  keeping such assets off-balance in the years 
preceding the crisis, many financial institutions we re compelled to take them onto the balance 
sheet once the financial crisis hit. Coupled with valuation uncertainty and very high 
                                                
 
140  In the absence of reliable data for some cases, th e figures were estimated by the Commission services. 
141  Source: DG Competition. 
142  The Spring Scoreboard used a figure comprising al so of other capitalization measures than State aid. 
143  A slight difference in the figures ap pears due to the f act that in some ad hoc  interventions not the whole 
amount used could be calculated as constituting aid element. 
144  See Chapter 3 of the spring edition of scoreboard 2010. 
EN 54   EN refinancing costs, that meant that the financia l institutions were faced with prospective write-
downs as some of the assets were expected to loose (or were actua lly losing) their value145. 
Early in 2009 the Commission adopted a coordi nated approach in th e Impaired Assets 
Communication146 aimed at helping Member States to address the situation on banks' balance 
sheets without distorting competition. As the figur es suggest, it proved to be an important tool 
in Member States' arsenal for dealing with th e financial crisis. As of 1 October 2010, the 
maximum approved volume for both schemes and ad hoc  measures was € 401.79 billion. 
Member States reported to have  actually used roughly a quarter  of this sum (€ 109.78 billion) 
with € 75.27 billion constituting an aid element. In 2008, Member States did not incur State 
aid expenditure in regard of impaired assets. The take-up rate for impa ired assets was 32%. A 
further breakdown between schemes and ad hoc  cases is illustrated in the following table. 
Table 5147 – Impaired assets interven tions for 2009, in € billion 
 Approved volumes 
(2008-2010) Actual use in 2009 Aid element for 
2009 % of aid element 
in relation to Eu-
27 GDP for 2009 
Schemes 62.17 1.4 1.4 0.04% 
Ad hoc  interventions 339.63 108.38 73.87 0.6% 
Total 401.80 109.78 75.27 0.64% 
As regards schemes, only Germany and Irela nd approved schemes related exclusively to 
impaired assets, while other Member States (A ustria, Hungary and Lithuania) incorporated 
these measures into more general schemes related to the financial crisis. As already mentioned in the spring edition of Scoreboard 2010,
148 no special budget was allocated to the 
German scheme and it expired without being used. Nearly all approved aid relates for one scheme in Ireland taking also into acc ount its recent amendment (€ 61.1 billion). 
As it is evident from the table, the impaired  assets measures were mostly approved as 
individual interventions whic h allowed for more tailor-made solutions. During the reference 
period the Commission approved ad hoc  cases in eight Member States (Austria, Belgium, 
France, Germany, Ireland, Spain, the Netherland s and the United Kingdom). The aid element 
for individual interventions  in the form of impaired assets is  mostly concentrated in 3 Member 
States (Belgium, Germany and the UK) and constitutes € 68.87 billion for 2009.  
3.3.4.  Liquidity interventions other than guarantees 
As the wholesale banking markets ceased to f unction at the end of 2008, financial institutions 
with heavy reliance on wholesale funding faced a liquidity squeeze. That difficulty was 
mostly due to the fact that the new debt could not be collateralized and sold to refinance the 
existing debt. In order to address the situation, Member States stepped in with various forms 
of liquidity measures mostly c onstituting soft loans or special purpose (usually  central bank) 
securities to shore up financ ial institutions which faced acute liquidity shortages. 
Liquidity was granted both through schemes and as ad hoc  measures. The aggregate data for 
liquidity interventions shows that € 28.35 bi llion was used in 2009 of the € 155.77 billion 
approved during the reference period. The aid el ement for that amount constitutes € 8.6 
                                                
 
145  For more background on EU's response regarding impaired assets, please refer to article by Yassine 
Boudghene, Stan Maes and Martin Scheicher, Asset Relief Measures in the EU – Overview and Issues, 
published on http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pap ers.cfm?abstract_id=1677310 . 
146  Communication from the Commission on the treatment of impaired assets in the Community banking 
sector, OJ C 72, 26.3.2009, pp. 1-22 . 
147  Source: DG Competition. 
148  See p. 9. 
EN 55   EN billion. In 2008 State aid (aid element) for liqui dity interventions amounted to € 9.92 billion 
with € 32.95 billion being effectively used and theref ore a slight decrease is registered in this 
regard in 2009. The take-up rate  of liquidity measures is 67 %. A further breakdown of the 
statistical data can be consulted in the table below. 
Table 6149 – Liquidity measures other than guarantees for 2009, in € billion 
 Approved volumes 
(2008-2010) Actual use in 2009 Aid element for 
2009 % of aid element 
in relation to EU-
27 GDP for 2009 
Schemes 41.87 18.23 7.01 0.05% 
Ad hoc  interventions 113.9 10.11 1.5 0.01 
Total 155.77 28.34 8.51 0.06 
3.3.5.  Restructuring 
In general, temporary measures have proven to be an important tool in coping with the crisis. 
In a number of instances, however, individua l banks will need to undergo much more 
significant structural reforms. That process is necessary for a return to viability of the 
individual banks as well as th e financial sector in the EU as  a whole, for re-establishing a 
sound level playing field across institutions and for the smooth functioning of the internal market
150. 
Up to 10 August 2010, the Commission had recei ved close to 40 restructuring cases 
concerning 14 Member States. Two of these ca ses involve 2 Member States, another case 
relates to 3 different Member States. 20 of these cases have been finalised by a Commission 
decision. 
3.4. Aid granted under the Temporary Framework 
3.4.1.  Context and purpose of the Temporary Framework 
With the financial crisis deepening during 2008 , financial institutions were deleveraging and 
becoming significantly more risk -averse than in previous years. Companies started to 
experience difficulties with access to credit. As part of its response, the Commission adopted 
in January 2009 the so-called Temporary Framework to give  Member Stat es additional 
possibilities to address the effects of  the credit squeeze on the real economy.  
The Temporary Framework focuses on two object ives: first, maintaining continuity in 
companies' access to finance (for instance, to allow Member States to provide guarantees for 
loans at reduced premiums or subsidised interest rates for loans and to hand out grants of up to € 500 000 per company); second, to support  sustainable growth in the long-term by 
encouraging companies to continue investing, for instance in new technology projects. Apart 
from these new aid measures, some existing guidelines were adapted under the Temporary Framework, e.g. the simp lification of the rules inter alia  on higher ceilings for risk capital 
investments and the simplificati on of the rules on export credit. 
The Temporary Framework is a horizontal inst rument that has allowed Member States to 
support all sectors of the economy hit by the crisis.  
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 
                                                
 
149  Source: DG Competition. 
150  For more information on the Commission's policy in regard of the restructuring please refer to the 
Restructuring Communication and the spring edition of the Scoreboard 2010. 
EN 56   EN necessary restructuring of the economy as th is could exacerbate the recession and its long 
term effects. At the same time, it is important to continue to target aid measures on investments which contribute  to a sustainable economy in  line with the post-Lisbon 
objectives. 
The Temporary Framework forms part of a wider Commission response to the economic 
crisis: the European Economic Recovery Plan adopted in November 2008, which was 
endorsed by the European Council
151.  
By end October 2009, Member States had to provide to the Commission with a report on 
elements indicating the need for the Commission to maintain the measur es provided under the 
Temporary Framework beyond 2010 and in particul ar to provide detailed information on the 
environmental benefits of the subsidised loan s. For this purpose, the Commission sent a 
questionnaire to Member States and sought comments from interested third parties. In 
March 2010, the Commission sent a second questionna ire to Member States in order to gather 
further and more updated evidence on the us e of the Temporary Fr amework taking into 
account current economic circumstances152. In October 2010, the Commission published a 
draft proposal on a limited prolongation of the Temporary Framework until 2011153. The 
document was also discussed in a multilateral meeting with the Member States.  
3.4.2.  Measures approved under the Temporary Framework 
Since the adoption of the Temporary Framework154 in January 2009, most Member States 
have made use of the new facilities offere d to support access to finance in the current 
financial and economic crisis.  
Between 17 December 2008 and 1 October 2010, the Commission authorised 73 schemes155 
under the Temporary Framework: 
• 23 schemes for aid up to € 500 000 per company proposed by Bulgaria, the Czech 
Republic, Germany, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, the Netherlands,  Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, 
Slovenia, Slovakia, Finla nd and the United Kingdom; 
• 18 guarantee measures in Belgium, Germ any, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, 
Luxembourg, Hungary, Romania, Slovenia, Fi nland, Sweden and the United Kingdom; 
• 8 schemes for subsidised loan interests, in the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, France, 
Italy,  Hungary and the United Kingdom; 
• 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; 
• 6 risk-capital schemes in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy and Austria; 
• 13 export-credit schemes, in Belgium, De nmark, Germany, France, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Luxembourg, Hungry, the Netherlands, Austria, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden. 
                                                 
151   COM/2008/0800 final; read the English version via 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU riServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0800:FIN:EN:PDF .  
152  Read the Member States' replies at 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_temporary_framework/index.html . 
153  http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultatio ns/2010_temporary_measures/index.html . 
154  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 . 
155  Number does not include amendments to previously approved schemes under the Temporary 
Framework; figure includes only measures that constitute aid to industry and services. 
EN 57   EN Furthermore, the Commission has approved 5 ad hoc  aid measures and aid to agricultural 
producers: 
• 5 guarantee measures in Latvia, Romania and Sweden – most to car manufacturers; 
• 12 schemes for aid up to € 15,000 for agricu ltural producers in Belgium, Bulgaria, 
Germany, France, Italy, Latvia, Hungary, Neth erland, Austria, Slovakia, Finland and the 
United Kingdom. 
Of the 27 Member States, only Cyprus has so far not used any of the possibilities offered 
under the Temporary Framework while Germany a nd France, at the other extreme, were the 
Member States that each has approved the highe st number of measures. Germany had adopted 
7 schemes covering all the instruments (two diffe rent schemes have been adopted for reduced-
interest rate loans as well as two amendm ents to the scheme for aid up to € 500,000 per 
company). France had also adopted 7 sc hemes covering all the instruments ( inter alia  two 
schemes were adopted to provide  risk capital). The Commission has also authorised several 
measures for Hungary (6 measures), Italy (5 measures), Latvia and the United Kingdom (each 
4 measures). The remainder of Member States made use of only some possibilities that the 
Temporary Framework offers. For the full details, see table 3-1 in the Annex. 
3.4.3.  Aid granted in 2009 
The maximum volume of the Commission's a pproved measures under the Temporary 
Framework amounted to approxi mately € 81.3 billion in 2009156, which represents 0.68% of 
EU-27 GDP. Following from the annual reports submitted by Member States and by taking into account also the replies to the Commi ssion's second questionnaire on the Temporary 
Framework the aggregated aid element of all ai d measures implemented by Member States is 
estimated at € 2.2 billion
157, which represents in relative  terms 0.018% of EU-27 GDP.  
Aid granted in the form of a maximum aid amount of € 500 000 per undertaking amounted to 
€ 1.2 billion which represents 55% of all ai d granted under the Temporary Framework. A few 
Member States provided aid in the form of guarantees whose estimated aggregate aid element amounted to € 0.3 billion or 12% of all Temp orary Framework aid. Reduced-interest rate 
loans represent only a small fraction, i.e. € 0.007 billion or less than 1%. An estimated to € 0.7 billion of aid was granted under risk capital  measures and France accounted for a large 
part of that aid.    
Concerning the aid instruments used by Member  States under the Temporary Framework, by 
volume of aid granted, tax exemption was the mo st used instrument, although mainly applied 
by France. It represents 37%  of the entire aid volume  granted under the Temporary 
Framework. The use of direct grants ma de up 43%, guarantees 17% and loans only 3%. 
Equity participations and tax deferrals had no particular importance in this context.   
At first sight, the total vol ume of approved aid measures under the Temporary Framework 
may suggest a significant aid expenditure. Howeve r, Member States granted aid of only 2.7% 
of the approved volume in 2009. This effect could pa rtly be explained in vi ew of the fact that 
Member States were cautious in the determinatio n of the budget given th e uncertainties as to 
                                                
 
156  Estimate; amount is expected to be higher, however, not quantifiable at the moment of the Scoreboard 
production. In a few instances, some aid expenditu re already occurred at the end of 2008. For the 
purpose to keep the main facts on expenditure under the Temporary Framework rules simple, such 
expenditure were included for 2009 of the corresponding Member State. The approved aid volume of the € 15,000 aid to agricultural pr oducers amounted to € 1.2 billion an d is excluded from the figure. 
Excluded is also export credit since it concerned a simplification of rules. 
157  Apart, expenditure on aid of up to € 15 000 for agricultural producers is estimated to € 4.9 million. 
EN 58   EN the depth and duration of the cris is and the need to send the ma rkets a clear signal of public 
authorities' availability to meet potential dema nd that then turned out to be lower than 
expected. Furthermore, it appears that Memb er States were appl ying strict granting 
conditions, also in view of budgeta ry constraints, which have kept  the number of beneficiaries 
limited. On the basis of the feedback from Member States, received via the second 
questionnaire on the Temporary Framework, it appears that some Member States 
implemented some of their Temporary Framework measures only during the second half of 2009 but due to national budget re strictions the actual expend iture was partly or fully 
postponed into the year 2010 for which a hi gher aid expenditur e is expected.   
With respect to the preference through which Member States provided the aid under the 
Temporary Framework, the maxi mum aid amount of € 500 000 per undertaking appeared to 
be the most used tool to grant aid to the re al economy. In second place, Member States made 
use of guarantees and subsid ised interest loans.  
3.4.4.  Special reference to the car sector 
In the automotive sector, the sharp drop in dema nd was mainly related to the degradation of 
households' access to finance. Most of the meas ures taken focused on easing access to finance 
in order to maintain companies' capacity to gr ow and compete. Measures on subsidised loans, 
guarantees and green products have been adopt ed in Spain, France, Italy, United Kingdom, 
Sweden and Romania where the automotive sector has a relatively higher share 
of the 
economy. 
Sectoral supply-side support measures (loans  and guarantees) carry other risks in the long 
run158. Measures to maintain companies' innovati on capacity, for instance, might have adverse 
effects on potential innovative entrants. In particular, by favouring incumbents, public 
authorities do not encourage disruptive innovativ e new players to enter the market (OECD, 
2009). The preferential loans pr ovided to large car manufacture rs is a specific example; it 
could provide those car manufacturers with a competitive advantage in leading the change to 
a green economy. 
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. It does not  authorise aid granted under the Temporary 
Framework to support access to fi nance in the context of the fi nancial crisis that would be 
subject – de jure  or de facto  – to political constraints concerning the location of production 
activities within the internal market. The beneficiary undertakings must therefore retain full freedom to develop their economic activitie s anywhere in the internal market. The 
Commission carefully examined each case that ra ised this type of protectionist concerns. 
This approach was confirmed early in 2009 wh en France announced it s intention to grant 
State aid to its national car pr oducers on the basis of a scheme approved under the Temporary 
Framework. Following extensive contacts between the Commission and the French 
authorities, the latter ev entually made undertakings to the effect that the loan agreements 
intended for the car manufacturers would not contain any condition re garding either the 
location of their activities or a preference fo r France-based suppliers. A similar issue was 
raised in the context of State aid that Germ any intended to grant to Adam Opel GmbH under 
an approved Temporary Framework scheme, in c onnection with a sale by General Motors of 
                                                
 
158  Read more detail in 
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publicat ions/european_economy/2009/pdf/ee11_2009_en.pdf . 
EN 59   EN its Opel/Vauxhall European operatio ns to an investor. Eventuall y, General Motors reversed its 
decision to sell Opel and the inve stor's process was terminated.  
There were also cases in the automotive sector that were individually notified to the 
Commission, such as the Volvo case, where the Commission approved a guarantee to be 
issued by the Swedish state as collateral for a loan from the European Investment Bank to finance green projects by Volvo  cars directly on the basis of the Temporary Framework
159. 
4. SIMPLIFICATION OF THE STATE AID RULES  
4.1. A new architecture for State aid control 
The State Aid Action Plan (SAAP)  adopted in June 2005, announced the Commission's 
intention to improve a number of  aspects of State aid policy, and thereby transform State aid 
into a more effective policy tool for growth and jobs. The plan launched a review of almost all 
State aid rules and procedures. 
Four guiding principles  underpinned 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. 
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 trad e. The new architecture is based on a "3–stream 
system": block exemption, standard assessment and detailed assessment.  
Following the Action Plan's proposals, alongside the block exemption mechanism, individual 
assessment of State aid notified to the Commis sion may be subject to two basic levels of 
scrutiny. In principle, State aid measures notif ied to the Commission ar e scrutinised applying 
a standard assessment. This allows an opinion to be formed on whether aid measures can be 
considered to be compatible with the Trea ty. Only in instances  where doubts cannot be 
removed is a detailed assessment carried out.  By adopting this two- tiered approach, the 
Commission focuses its analysis on the most di stortive aid measures, while also ensuring 
effective State aid control vi a the standard assessment.  
By applying a level of assessment proportionate to  the impact of the aid measure, the current 
State aid architecture assu res a strict and practical form of State aid control in an EU of 27 
Member States, where it is impossible to assess every notification of national aid measures in 
detail. Furthermore, the new architecture fa cilitates and considerably accelerates the 
implementation of compatible aid and, thus, provides an incentive for Member States to 
introduce better targeted aid measures that co ntribute to growth an d employment, notably 
through R&D&I aid and risk capital , in line with the priorities  and headline targets of the 
Europe 2020 Strategy160.  
                                                 
159  N 80/2009 . 
160 Communication from the Commission - Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive 
growth, COM (2010)2020 of 3.3.2010.  
EN 60   EN Following the SAAP, the Commission adopted in 2009 a simplification Package  to further 
modernise and simplify State aid procedures. Th is Package (in force since 1 September 2009) 
comprises a Best Practice Code161 and a notice on a Simplified Procedure162, both of which 
aim at improving the effectiveness, transparency  and predictability of State aid procedures, 
within the existing legal contex t of the Procedural Regulation163. 
The simplified procedure  aims at ensuring that clearly comp atible aid is approved within an 
accelerated time period of one month, based on a complete not ification from the Member 
State. In order to ensure more transparency a nd predictability of the procedure, the following 
features have also been introduced: in principle mandatory pr e-notification and the 
publication of a summary of the notification on the website of the Commission to give third 
parties the possibility to comment.  
The Best Practice Code , which is complementary to the simplified procedure initiative, 
details how State aid procedures  should be carried out  in practice. It is  based on a joint 
commitment of the Commission and Member St ates to achieve more streamlined, and 
predictable procedures at each step of a State aid investigation. Consequently, the 
Commission should be able to adopt its decision s on State aid cases faster, within the existing 
procedural legal framework. 
In 2009, the majority of aid measures were scru tinised via a standard assessment. For risk 
capital cases a detailed assessment was carried out in 24% of the cases decided 164. For 
R&D&I cases the figure was 30%165. There was no detailed assessment for environmental 
protection cases (47 cases) and only 1 of the 59 regional aid cases was made the subject of a 
detailed assessment.  
As for the simplified procedure, it was used  for two cases in 2009 (s ince the simplification 
package was in force only from 1 September 2009). 
4.2. Types of aid measures used by Member States 
An increasing number of aid measures are exempted from ex ante  Commission scrutiny, 
either by the de minimis  regulation166 or by block exempted regulations (most notably the 
General Block Exemption Regulation ( GBER ), which entered into force on 29 August 
2008)167. The rationale behind this is  that such measures are un likely to have a significant 
negative impact on competition at the Community  level while contributing to objectives of 
common interest and may thus be granted wi thout prior notification to the Commission 
provided they fulfil the criteria laid down in the relevant legal instruments. 
For State aid measures that remain subj ect to Commission scrutiny prior to their 
implementation, Member States can notify aid schemes . After a scheme has been approved, a 
Member State may generally gr ant individual awards of aid without further notice to the 
Commission. Only large individual applicatio ns of aid schemes  exceeding certain 
                                                 
161 Code of Best Practice for the conduct of State aid control procedure (OJ C 136, 16.06.2009, p. 3-12). 
162 Commission Notice on a Simplified procedure for the treatment  of certain types of State aid ; OJ C 136, 
16.06.2009, p. 3-12. 
163 Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application 
of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 83, 27.03.1999, p. 1. 
164 4 out of 16 risk capital cases. 
165 9 out of 30 R&D&I cases. 
166 Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998 /2006 of 15 December 2006 on th e application of Articles 87 and 
88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid, OJ L 379, 28.12.2006, p. 5. 
167 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 (General block 
exemption Regulation), OJ L 214, 9.8.2008, p. 3–47 . 
EN 61   EN thresholds and individual aid  (also known as 'ad hoc' aid) awar ded outside a scheme need to 
be notified individually.  
Both in terms of numbers and in terms of volum es block exempted aid increased in the last 
years, while aid remaining under the Commission  scrutiny (schemes and individual aid taken 
together, excluding crisis measures) decreased, as is illustrated by the following two tables168.  
Figure 21169: Trend by type of aid measures (numbers); EU-27 
Number of measures by Type (EU 27) 
(cris is  meas ures  excluded)
291 275640279241248 254
77 128105 93
249655964
294225
19886
0200400600800100012001400
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Number of measures
Block exempted aid Schemes Individual aid
 
                                                 
168 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 exempted aid, schemes and indi vidual applications and ad  hoc aid) the distorting 
effect of the crisis measures has been put aside for the purpose of the analysis. 
169  Source: DG Competition. Data refer to industry an d services 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 repo rted by Member State. Du e 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 notified under the BERs and the 
GBER.  
EN 62   EN Figure 22170: Trend by type of aid measures (volume); EU-27 
Trend in the type of aid measure used (expenditure), EU 27 
(2004-2009); crisis measures excluded
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Aid volume (in billion €) 
Notifiable individual aid
Schemes without individually notified applications
Block exempted aid 
Numbers of aid measures171  
In comparison with the previous  year, 2009 saw a sign ificant increase in  the number of new 
block exempted measures set up by Member Stat es. The main reason for this was the General 
Block Exemption Regulation which entered into  force in August 2008 and widened the scope 
of the previously existing block exemptions by including new areas where block exempted aid 
can be granted (e.g. environmenta l protection aid and R&D&I aid). 
In 2009, block exempted aid measures accounted on average for 76% of all new State aid 
measures set up in the Member States. Notifie d aid (schemes and individual aid) accounted 
for the remaining 24% of which the proporti on of individual aid was rather low i.e. 
approximately 7 %. 
Over the long-term, the trend shows a steady in crease in the use of block exempted aid by 
Member States. It increased between 2004 and 2006 from 34% to 43%. Then it jumped to 
64% in 2007, mainly due to the entry into forc e of the new regional aid framework for the 
years 2007 - 2013 which triggered block exempted aid earmarked for regional investment aid. 
This level of block-exempted aid was rough ly maintained in 2008 (65%) and sharply 
increased again in 2009 (76%). 
The increase in the number of new block exem pted measures set up by Member States was 
accompanied by a significant reduction of aid m easures which were under individual scrutiny 
by the Commission (schemes and individual aid).  
With respect to notified schemes, the share whic h they represent of all aid measures declined 
from 40% in 2004 to 25% in 2008. This dow nward trend continue d in 2009 (18%). 
A similar decrease was seen for individual ai d measures, whether in dividual applications 
within a scheme or ad hoc measures, both of which dropped from 27% in 2004 to around 9% 
in 2008. This trend was sustained in 2009 (7%). 
Volume of aid measures172  
                                                 
170  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. 
171  Crisis measures excluded. Statistics on cr isis measures are presented in Chapter 3. 
EN 63   EN On the basis of 2009 data, about 19% of the to tal aid volume to industry and services was 
awarded on the basis of block exemptions, wh ich corresponds in absolute terms to around 
€ 10.8 billion. Aid granted through schemes whic h had been subjected to the Commission's 
scrutiny represented the bulk of measures  in terms of volume, roughly 69% (around 
€ 40 billion). Individual aid acc ounted for the remaining 12 %.  
The share of block exempted aid in the total volume of aid to  industry and services rose 
steadily from 4% in 2004 to 12% in 2007, 16% in 2008 and 19% in 2009 (whi ch in absolute 
terms corresponds to € 2.4 billion in 2004, € 6.1 billion in 2007, € 8.9 billion in 2008 and 
€ 0.8 billion in 2009). The main reasons for th e increase lie in the introduction of a block 
exemption for regional aid in 2007 and the GB ER in 2008. With the exception of the Czech 
Republic, Ireland, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, the Netherlands, Finland and the 
United Kingdom all other Member States grante d more aid under the block exemptions in 
2009 than in the previous year in absolute term s. In particular, Bulgar ia, Malta, Luxembourg, 
Denmark, Belgium and Slovakia granted substa ntially more aid under the block exemption 
regulations173. 
During the same six-year period 2004 - 2009, ai d volumes granted under notified schemes and 
individual aid were ge nerally on a downward pa th. With respect to notified schemes , the 
corresponding aid volume fell from 85% in  2004 to 79% in 2008 and 69% in 2009.  
The same positive, downward trend was observed for aid volumes granted as individual aid  
(either the individual applicatio n of schemes or ad hoc aid) in the years 2004 - 2008 when it 
came down from 10% in 2004 to 5% in  2008. Between 2008 and 2009, individual aid 
increased to almost 12% of the total. In absolute terms it was equal to € 6.9 billion that is around € 4.1 billion more than in 2008, of whic h € 2.5 billion can be assigned to the 
individual applications of schemes. 
This overall positive development, i.e. incr easing numbers and volumes in block exempted 
aid combined with a downward trend on notifie d aid, allows the Commission to focus on the 
examination of individual appl ications of a scheme and ad-hoc measures it is these cases 
which most often haven the greatest potential to distort competition.  
5. E
NFORCEMENT THE STATE AID RULES  
5.1. Unlawful aid 
Article 108(3) TFEU obliges Member States 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 implementing notified measur es. When either of th ese obligations is not 
respected, the state aid measure is considered  to be unlawful. When, following a formal 
investigation procedure, the state aid measure is  considered incompatible with the internal 
market, the Commission shall decide that the Me mber State must take all necessary measures 
to recover the aid from the beneficiary in accordance with national procedures (negative 
decision with recovery). 
In the period 2000 to 30 June 2010, the Co mmission took 910 decisions on unlawful aid
174. In 
21.6% of unlawful aid cases (197 cases) the Commission intervened by taking a negative 
decision on an incompatible aid measure. Th is negative decision normally requests the 
                                                                                                                                                         
172  Crisis measures excluded. Statistics on cr isis measures are presented in Chapter 3. 
173 Additional information on block exempted aid granted in 2009 is presented in Chapter 2.2.2.  
174  The Commission reports about recovery  on a cumulative, mid-year basis. 
EN 64   EN Member State concerned to recover the illega lly awarded aid. In a further 2.1% of unlawful 
aid cases (19 cases), the Commission took a conditional decision. 
In addition, there are roughly 160 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 own 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). 
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 achieve a more effective and immediate execution of recovery decisions, 
which will ensure equality of treatment of a ll beneficiaries. To th is end, the Commission 
adopted in November 2007 its Recovery Notice, which defines the role  and obligations of 
Member States and the Commi ssion as regards the common aim of undoing the distortion of 
competition caused by illegal and incompatible aid. 
 State of play 
The latest figures indicate that significant progress has been made in the execution of 
recovery decisions since the SAAP in 2005. At  the end of June 2010, there were 54 pending 
recovery decisions compared with 94 at the end of 2004. This improvement in the 
Commission's enforcement record of its decision s should contribute to an increased state aid 
discipline on the part of Member States. 
As of 30 June 2010, seven pending recovery cases were closed and 3 new recovery decisions 
were taken. Spain and Italy had the highest number of pending cases (15 each, which 
represents 55 % of the EU total), followed by Ge rmany (7) and France (4). It is also worth 
noting that there is no pending ca se in 14 of the 27 Member St ates. Table 4-3 in the Annex 
provides the complete list of outstanding recovery decisions. 
Recovery of illegal incompatible State aid is still a lengthy process: in more than a third of the 
54 pending recovery cases the d ecision was adopted more than four years ago. Significant 
efforts have been and are being made to implement the oldest recovery decisions.  
The execution of recovery decisions by Member States is closely monitored by the 
Commission. Where Member States do not take all measures availabl e to implement such 
decisions, the Commission has taken the line of systematically initiating infringement 
proceedings against the Member State conc erned. As of 30 June 2010, the Commission had 
decided to launch action under Artic le 108(2) TFEU in 3 cases a nd to initiate or pursue an 
infringement action under Article 260(2) TFEU  in 3 other cases. A complete list of these 
cases is available on the DG Competition we bsite and in Table 4-4 in the Annex. 
 Amounts from recovery  
Table 4-1 in the Annex provide s data on the amounts of aid to be recovered under the 143 
recovery decisions adopted since 2000. For mo st 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 2010 is more than € 12 billion (€ 12.066 billion). 
EN 65   EN Of these € 12.066 billion, some € 10.728 billion of aid had alrea dy been recovered by 30 June 
2010 (consisting in € 9.417 billion of  aid effectively recovered a nd € 1.311 billion of aid lost 
in bankruptcy proceedings). This represents  88.9% of the total am ount of illegal and 
incompatible aid to be recovered under recovery decisions adopted since 1 January 2000. Taking into account the further € 370 million of illegal and incompatible aid that has been 
registered in ongoing bankruptcy proceedings (w hich represents 3% of total aid to be 
recovered), it appears that, in monetary terms,  the rate of execution of recovery decisions 
adopted since 1 January 2000 is close to 92%. 
 Recovery in the agricultural sector 
As of 30 June 2010, the Commission has taken 14 recovery decisions in the period dating 
from 1999 to 30 June 2010. There were 10 pending recovery cases in the agricultural sector 
with around € 1.3 billion aid yet to be recovered. One Spanish case has been added in comparison to the former scoreboard. One Greek case was closed in the first semester of 2010. Further details can be cons ulted in the table below. 
Table 7: Pending recovery cases by Member State, first semester 2010  
  Situation 
31/12/2009 New cases 
31/12/2009-
30/06/2010 Cases closed 
31/12/2009-
30/06/2010 Situation 
30/06/2010 
Spain 1 1   2
Germany 1    1
Italy 1    1
France 3    3
Portugal 2    2
Greece 2  1  1
Total 10 1 1  10
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 in the agricultural sector. The 
Commission continues its efforts to obtain information from  the Member States on the aid 
amounts involved. 
So far, no infringement proceedings pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU have been brought 
before the Court of Justice of the European Union. 
 Recovery in the fisheries sector 
The Commission adopted seven recovery decisions in the area of fisheries. The total amount 
of aid to be recovered is unknown due to lack  of information provided by Member States 
authorities, however, it is estim ated that the amount should be  in the region of € 100 million. 
So far, only around € 4.5 million has been successfully recovered. In 2010, the Commission took two cases
175 to the Court of Justice over the failu re to comply with the obligations 
established by the Treaties. For more details, see Table 4-2 in the Annex. 
                                                 
175  Namely - CR 96/2001 and CR 97/2001. 
EN 66   EN  Recovery in the transport sector 
The estimated amount of aid to be recovered in the transport sector am ounts to € 1.5 billion, 
however, exact amounts to be reco vered in each case are not know n due to a lack of precise 
data from the national authorities. So far, the Commission has taken 7 negative decisions with 
a recovery order in the transport sector. In 2009, one negative decision with recovery order 
was handed down but aid could not be recovered176. No recovery decisions were taken in the 
first half of 2010. 
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. Some recovery has already taken place and, with regard to the 
outstanding amounts, the recovery claims are/wi ll be included in the liquidation processes of 
the respective companies. 
By judgment of 13 September 2010 the General Court partially annulled the Commission 
Decision C 11/2004 on privatisation of Olympi c Airways. The Court held that the 
Commission had failed to prove that about € 131 million granted by Greece constituted State 
aid. At the same time it upheld the Commission' s decision according to which the continued 
forbearance of the Greek State towards Olympi c Airways’ non-payment of taxes and social 
security contributions (of about € 354 million) am ounted to illegal and incompatible State aid 
which had to be recovered. 
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 potentia l of private State aid enforcem ent, the Commission adopted in 
April 2009 a new Notice on the Enforcemen t of State Aid Law by National Courts177. This 
Notice replaced the existing 1995 Noti ce on Cooperation with National Courts178 and has two 
main objectives: 
• The new Notice seeks to give clear guidan ce 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 ju risprudence of the Community courts and 
covers issues such as the remedies availabl e to third parties, pr ocedural matters (such 
as legal standing), the circumstances in wh ich a national court should issue interim 
measures and the conditions for claiming damages in the event of a breach of the State aid rules. 
• In addition, the Commission seeks, through  the new Notice, to  intensify its co-
operation with national courts in individual cases. This ap pears necessary given that 
the generic cooperation mechanism referred to in the 1995 Cooperation Notice has not 
been used extensively. The Commission has therefore decided to introduce more 
                                                
 
176  C 10/2005 – Restructuring aid to COMBUS A/S. Aid could not be recovered due to the fact that the 
beneficiary was dissolved. 
177  Commission Notice on the enforcement of State aid law by national courts (OJ C 85, 9.4.2009, p. 1). 
178  Commission Notice on cooperation between national courts and the Commission in the State aid field 
(OJ C 312, 23.11.1995, p. 8). 
EN 67   EN practical and user-friendly co-operation m echanisms along the lines  of those already 
available in the antitrust area179. 
Following the adoption of the new Notice th e Commission has recently intensified its 
advocacy efforts in the area of private State aid enforcement. A dedicated set of web pages 
has been launched on the DG Competition website180, and a booklet181 gathering the EU 
materials most relevant for State aid enforc ement in the judges' daily work has been 
published. Furthermore, the Commission has provid ed grants for the organisation of State aid 
training for national judges182 throughout Europe. 
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 2010 around 1 471 State aid 
measures had been implemented on the basis of this Regulation. Article 10 of the GBER 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 year s 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 a 
series of sample-based monitoring exerci ses covering both appr oved aid schemes and 
measures adopted under BERs. As already indicat ed in the Autumn 2009 Scoreboard (point 
5.4), the Commission has, with these combined ex ercises, covered signifi cant sections of the 
different substantive areas of aid.  
Monitoring exercises currently take place at two le vels: a first check takes place at the level of 
the scheme, with a view to examining whether the national legislation is in line with the 
approval decision/BER; a second level of check concerns impor tant individual decisions 
implementing such schemes.  
DG Competition has now addressed aid measures a dopted by all Member States. The analysis 
of the results of the first four exercises show s that overall, the existing state aid architecture 
allowing for the approval of aid schemes a nd allowing Member States to implement aid 
measures under BERs functions in a satisfactory manner. In a small minority of cases, substantive problems or procedural issues  have been identified. The cases where no 
appropriate solution has yet been found with the Member State concerned are still under 
investigation. 
   
                                                
 
179  Commission Notice on the cooper ation between the Commission 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). 
180  http://ec.europa.eu/competition/court/state_aid.html .  
181  http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications /state_aid/national_courts_booklet_en.pdf .  
182  http://ec.europa.eu/competition/court/training.html .  
EN 68   EN  
  METHODOLOGICAL NOTES183 
As in previous Scoreboards, the figures in  this report are based on the annual reports on 
existing schemes submitted by the Member St ates pursuant to Arti cle 5 of Commission 
Regulation (EC) 794/2004184 and Annex III A of that Regulat ion, which defines the scope and 
content of the data that Member States have  to provide to the Co mmission. Furthermore the 
data are based on the information submitted by Member States in their notifications pursuant to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) 659/1999
185. Where actual expenditure data were not 
available, Member States were asked to provi de commitments or budget appropriations and to 
mark the data accordingly. Where no such info rmation was available, Member States were 
requested to provide an estimate of the aid elemen t, or in the absence of such estimate, were 
asked to confirm or adapt the estimate calcu lated by the Commission services, mainly on the 
basis of information provided in previous year s and in line with the applied standard method 
of assessing the aid element186. For the purpose of producing a meaningful Scoreboard, the 
absence of data requires the incl usion of estimates in order to provide a complete picture on 
State aid expenditure on the basis of all aid measures implemented by Member States. 
The Scoreboard covers St ate aid as defined under Article 107(1)  TFEU (ex Article 87(1)  of 
the EC Treaty) that Member States grante d from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009. Data 
from previous years are also included in the repo rt when needed to show trends. All State aid 
data refer to the implementation of Commissi on decisions but exclude cases which are still 
under examination.  
Aid granted for Services of General Economic In terest are excluded from the Scoreboard. For 
more detail, read the conceptual remarks at DG Competition's website.187 Also excluded from 
the report is expenditure through Community funds and other Community instruments.  
Figures may be different from those published in previous Scoreboards. First, Member States 
may have replaced provisional figures or estima tes from the previous year(s) by final data. 
With respect to expenditure in tax sche mes which pose particular difficulty when 
quantifying188, if expenditure is corrected at a later stage it may contribut e to a change in 
previous figures and to a shift in the distributio n of horizontal or sector al aid in particular. 
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 genera lly attributed to each of the years in which 
expenditure took place. Third, all data are provid ed at constant prices (in million Euro or 
billion Euro where appropriate) of the year 2000 but referen ced to the year under review. 
Moreover, figures change due to infl ation being taken into account.    
Figures when expressed in percentage of GDP ar e measured by reference to the year to which 
expenditure data relate. 
                                                 
183  Read more on methodological remarks under  
   http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/conceptual_remarks.html . 
184  OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1. 
185  OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1. 
186  For more detail, read 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/conceptual_remarks.html .  
187  http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/conceptual_remarks.html . 
188  For instance, the aid element of tax exemptions is difficult to determine si nce the exact number of 
beneficiaries or amounts may not be known and auth orities in the Member States may work with 
estimates.    
EN 69   EN As comparable data on transport and agriculture are not available to the necessary degree, in 
particular from EU-12, obs ervations on the underlying trend are based on data for total aid to 
industry and services (i.e. total aid less  agriculture, fisher ies and transport). 
Aid measures to give support to the financial s ector qualify as crisis m easures if they were 
adopted under specific State aid rules introduced in the context of the current global financial 
crisis189. Measures which respond to the financial crisis but were approved prior these specific 
State aid rules do also count as crisis measur es. In this respect, such aid measures are 
classified as sectoral aid. For the purpose of  the analysis above, the volumes on crisis 
measures may be excluded from the total of s ectoral aid with a view to achieving a true 
picture on State aid expenditure without the distorting effect of the crisis measures. 
The standard method to calculate the aid element of  the crisis measures to  the financial sector 
has, like in the previous Score board, been applied as follows: 
• For guarantee schemes the aid element is es timated at 10% of the guaranteed amount.  
• For ad hoc measures for sound banks the ai d element is estimated at 10% of the 
guaranteed amount.  
• For banks in difficulty, usually notified as individual cases (rescue  and restructuring 
cases) the aid element is estimated  at 20% of the guaranteed amount. 
• The basis for the estimation is the av erage outstanding guarantee volume for 2009. 
• For recapitalisation measures the aid elemen t is estimated at the full recapitalisation 
amount for 2009. 
• For impaired assets measures the aid elem ent is estimated to the amount which has 
been established in the decision. 
• For restructuring measures the aid element is estimated to correspond to the provisions 
in the restructuring guidelines. 
Aid granted under the Temporary Framework also qualifies as crisis measures. As to point 5.1 
of the Temporary Framework, the simplificati on of the rules on shor t-term export credit 
insurance is not considered to represent a pa rticular category of aid expenditure for the 
purpose of the Scoreboard and hence was excluded  from the aggregation of the data.     
Concerning the reporting of aid granted under th e Temporary Framework, the general rule has 
been applied: 
• In instances where a Temporary Framework measure is (i) a new ad hoc  measure, (ii) 
a new scheme or (iii) a new framework sc heme under which a number of new schemes 
may be implemented, the Member State simply reports expenditure under this Temporary Framework measure. 
• In instances where a Temporary Framewor k measure (i) modifies an existing aid 
measure or (ii) the Member State uses one  or more existing aid measures for its 
implementation, and hence aid is granted under Temporary Framework conditions, the 
Member State reports the aid amounts (including the aid element) under the 
                                                
 
189  For more detail, read chapter 3. 
EN 70   EN corresponding Temporary Framework measure. By contrast, all aid that falls outside 
the aforementioned conditions (i) and (ii) shall be reported unde r the case number of 
the initially author ised non-Temporary Framework measure. For restructuring 
measures the aid element is estimated to correspond to prov isions in the restructuring 
guidelines. 
 
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 71   EN ANNEX : STATISTICAL TABLES  
Table 1-1190: 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; 2009) 
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 
services191 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, 2004  
- 2009 in % points 
(1) 
EU 27 427.2 412.1 3.6 3.5 12 -59.7 
EU 15 417.3 405.6 3.8 3.7 11 -64.6 
EU 12 9.9 6.5 1.1 0.8 55 18.1 
Belgium 34.3 33.9 10.2 10.1 5 -92.4 
Bulgaria 0.7 0.0 2.1 0.1 100 21.0 
Czech Republic 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.5 88 -2.0 
Denmark 10.2 10.0 4.6 4.5 19 -87.7 
Germany 116.8 115.4 4.8 4.8 11 -61.7 
Estonia 0.04 0.01 0.3 0.1 100 0.0 
Ireland 12.6 11.8 7.7 7.2 6 -66.9 
Greece 14.3 14.1 6. 0 5.9 11 -76.5 
Spain 13.2 12.4 1.3 1.2 32 -19.7 
France 42.3 39.3 2.2 2.1 23 -53.7 
Italy 10.2 9.2 0.6 0.6 45 -17.2 
Cyprus 0.4 0.3 2.4 1.7 21 -10.2 
Latvia 1.1 0.9 5.8 4.9 2 -92.8 
Lithuania 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.3 100 15.4 
Luxembourg 1.0 1.0 2.8 2.7 9 -95.0 
Hungary 1.9 1.5 2.0 1.5 50 11.5 
Malta 0.1 0.1 2.0 1.7 23 5.0 
Netherlands 12.1 11.4 2.1 2.0 15 -76.8 
Austria 11.2 10.5 4.1 3.8 10 -52.3 
Poland 2.9 2.2 0.9 0.7 71 22.8 
Portugal 1.7 1.6 1.0 1.0 18 -0.5 
Romania 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.1 50 27.5 
Slovenia 0.5 0.4 1.5 1.3 47 39.6 
Slovakia 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 89 18.2 
Finland 2.1 0.8 1.2 0.5 98 0.1 
Sweden 11.1 10.9 3.8 3.7 22 -54.1 
United Kingdom 124.2 123.2 7.9 7.9 2 -88.2 
Norway 2.8 2.4 1.02 0.87 n.a. (2) n.a. 
Iceland (3) 0.04 0.04 0.43 0.43 n.a. n.a. 
Liechtenstein (3) 0.001 0.001 0.04 0.04 n.a. n.a. 
                                                 
190  Data cover all State aid measures as defined under Article 107 TFEU (former Article 87(1) of the EC 
Treaty) that 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 2004-
2006 and 2007-2009. Source: DGs Competition, Ener gy, Agriculture, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 
and EFTA Surveillance Authority. (2) Not availabl e. (3) The EFTA Surveillance Authority assesses 
crisis aid granted in the EFTA countries. Crisis measures are not yet included in this amount. 
191  I.e. less agriculture, fisheries and transport. 
EN 72   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. cri sis measures; 2009) 
State aid in billion EUR, 
2009 State aid as % of GDP, 
2009 Trend in the share of aid to 
GDP, 2004 - 2009 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, 
2009 Trend in 
the share 
of aid to 
horizontal objectives 
as a % of 
total aid, 
2004 - 
2009 in % 
points (1) 
EU 27 73.2 58.1 0.6 0.5 -0.08 0.00 84 5.7 
EU 15 65.1 53.4 0.6 0.5 -0.07 0.01 85 2.8 
EU 12 8.1 4.7 0.9 0.5 -0.19 -0.13 76 29.5 
Belgium 2.0 1.6 0.6 0.5 0.13 0.13 100 0.5 
Bulgaria 0.7 0.03 2.1 0.1 1.42 -0.09 100 21.0 
Czech Republic 0.9 0.7 0. 7 0.5 0.16 0.18 88 -1.9 
Denmark 2.1 1.9 1.0 0.9 0.06 0.08 97 0.7 
Germany 16.7 15.2 0.7 0.6 -0.11 -0.10 86 3.9 
Estonia 0.04 0.01 0.3 0.1 -0.04 -0.02 100 0.0 
Ireland 1.5 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.46 0.07 89 5.6 
Greece 2.0 1.8 0.8 0. 7 0.21 0.31 87 -5.0 
Spain 5.7 4.9 0.5 0.5 0.03 0.04 80 9.9 
France 14.7 11.7 0.8 0.6 -0.32 0.09 79 -0.8 
Italy 5.7 4.6 0.4 0.3 -0.08 -0.07 84 2.5 
Cyprus 0.2 0.1 1.0 0.4 -0.41 -0.42 95 39.4 
Latvia 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.1 -0.06 0.01 100 1.3 
Lithuania 0.2 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.21 0.16 100 15.4 
Luxembourg 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 -0.04 0.03 100 0.0 
Hungary 1.4 0.9 1.5 1.0 -0.82 0.18 76 19.1 
Malta 0.1 0.1 2.0 1.7 -1.23 -1.14 23 5.1 
Netherlands 2.4 1.7 0.4 0.3 -0.01 0.02 99 5.2 
Austria 1.7 1.0 0.6 0.4 -0.02 -0.07 99 21.3 
Poland 2.9 2.2 0.9 0.7 -0.18 0.00 71 22.8 
Portugal 1.6 1.6 1.0 0.9 0.18 0.20 19 1.0 
Romania 0.8 0.2 0.7 0.1 -0.27 -0.85 50 27.5 
Slovenia 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.7 -1.55 -1.40 91 69.4 
Slovakia 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.14 0.12 90 18.3 
Finland 2.1 0.8 1.2 0.5 -0.14 0.05 99 0.7 
Sweden 2.6 2.4 0.9 0.8 -0.04 -0.03 100 0.0 
United Kingdom 4.0 3.2 0.3 0.2 0.00 0.02 91 -0.8 
Norway 2.8 2.4 1.02 0.87 n.a. n.a. 2.8 2.4 
Iceland 0.04 0.04 0.43 0.43 n.a. n.a. 0.04 0.04 
Liechtenstein 0.001 0.001 0.04 0.04 n.a. n.a. 0.001 0.001 
 
EN 73   EN Table 1-3192: State aid for primary objectives and s ectoral aid as % of total aid (crisis 
measures excluded); 2009 
  
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 Aid193 
Coal 
Financial Services 
Manufacturing Sectors 
Other Non Manufacturing 
Sectors 
Other Services 
EU-27 83.8 22.6 23.9 17.6 6.9 1.6 4.2 6.9 16.2 4.7 2.2 6.1 2.3 0.8 
EU-15 84.6 23.7 23.4 18.2 7.4 1.5 3.3 7.0 15.4 4.7 2.4 6.1 1.5 0.8 
EU-12 75.8 10.5 29.7 10.6 1.5 3.3 14.0 6.3 24.2 4.3 0.3 6.6 11.9 1.1 
Belgium 100.0 17.4 6.4 46.2 13.3 4.0 6.9 5.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Bulgaria 100.0 0.0 59.4 39.8 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Czech 
Republic 88.2 1.0 45.8 36.5 3.1 1.6 0.3 0.0 11.8 0.0 1.7 0.3 9.7 0.0 
Denmark 97.2 22.2 0.0 7.6 0.3 0.5 64.5 2.0 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 
Germany 86.4 37.1 24.3 14.6 6.0 1.0 0.0 3.4 13.6 11.4 0.0 2.2 0.0 0.0 
Estonia 100.0 6.9 13.1 9.1 26.6 0.9 0.8 42.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Ireland 89.4 6.2 38.8 20.0 5.1 5.4 1.8 12.2 10.6 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 3.9 
Greece 86.9 2.0 76.0 0.5 7.6 0.0 0.0 0. 7 13.1 0.0 0.0 11.4 0.8 1.0 
Spain 80.0 16.7 25.2 27.5 3.8 2.5 1.3 2.9 20.0 15.5 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.2 
France 78.7 2.8 35.2 18.5 6.8 0.8 0.2 14.3 21.3 0.0 0.0 20.4 0.1 0.8 
Italy 84.2 3.9 21.1 21.2 23.8 4.3 4.6 5.5 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.7 11.4 3.7 
Cyprus 94.8 7.4 1.5 0.5 9.0 11.9 0.2 64.3 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.2 
Latvia 99.9 50.6 27.8 3.0 4.6 0.0 4.0 9.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 
Lithuania 100.0 31.3 51.3 6.2 1.5 1.2 8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Luxembourg 100.0 8.4 8.7 62.8 11.8 0.0 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Hungary 75.7 4.3 28.6 10.6 3.1 3.4 1.5 24.3 24.3 3.3 0.0 20.2 0.8 0.0 
Malta 22.9 0.0 14.6 2.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 5.6 77.1 0.0 0.0 75.9 0.0 1.2 
Netherlands 99.3 62.1 0.7 27.9 4.3 0.0 0.0 4.2 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 
Austria 99.1 35.3 18.2 31.1 8.5 2.4 0.4 3.1 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 
Poland 71.0 14.2 22.9 1.5 0.1 4.3 28.0 0.1 29.0 3.9 0.0 1.6 21.9 1.6 
Portugal194 18.9 0.2 7.6 3.3 3.0 0.5 3.2 1.1 81.1 0.0 81.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Romania 50.5 0.0 28.9 16.3 1.3 0.0 0.0 3.9 49.5 41.4 0.0 1.7 0.0 6.3 
Slovenia 91.4 10.3 39.9 28.8 0.7 0.1 5.4 6.1 8.6 7.1 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 
Slovakia 90.0 32.1 47.1 3.8 1.7 3.8 0.0 1.3 10.0 2.3 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 
Finland 99.4 40.8 1.1 30.8 9.5 1.9 5.3 10.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.1 
Sweden 99.7 82.0 8.1 4.6 0.1 0.3 0.1 4.6 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 
United 
Kingdom 91.4 36.2 5.8 21.2 8.1 1.7 0.3 18.1 8.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 7.4 1.0 
                                                 
192  Source: DG Competition, DG Energy.  
193  Aid for specific sectors awarded under measures fo r which there was no horizontal objective as well as 
aid for rescue and restructuring.  
194  A id 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 74   EN  
Table 1-4195: Trend in share of primary objectiv es in total aid between 2004 - 2006 and 
2007 - 2009 as percentage point difference (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 5.7 -2.1 4.2 4.0 -2.2 0.0 -0.9 2.7 -5.7 -3.6 -0.2 -1.5 0.0 -0.3 
EU-15 2.8 -3.5 3.8 4.0 -2.5 -0.1 -1.7 2.8 -2.8 -3.6 -0.3 1.5 -0.2 -0.3 
EU-12 29.5 7.7 8.8 3.1 0.0 1.2 7.5 1.3 -29.5 -4.2 -0.1 -27.2 2.0 -0.1 
Belgium 0.5 5.2 -11.7 21.2 -16.6 -0.3 0.6 2.0 -0.5 0.0 0.0 -0.5 0.0 0.0 
Bulgaria 21.0 -0.9 1.2 33.6 0.7 1.2 -13.0 -1.9 -21.0 -16.4 0.0 -8.0 3.4 0.0 
Czech 
Republic -1.9 -4.6 9.8 2.1 -7.2 -2.6 -1.8 2.5 1.9 -1.1 -1.1 -1.0 5.0 0.0 
Denmark 0.7 -12.6 -0.3 4.3 0.3 0.2 9.0 -0.3 -0.7 0.0 0.0 -2.1 0.0 1.4 
Germany 3.9 -7.2 4.2 4.2 1.9 0.4 -0.3 0.8 -3.9 -3.9 -0.1 0.7 0.0 -0.6 
Estonia 0.0 4.6 -8.9 -4.4 2.8 2.3 0.1 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Ireland 5.6 3.0 -3.1 5.8 2.2 1.6 -4.4 0.3 -5.6 0.0 -3.0 -3.1 0.0 0.5 
Greece -5.0 -2.6 8.1 -0.8 0.4 0.0 -7 .5 -2.6 5.0 0.0 0.0 4.9 -0.1 0.2 
Spain 9.9 7.3 2.4 11.0 -5.8 0.2 -0.2 -5.0 -9.9 -11.5 0.0 1.7 -0.1 0.1 
France -0.8 0.3 13.8 -0.3 -12.8 0.2 -10.3 8.4 0.8 -4.1 0.0 4.5 0.1 0.4 
Italy 2.5 1.0 -2.3 2.9 1.1 -0.3 -1.7 1.8 -2.5 0.0 -0.6 -0.5 -0.5 -0.8 
Cyprus 39.4 4.6 -2.4 -1.3 8.0 4.9 1.1 24.5 -39.4 0.0 -0.3 -0.9 -11.5 -26.6 
Latvia 1.3 20.9 -29.1 1.4 -5.2 2.5 1.0 9.8 -1.3 0.0 0.0 -1.3 0.0 0.0 
Lithuania 15.4 11.1 19.2 -6.3 -18.3 8.3 1.5 -0.3 -15.4 0.0 0.0 -9.0 -6.5 0.0 
Luxembourg 0.0 3.7 -13.7 24.4 -5.7 0.0 0.0 -8.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 
Hungary 19.1 2.8 -1.8 0.5 -0.8 2.3 11.2 4.9 -19.1 -3.7 0.0 -13.8 -1.4 -0.2 
Malta 5.1 0.0 4.5 0.6 -0.8 -0.5 0.1 1.3 -5.1 0.0 0.0 -5.7 0.0 0.6 
Netherlands 5.2 2.3 -0.1 2.2 -0.8 0.0 0.2 1.3 -5.2 0.0 0.2 -2.2 0.0 -3.1 
Austria 21.3 12.5 0.7 10.1 -0.5 -2.0 -0.5 0.9 -21.3 0.0 -
21.1 0.1 0.0 -0.3 
Poland 22.8 8.8 4.1 -0.4 -0.1 1.2 9.0 0.1 -22.8 -14.5 0.0 -25.4 15.8 1.3 
Portugal 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.4 -2.1 -0.8 0.4 0.3 -1.0 0.0 -0.8 -0.1 0.0 0.0 
Romania 27.5 2.6 9.0 16.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 -0.9 -27.5 31.4 0.0 -39.9 -23.5 4.4 
Slovenia 69.4 12.5 34.6 15.9 -1.3 0.6 0.6 6.6 -69.4 5.0 0.0 -74.1 -0.2 0.0 
Slovakia 18.3 44.4 -24.6 0.4 -0.8 -1.1 0.1 -0.1 -18.3 -0.1 0.0 -18.2 0.0 0.0 
Finland 0.7 -1.1 -6.7 3.2 1.1 1.6 -0.3 2.9 -0.7 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 -1.7 
Sweden 0.0 -1.9 1.6 0.8 -0.4 0.1 0.0 -0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 -0.2 
United 
Kingdom -0.8 -0.4 -14.9 3.9 -0.1 -2.9 -0.2 13.7 0.8 -1.3 0.0 -0.1 1.9 0.2 
                                                 
195  Source: DG Competition, DG Energy. 
EN 75   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 
2010 
Regional aid 
guidelines 01.01.2011 – 
31.12.2013 Communication of the Commission on the review of the State aid status 
and the aid ceiling of the statistical e ffect regions in the following National 
regional State aid maps for the period 1.1.2011- 31.12.2013 Official Journal 
C 222, 17.08.2010, p.2 ; press release: IP/10/976  
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  
 
 
EN 76   EN 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  
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 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 
EN 77   EN (points (c), (d) 
and (e) of 
Article 4 and 
Article 6 from 29.11.2006)* 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 – 
29.11.2011 Community framework for State aid in the form of public service 
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 08.12.2009 – 
31.12.2009  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 (the 
maximum amount of investment loan concerned by a guarantee) 
OJ C 303 of 15.12.2009, p. 6  
 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 
EN 78   EN 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 79   EN  
Table 3-1:  Overview of measures revie wed by the Commission under the Temporary 
Framework (until 1 October 2010)  
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 
Belgium  N117/2009  
20/03/2009   N68/2009  
03/06/2009 N532/2009  
06/11/2009  
Bulgaria N 333/2010  
10/09/2010      
Czech 
Republic N236/2009   
07/05/2009  N237/2009   
06/05/2009    
Denmark      N198/2009  
06/05/2009 
   N554/2009  196 
29/10/2009 
Germany N668/2008  
30/12/2008  
 
N299/2009
197 
04/06/2009 
N411/2009
198  
17/07/2009 
N 
255/2010199 
31/10/2010 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 
N 91/2010200 
31/05/2010 
Estonia N387/2009  
13/07/2009      
Ireland N186/2009  
15/04/2009 
N473/2009
201 
15/12/2009      
Greece N304/2009   
15/07/2009 N308/2009  
03/06/2009 N309/2009   
03/06/2009    
                                                 
196  Amendment to N198/2009. 
197  Amendment to N 668/2008. 
198  2nd Amendment to N 668/2008. 
199  3rd Amendment to N 668/2008. 
200  Amendment to N 384/2009. 
201  Amendment to N 186/2009. 
EN 80   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 N68/2010  
30/03/2010 
N 
157/2010202 
24/06/2010  N140/2009  
30/03/2009 
   
France N7/2009  
19/01/2009 
N188/2009
203 
17/04/2009 
N278/2009
204 
08/06/2009 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 N449/2009  
 05/10/2009 
Italy N248/2009   
28/052009 N266/2009  
28/05/2009 N268/2009  
29/052009 N542/2009  
 26/10/2009 N279/2009  
20/05/2009  
Latvia N124/2009  
19/03/2009 
N506/2009
205 
22/12/2009 N139/2009  
22/04/2009 
N670/2009  
15/12/2009    N84/2010  
10/06/2010 
Lithuania N272/2009  
08/06/2009 
N523/2009
206 
13/11/2009 
N46/2010207 
10/03/2010     N659/2009  
21/12/2009 
 
Luxembourg N99/2009  
27/02/2009 N128/2009  
11/03/2009    N50/2009  
20/04/2009 
Hungary N77/2009  
24/02/2009 N114/2009  
10/03/2009 
N203/2009  
24/04/2009 
N341/2009   
01/07/2009 
N 56/2010208 
06/05/2010 N78/2009  
24/02/2009   N 187/2010  
06/07/2010 
                                                 
202  Amendment to N 68/2010. 
203  Amendment to N 7/2009. 
204  Amendment to N 7/2009. 
205  Changes to N 124/2007. 
206  Amendment to N 272/2009. 
207  Amendment to N 272/2009. 
208  Amendment to N 341/2009. 
EN 81   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 
Malta N118/2009   
18/05/2009      
Netherland N156/2009   
01/04/2009     N409/2009   
02/10/2009 
N14/2010209 
05/02/2010 
Austria N47a/2009  
20/03/2009 
N317/2009
210 
18/06/2009    N47d/2009  
26/03/2009 N434/2009  
17/12/2009 
Poland N408/2009  
17/08/2009 
N 
22/2010211 
16/07/2010 
N 
50/2010212 
16/07/2010 
N 
86/2010213 
16/07/2010      
Portugal N13/2009  
19/01/2009      
Romania N547/2009  
03/12/2009 N286/2009  
05/06/2009 
N478/2009
214 
13/11/2009 
N680/2009
215 
17/12/2009 
N 
173/2010216 
30/07/2010     
                                                 
209  Amendment to N 406/2009. 
210  Amendment to N 47a/2009. 
211  Amendment to N 408/2009. 
212  2nd Amendment to N 408/2009. 
213  3rd Amendment to N 408/2009. 
214  Linked to N 27/2009.  
215  Amendment to N 478/2009. 
216  Amendment to N 286/2009. 
EN 82   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 
Slovenia N228/2009  
12/06/2009 NN34/2009  
12/06/2009 
N105/2010
217 
16/04/2010    N713/2009  
16/03/2010 
Slovakia N222/2009   
30/04/2009 
N711/2009
218 
02/02/2010      
Finland N224/2009  
03/06/2009 N82b/2009  
09/06/2009    N258/2009  
22/062009 
Sweden  N80/2009  
05/06/2009 
N541/2009  
08/02/2010    N605/2009  
25/11/2009 
United 
Kingdom N43/2009  
04/02/2009 N71/2009  
27/02/2009 N257/2009  
15/05/2009 
N460/2009219 
14/08/2009 N72/2009  
27/02/2009   
 
                                                 
217  Amendment to NN 34/2009. 
218  Amendment to N 222/2009. 
219  Amendment to N 257/2009. 
EN 83   EN  
Table 4-1: Trend in the number of recovery decisions and amounts to be recovered (1) 
2000-2010 (by 30 June 2010) 
 
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 1S2010
Number of decisions adopted 15 19 25 10 23 12 6 9 13 8 3 143
Total aid known to be recovered (in mio € ) 358 1703 1956 1043 4979 56 255 163 1498 46 10 12067
Amounts recovered: (in mio € ) 352 1170 1926 938 4974 15 244 56 1018 25 9 10727
Of which: 0
(a) Principal reimbursed/or in blocked 
account137 1081 1858 917 4103 15 199 54 1018 25 9 9416
(b) Aid lost in bankruptc y 215 88 68 21 871 0 45 2 0 0 0 1310
(c) Interest 9 141 313 335 1447 7 51 17 323 6 2 2651
Aid re gistered in bankruptc y 0 8 3 125 0 8 0 226 0 0 0 370
Amount outstanding (2) 6 534 30 105 5 41 11 107 480 20 1 1340
% still pending to be recovered (2) 1.7% 31. 4% 1.5% 10.1% 0.1% 73.2% 4.3% 65.6% 32.0% 43.5% 10.0% 11.1%
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.TotalDate of Decision
 
 
Table 4-2: Recovery in the fisheries sector 
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
number of 
decisions adopted 200 3 11
Member States and 
casesFR 
CR96/2001,
CR97/2001UK C37/2006, 
C38/2006, 
C39/2006FR 
CR3/2009BE 
C30/2008
total aid to be 
recovered 18200000 381389 87000000amounts 
unknown
Amounts recovered 3600000 339013 660000amounts 
unknown
Aid covered by de 
minimis N/A 43838  
 
 
EN 84   EN Table 4-3: Pending recovery decisions (by 30 June 2010) 
 
Case 
number Working title of the case Member State Date of the 
decision Number of the 
decision Official Journal of the 
European Union 
CR 1/2009  Alleged aid to MOL Hungary 09/06/2010  Not yet published 
CR 4/2003  Export aid to WAM Italy 24/03/2010  Not yet published 
CR 36/2010  Preferential electricity tariff in 
favour - Alcoa Italy 19/11/2009  Not yet published 
CR 45/2007  Amortization of financial 
goodwill for acquisitions of 
foreign targets  Spain 28/10/2009  Not yet published 
CR 59/2007  Rescue aid to Ixfin Italy 28/10/2009 2010/359/EC OJ L 167 of 
01.07.2010, p. 39 
CR 19/2008  Rescue aid for Sandretto Italy 30/09/2009 2010/215/EC OJ L 92 of 13.04.2010, 
p. 19 
CR 5/2000  Alleged aid for SNIACE Spain 10/03/2009 2009/612/EC OJ L 210 of 
14.08.2009, p. 4 
CR 55/2007  BT Group plc UK 11/02/2009 2009/703/EC OJ L 242 of 
15.09.2009, p. 21 
CR 19/2005  Restructuring aid for Szczecin 
Shipyard Poland 06/11/2008 2010/3/EC OJ L 5 of 08.01.2010, 
p. 1 
CR 17/2005  Restructuring aid for Gdynia 
shipyard Poland 06/11/2008 2010/47/EC OJ L 33 of 04.02.2010, 
p. 1 
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 2009/610/EC OJ L 225 of 
27.08.2009, p. 104 
CR 56/2006  Bank Burgenland Austria 30/04/2008 2008/719/EC OJ L 239 of 6/9/2008, 
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 
04/06/2008, p. 37 
CR 23/2006  Technologie Buczek Poland 24/10/2007 2008/344/EC OJ L 116 of 
30/04/2008, p. 26 
EN 85   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 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 
08/06/2007, 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 
08/06/2007, 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 
08/06/2007, p. 29 
CR 38/2005  Biria Gruppe Germany 24/01/2007 2007/492/EC OJ L 183 of 
13/07/2007, p. 27 
CR 30/2005  Restructuring aid to Kliq NV Netherlands 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 Netherlands 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 
01/04/2006, 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 95/2001  Aid to Siderurgica Anon Spain 16/06/2004 2005/827/EC OJ L 311 of 
26/11/2005, p. 22 
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 
02/04/2004, p. 49 
CR 62/2000  Aid to Kahla (Porzellan Germany 13/05/2003 2003/643/EC OJ L 227 of 
EN 86   EN Case 
number Working title of the case Member State Date of the 
decision Number of the 
decision Official Journal of the 
European Union 
GmbH) 11/09/2003, p. 12 
CR 94/2001  Export aid scheme 
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Germany 05/03/2003 2003/595/EC OJ L 202 of 
09/08/2003, 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 Municipalizzate It aly 05/06/2002 2003/193/EC OJ L 077 of 
24/03/2003, p. 21 
CR 60/2000  Fiscal aid - Province of 
Vizcaya (III) Spain 20/12/2001 2003/86/EC OJ L 040 of 
14/02/2003, p. 11 
CR 58/2000  Fiscal aid - Province of Alava 
(III) Spain 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 
CR 54/1999  Fiscal aid - Province of 
Vizcaya (II) Spain 11/07/2001 2003/27/EC OJ L 017 of 
22/01/2003, p. 1 
CR 52/1999  Fiscal aid - Province of 
Vizcaya (I) Spain 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 
04/07/2002, p. 31 
CR 48/1999  Fiscal aid - Province of Alava 
(I) Spain 11/07/2001 2002/820/EC OJ L 296 of 
30/10/2002, p. 1 
CR 49/1999  Fiscal aid - Province of Alava 
(II) Spain 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 
05/09/2001, 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/ECSC 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 
EN 87   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 44/1997 Aid for Magefesa Spain 14/10/1998 1999/509/EC OJ L 198 of 
30/07/1999, p. 15 
 
 
EN 88   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 2010) 
 
Case 
number Working title Member 
State Court case State of play  and recent developments 
CR 
56/2006  Bank Burgenland Austria C-551/09  14/07/09: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) TFEU proceedings against Austria 
Press release: IP/09/1134
 
 
CR 
38/1998   Aid for Kimberly Clark/Scott Group France C-232/05  05/10/06: Art. 108(2) TFEU action - 
Judgment ECJ – ECJ rules that France has failed to fulfil its Treaty 
obligation 
 
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. 108(2) action against France  
Press release: IP/06/1471  
13/11/08: art. 108(2) action - Judgment 
ECJ - France condemned for non 
implementation of the decision 
05/05/10: Commission sent letter of 
formal notice to France under Art. 260(2): 
IP/10/529  
 
CR 
38/2007  Alleged aid to Arbel Fauvet Rail SA France  28/10/09: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against France  
Press release: IP/09/1627  
23/06/2010: new negative decision 
adopted 
 
CR 
37/2005  Tax exempt reserve fund Greece C-354/10  24/02/10: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against Greece  
Press release: IP/10/183  
 
CR 
16/2004  Hellenic Shipyards Greece  14/04/10: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against Greece  
Press release: IP/10/428  
 
EN 89   EN CR 
62/2000  Thuringen Porzellan (Kahla) Germany C-39/06  16/02/05: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against Germany 
24/01/06: Application lodged at the ECJ 
pursuant to Art. 108(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 decision to send a 
Reasoned Opinion to Italy 
25/06/2009: Commission decision to 
initiate 260(2) Action against Italy 
Press release: IP/09/1028
 
 
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 
05/05/10: Commission decision to send a 
complementary letter of formal notice under Art. 206(2) 
 
CR 
57/2003  Tremonti Bis Italy C-303/09  25/01/06: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against Italy  
Press release: IP/06/77  
11/03/08: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(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. 108(2) action against Italy  
Press release: IP/06/1040  
11/03/08: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(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. 108(2) action against Italy  
Press release: IP/07/648  
11/03/08: Commission decision to initiate 
EN 90   EN Art. 108(2) action against Italy 
 
CR 
16/2006  Restructuring aid to Nuova Mineraria 
Silius 
 Italy  13/02/08: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) proceedin gs against Italy 
CR 
12/2004  Fiscal incentives fo r outward FDI Italy C-305/09  11/03/08: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against Italy 
Press release: IP/08/435   
 
CR 
13/2007  Rescue aid to New Interline SPA Italy C-454/09  25/11/09: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) TFEU action against Italy 
Press release: IP/09/1140  
 
CR 
1/2004  Regional law 9/98 – Misuse of aid Italy C-243/10  27/01/10: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) TFEU action against Italy 
Press release: IP/10/103  
 
CR 
23/2006  Technologie Buczek Poland C-331/09  11/03/08: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(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. 108(2) TFEU proceedings against 
Slovakia 
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 part of 
Commission decision 
17/06/09: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) TFEU proceedings against 
Spain 
Press release: IP/09/960  
19/11/09: Commission sent letter of 
formal notice under Art. 260(2) TFEU to Spain 
Press release: IP/09/1789
 
18/03/10: Commission decision to send a 
complementary letter of formal notice 
under Art. 206(2) 
 
CR Fiscal aid – Province of Alava (I)  Spain C-485/03 , 14/12/06: ECJ judgment condemning 
Spain for failing to implement 
EN 91   EN 48/1999  
CR 
49/1999  
CR 
50/1999  
CR 
52/1999  
CR 
53/1999  
CR 
54/1999  Fiscal aid - Province of Alava (II) 
Fiscal aid – Province of Guipuzcoa 
(I) 
Fiscal aid – Provin ce of Vizcaya (I) 
Fiscal aid - Province of Guizpuzcoa 
(II) 
Fiscal aid - Province of Vizcaya (II)  (Basque fiscal aid schemes) C-486/03
, 
C 487/03 , 
C-488/03 , 
C-489/03 , 
C-490/03  Commission decision 
26/06/08: Commission decision to send a 
Reasoned Opinion under Art. 260(2) 
TFEU (ex. Art. 228( 2) ECT) 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. 108(2) TFEU action against Spain 
20/09/07: ECJ judgment condemning 
Spain for failing to execute Commission decision 
Press release: IP/05/1655
 
15/04/09: Commission sent letter of 
formal notice under Art. 260(2) TFEU to 
Spain 
19/11/09: Commission decision to send a 
Reasoned Opinion under Art. 260(2) 
TFEU (ex. Art. 228( 2) ECT) to Spain 
Press release: IP/09/1790  
 
 
EN 92   EN Table 5: Summary of rules for the transport sector 
Land transport (road. rail. inland waterways)  
- Article 93 TFEU contains rules for the compatibility of State aid in the area of coordination of transport 
and public service obligation in transport. The Co mmission considers in its constant practice that 
Article 93 constitutes a lex specialis with respect to Article 107(2) an d Article 107(3), as it contains 
special rules for the compatibility of State aid. In addition, Article 93 TFEU constitutes a lex specialis 
also with respect to Article 106(2) TFEU, and ther efore, Article 106(2) TFEU cannot be applied in the 
area of coordination of transport and public se rvice obligation in the inland transport sector220; 
 
- Until 2 December 2009, Article 93 was in practice impl emented by means of 3 Council Regulations: 1) 
Council Regulation 1191/69221, 2) Council Regulation 1107/70222 and 3) Council Regulation 
1192/69223. As from 3 December 2009 Regulation 1370/07224 will replace Regulations 1191/69 and 
1107/70. Regulation 119/69 remains applicable for a three years transitional period to the inland freight transport; 
 
- Community guidelines on State aid for railway undertakings, adopted on 30 April 2008
225. 
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 sector226; 
 
- Community guidelines on financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines departing from regional 
airports227. 
Maritime transport   
- Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport228; 
 - Communication from the Commission providing guidance on State aid complementary to Community 
funding for the launching of the motorways of the sea
229; 
 - Communication from the Commission providing guidance on State aid to ship management 
companies
230. 
 
 
                                                 
220  See recital 17 of the Commission decision 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). 
221  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 se rvice in transport by rail, road and inland waterway, 
as amended. 
222  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.  
223  Regulation (EEC) No. 1192/69 on common rules for the normalisation 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.
 
224  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).  
225  OJ C 184, 22.7.2008, p. 13. 
226  OJ C 350, 10.12.1994, p. 5. 
227  OJ C 312, 9.12.2005, p. 1. 
228  OJ C 13, 17.1.2004, p. 3. 
229  OJ C 317, 12.12.2008, p. 10. 
230  OJ C 132, 11.6.2009, p. 6.