Report - State Aid Scoreboard - spring 2007 update -
Date: 2007-06-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, State aid, control of State aid, legality, report

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 28.6.2007 
COM(2007) 347 final 

REPORT 

State Aid Scoreboard 

- spring 2007 update - 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 4 

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 8 

1. 

Part One: Unlawful aid................................................................................................. 9 

1.1. 

Unlawful aid – what is at stake? .................................................................................. 9 

1.1.1.  From 1957 .................................................................................................................... 9 

1.1.2.  …to the XXI century.................................................................................................. 10 

1.2. 

Factual information on unlawful aid .......................................................................... 11 

1.2.1.  More than 600 decisions on unlawful aid between 2000 and 2006 ........................... 11 

1.2.2. 

Intervention level for unlawful aid almost ten times higher than for notified aid ..... 13 

1.2.3.  More than one-third of detected unlawful aid is for rescue and restructuring aid ..... 14 

1.2.4.  Share of incompatible unlawful aid tends to be higher in the large Member States and 
in the industry and services sectors............................................................................ 14 

1.2.5.  Trend in the number of decisions on unlawful aid relatively stable since 2003 ........ 16 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

Recovery of unlawful aid ........................................................................................... 16 

Negative decisions without recovery ......................................................................... 21 

Tackling unlawful aid ................................................................................................ 22 

1.5.1.  The role of Member States......................................................................................... 22 

1.5.2.  The role of competitors and other interested parties and the role of national courts . 24 

1.5.3.  The role of the European Commission....................................................................... 25 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

2.5. 

2.6. 

2.7. 

2.8. 

Part Two: Legislative Developments ......................................................................... 29 

State Aid Action Plan................................................................................................. 29 

Prolongation of Shipbuilding Framework.................................................................. 29 

New rules on State aid in agricultural sector ............................................................. 29 

Commission Regulation on de minimis aid................................................................ 30 

Prolongation of block exemption regulation.............................................................. 30 

Prolongation of Cinema Communication................................................................... 30 

Commission Draft Regulation on de minimis aid in the fisheries sector ................... 31 

Commission draft Regulation on raising the ceiling for de minimis aid in the 
agriculture sector........................................................................................................ 31 

2.9. 

Draft Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection................... 31 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
2.10. 

Proposal for a Commission Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 
implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for 
the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty........................................................... 31 

2.11.  Commission report on State aid to the coal industry ................................................. 32 

2.12.  Regional aid maps 2007-2013 approved for 25 Member States ................................ 32 

3. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

Part Three: Aid awarded under the State Aid Block Exemption Regulations ........... 33 

Part Four: State Aid control Procedures..................................................................... 35 

Registered Aid Cases ................................................................................................. 35 

Commission Decisions............................................................................................... 35 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The  spring  2007  update  of  the  State  aid  Scoreboard  aims  to  present  unlawful  aid  in  the 
context of the State aid control system established by the EC Treaty, the problems regarding 
this phenomenon and possible ways to improve compliance with the notification and standstill 
obligation. It also provides an overview of available statistics on previously granted unlawful 
aid that is known to the Commission. The Scoreboard also includes its customary summary of 
ongoing work to modernise State aid control through legislative and policy means, statistical 
overview of State aid measures falling under block exemption regulations and an overview on 
State aid procedures in 2006. 

1)  State  aid  control  system  can  only  work  effectively  if  all  state  aid  measures  are  duly 
notified by Member States 

The state aid  control system  established by the EC Treaty comes from the need to ensure a 
balance between the Member States’ freedom to design their economic policies and the need 
to  ensure  a  level  playing  field  for  all  undertakings  active  in  the  internal  market,  no  matter 
what Member State they are established in. Such a system can only work if the Commission is 
duly  informed  in  advance about  Member States planned actions in this field. Therefore, aid 
measures that are not notified to the Commission and implemented by Member States before 
the Commission's final decision are considered to be unlawful. 

2) More than 600 decisions on unlawful aid measures between 2000 and 2006 

In  the  7-year  period  2000-2006,  the  Commission  took  608  decisions  on  unlawful  aid.  In 
addition, there are around 200 pending unlawful aid cases which are still under Commission 
scrutiny. These cases are 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  decision  (i.e.,  cases  where  the  standstill  clause  was  not 
respected). 

3) Intervention level for unlawful aid around ten times higher than for notified aid 

In  the  period  2000-2006,  the  Commission  had  to  open  a  formal  investigation  procedure  in 
around  40%  of  unlawful  aid  cases.  By  comparison,  this  share  is  much  lower  (5%)  for 
decisions on notified aid, for which the Commission was able, in most of the cases, to take a 
final  decision  just  after  the  preliminary  examination  procedure.  Looking  at  industry  and 
services  only,  the  corresponding  percentages  were  60%  for  unlawful  decisions  and  8%  for 
notified aid. In the other sectors, the share of unlawful aid cases in which a decision was taken 
at the end of the formal investigation procedure  are as  follows:  25% for transport and coal, 
followed by agriculture (15%) and fisheries (8%).  

In  the  period  under  review,  the  Commission  'intervened'  in  25.6%  of  unlawful  aid  cases  by 
taking  a  negative  decision  on  an  incompatible  aid  measure  (24.0%)  or  taking  a  conditional 
decision  (1.6%).  The  need  for  the  Commission  to  intervene  in  the  granting  of  aid  with  a 
negative or conditional decision for at least a part of the aid unlawfully implemented by the 
Member  State  concerned  is  around  ten  times  higher  than  that  for  notified  aid  decisions 
(2.7%).  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
The share of cases (25.6%) in which the Commission needs to intervene varies considerably 
according to sector: 37% of unlawful aid cases in the industry and services sectors, followed 
by transport and coal (17%), agriculture (9%) and fisheries (5%). 

4) More than one-third of detected unlawful aid is for rescue and restructuring aid 

In the industry and services sectors more than one-third of decisions on unlawful aid concern 
rescue  and  restructuring  cases,  a  type  of  aid  which  is  potentially  most  prone  to  distort 
competition. In comparison, less than 5% of notified cases concern rescue and restructuring 
aid.  

5) Share of incompatible unlawful aid tends to be higher in the large Member States and in 
the industry and services sectors 

Some 73% of the 608 decisions on unlawful aid over the period 2000-2006 concerned the five 
largest Member States: Germany (24% of the EU-25 total of decisions on unlawful aid), Italy 
(17%),  Spain  (12%),  France  (10%)  and  United  Kingdom  (9%).  With  the  exception  of  the 
United Kingdom, these Member States each have a relatively high share of incompatible aid, 
particularly  in  the  industry  and  services  sectors,  e.g.,  in  Spain,  the  aid  was  found  to  be 
incompatible in 48% of decisions involving unlawful aid. 

A further 25% of the 608 decisions on unlawful aid concerned the other ten EU-15 Member 
States  while  less  than  2%  (11  decisions)  involved  four  EU-10  Member  States  (the  Czech 
Republic,  Hungary,  Poland  and  Slovakia).  In  addition,  there  were  35  unlawful  aid  cases 
registered at the end of 2006 for 8 of the EU-10 Member States. 

6) The State Aid Action Plan (SAAP) stressed the Member States' crucial role in tackling 
unlawful  aid:  to  ensure  i)  respect  of  the  notification  obligation  and  ii)  immediate  and 
complete implementation of Commission recovery decisions 

The  obligation  for  Member  States  to  notify  planned  state  aid  measures  is  established  by 
Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty. The SAAP has stressed the need to strengthen Member States' 
commitment to enforcing the state  aid rules. It also insists on the fact  that  the  effectiveness 
and  credibility  of  state  aid  control  presupposes  a  proper  enforcement  of  the  Commission’s 
decisions, especially as regards the recovery of illegal and incompatible state aid. 

7) The amount of aid effectively recovered has increased significantly … but further efforts 
are required to ensure a more immediate and effective execution of recovery decisions 

In  line  with  the  SAAP,  recent  efforts  point  to  a  marked  improvement  in  the  execution  of 
recovery decisions, leading to an increase in the amount of incompatible aid recovered and a 
decrease in the backlog of pending cases.  

By the end of December 2006, some € 6 billion of unlawful and incompatible aid had been 
effectively recovered. In addition, € 2.1 billion of interest had been recovered and a further € 
1.2 billion of unlawful and incompatible aid was declared as lost in bankruptcy proceedings.  

The €6 billion of aid effectively recovered represents 71% of the total amount of unlawful and 
incompatible  aid  to  be  recovered.  This  figure  reflects  a  significant  improvement  on  the 
situation  in  December  2004  when  only  25%  of  the  total  amount  of  aid  to  be  recovered  had 
been reimbursed. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
The improvement in the execution of recovery decisions is also reflected in a significant fall 
in the number of recovery decisions pending execution. As of 31 December 2006, there were 
60 pending recovery decisions, compared to 93 in December 2004. Spain makes up 28% (17 
cases) of the total while Germany, Italy and France combined account for a further 55% of all 
pending recovery cases. There are no pending cases in fifteen of the EU-25 Member States. 

In  spite  of  the  recent  improvements,  experience  shows  that  the  implementation  of  recovery 
decisions by Member States is still far from being satisfactory and, therefore, the Commission 
will  continue  to  seek  to  achieve  a  more  immediate  and  effective  execution  of  recovery 
decisions, which will ensure equality of treatment of all beneficiaries. 

8)  The  SAAP  announced  a  stricter  approach  for  the  Commission  to  tackle  unlawful  aid: 
Deggendorf case-law and possible use of Article 226 and 228 of EC Treaty. 

The  Deggendorf  case-law  (see  section  1.5.3)  confirmed  that,  when  assessing  a  new  aid 
measure, the Commission has the power to take into account the fact that the beneficiary of 
this new aid has not fully repaid earlier unlawful and incompatible aid that was subject of a 
recovery  decision.  In  such  cases  the  Commission  may  eventually  decide  that  the  otherwise 
compatible aid cannot be paid out as long as the previous aid has not been fully reimbursed. 
Between  1997  and  2005  Deggendorf  case-law  was  applied  only  occasionally  in  relation  to 
individual  aid  cases.  In  2005,  in  line  with  the  measures  announced  in  the  SAAP,  the 
Commission decided to apply it in a more systematic way. The new approach has now been in 
operation for almost two years. The Commission considers that it has increased pressure on 
the Member States to pursue the execution of recovery decisions in a more diligent manner. 

In  line  with  the  measures  announced  in  the  SAAP,  the  Commission  is  monitoring  more 
closely,  in  accordance  with  national  procedures,  the  execution  of  recovery  decisions  by 
Member  States.  Where  it  appears  that  recovery  is  not  carried  out  in  an  immediate  and 
effective manner,  the Commission is  more actively pursuing non-compliance under Articles 
88(2), 226 and 228 of the EC Treaty. 

9) The block exemption regulations appear to have significantly reduced the administrative 
burden  

The  number  of  notifications  to  grant  training  aid,  employment  aid  and  SME  aid  has  fallen 
considerably since 2001 as Member States make increasing use of the possibilities offered by 
the block exemption regulations. By the end of 2006, more than 1700 information forms on 
block  exempted  measures  had  been  submitted  since  the  introduction  of  the  regulations  for 
SME and training in 2001. In 2006 alone, the Commission received more than 400 forms on 
exempted measures.  

10)  Member  States  notified  more  than  900  aid  measures  in  2006,  (a  36%  increase 
compared with the previous year) 

In  2006,  there  were  1009  cases  (excluding  block  exempted  measures)  registered  by  the 
Commission: 921 cases were notified by Member States, 84 were non-notified cases initiated 
by the Commission and 4 were cases examining existing aid. Excluding the block exemption 
aid measures, 53% of all registered cases in 2006 concerned the industry and service sectors 
and 34% the agricultural sector. Of the remaining cases, 9% involved transport and coal, and 
3% the fisheries sector. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
11) In 2006 the Commission approved the award of State aid in 90% of its decisions 

In  2006,  the  Commission  took  710  final  decisions,  a  12 %  increase  on  2005.  In  the  vast 
majority of cases, the Commission approved the measures, concluding that the examined aid 
was compatible (91 % of all decisions in 2006) with the State aid rules or did not constitute 
State  aid  (4 %  of  all  decisions).  Where  the  Commission  has  doubts  whether  certain  aid 
measures  comply  with  the  rules,  it  carries  out  a  formal  investigation  during  which  third 
parties  and  all  Member  States  are  invited  to  provide  observations.  At  the  end  of  this 
investigation procedure, the Commission either takes a positive, conditional or no aid decision 
(making up 3 % of all decisions) or concludes that the measure does not comply with State 
aid rules and hence is not compatible with the Common Market and takes a negative decision 
(2 % of all decisions).  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
INTRODUCTION 

The  spring  2007  update  of  the  State  aid  Scoreboard  aims  to  present  unlawful  aid  in  the 
context of the State aid control system established by the EC Treaty, the problems regarding 
this phenomenon and possible ways to improve compliance with the notification and standstill 
obligations. It also provides an overview of available statistics on the part of unlawful aid that 
is known to the Commission. (i.e. measures for which there has been a Commission decision).  

This update of the Scoreboard is divided into four main parts. Part One focuses on unlawful 
aid  and  has  five  sections:  an  overview  of  the  notification  and  standstill  obligations,  factual 
information, recovery of aid, negative decisions without recovery and tackling unlawful aid.  

Part Two describes recent progress in legislative and policy developments in State aid. Part 
Three  provides  a  statistical  overview  of  State  aid  measures  falling  under  the  five  block 
exemption regulations (block exemptions for aid to SME, training aid, employment aid, aid to 
SME  in  the  agricultural  sector  and  certain  types  of  aid  in  the  fisheries  sector).  Part  Four 
provides an overview of State aid procedures in 2006. 

In addition to this paper edition, a permanent online Scoreboard consisting of a series of key 
indicators and a range of statistical information for the EU Member States is available on the on 
the 
site 
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/scoreboard/).  

the  Competition  Directorate  General’s 

homepage 

Internet 

of 

The autumn 2007 Scoreboard will cover State aid awarded in EU-25 for the year 2006. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
1. 

PART ONE: UNLAWFUL AID 

1.1. 

Unlawful aid – what is at stake? 

1.1.1.  From 1957 

The state aid  control system  established by the EC Treaty comes from the need to ensure a 
balance between the Member States’ freedom to design their economic policy and the need to 
ensure a level playing field for all undertakings active in the internal market, no matter which 
Member State they are established in.  

It  is  submitted  that  state  aid  distorts  competition  in  the  internal  market.  State  aid  may  also 
lead  to  a  reduction  in  the  overall  competitiveness  of  European  industry  by  providing 
unwarranted selective advantages to some firms (which are not always the most performing 
ones  –  i.e.,  rescue  and  restructuring  aid  cases),  preventing  or  delaying  market  forces  from 
adapting to forthcoming challenges and rewarding the most competitive firms. 

However,  state  aid  can  sometimes  be  an  effective  tool  for  achieving  objectives  of  common 
interest  (such  as  research  and  development,  environment  protection,  energy  and  transport 
networks, social and regional cohesion, sustainable development or cultural diversity) without 
distorting competition and trade to an extent contrary to the common interest. They can also 
contribute  to  correcting  market  failures1,  thereby  improving  the  functioning  of  markets  and 
enhancing European competitiveness. In those cases in which the benefits brought about by 
the  aid  measure  clearly  outweigh  the  distortions  created  by  it,  the  measure  can  be  declared 
compatible with the internal market. 

In  order  to  carry  out  this  evaluation  and  ensure  a  correct  balance  between  the  two  aspects 
involved  in  the  implementation  of  state  aid  measures,  the  Treaty  created  a  supranational 
mechanism  of  control  which  entrusts  the  Commission  with  the  task  of  scrutinising  and 
monitoring proposed and existing state aid measures by Member States to ensure that they do 
not distort competition and trade to an extent contrary to the common interest. Such a system 
can only work if the Commission is duly informed in advance about Member States planned 
actions in this field. 

This is the reason why Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty establishes that: "The Commission shall 
be informed in sufficient time to enable it to submit comments, of any plans to grant or alter 
aid.  […]  The  Member  State  concerned  shall  not  put  its  proposed  measures  into  effect  until 
this  procedure  has  resulted  in  a  final  decision".  This  provision  includes  two  cumulative 
obligations for Member States: (1) the notification obligation, and (2) the obligation to respect 
the standstill clause. The respect of these obligations is crucial for the overall credibility and 
proper functioning of the state aid control system established by the Treaty which can only be 
effective if Member States play according to the rules. 

1 

Competition is vital for the economy to be efficient. In this context, “efficiency” refers to the extent to 
which  welfare  is  optimized  in  a  particular  market  or  in  the  economy  at  large.  A  “market  failure”  is 
consequently a situation where the market does not lead to an economically efficient outcome. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In cases where either of these obligations is not respected, the state aid measure is considered 

to be unlawful2. The unlawful aid phenomenon involves two substantive problems:  

(1) since unlawfully granted aid cannot, by definition, be subject to the ex ante compatibility 
analysis normally carried out by the Commission, it is unknown whether, and if so, 
to  what  extent,  the  measure  is  causing  unacceptable  distortions  of  competition  and 
trade in the internal market, and 

(2) 

even if the unlawfully granted measure comes to light and can be tackled, it can be 
very  difficult  to  restore  the  ex  ante  competitive  situation  and  undo  the  negative 
effects  provoked  by  the  measure  even  if  the  aid  is  eventually  recovered  from  the 
beneficiary.  

Therefore, as the European Court of Justice (hereinafter, the ECJ) has clearly stated, enforcing 
the legal obligations established in Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty is crucial not only to ensure 
respect of the Treaty itself but also because "[…] the purpose of the first sentence of Article 
93(3) of the Treaty is to provide the Commission with the opportunity to review in sufficient 
time  and  in  general  interest  of  the  Communities,  any  plan  to  grant  or  alter  aid.  The  final 
sentence of Article 93(3) of the Treaty constitutes the means of safeguarding the machinery 
for  review  laid  down  by  that  article,  which,  in  turn,  in  essential  for  ensuring  the  proper 
functioning of the common market […]"3. 

1.1.2.  …to the XXI century 

In  the  context  of  the  Renewed  Lisbon  Strategy  for  Growth  and  Jobs,  both  the  Commission 
and  the  Member  States  have  been  encouraged  to  reconcile  the  apparent  tension  that  exists 
between the different consequences state aid measures may have for the development of the 
European economy. The European Council4 has explicitly invited Member States "to continue 
working towards a reduction in the general level of state aid, while making allowance for any 
market failures. This movement must be accompanied by a redeployment of aid in favour of 
support  for  certain  horizontal  objectives  such  as  research  and  innovation  and  the 
optimisation of human capital. The reform of regional aid should also foster a high level of 
investment  and  ensure  a  reduction in  disparities  in  accordance  with  the  Lisbon  objectives". 
State aid policy can and must, therefore, contribute by itself and by reinforcing other policies 
to  making  Europe  a  more  attractive  place  to  invest  and  work,  building  up  knowledge  and 
innovation for growth and creating more and better jobs. 

The recent Commission communication on the revision of the internal market policy5 has put 
forward  the  message  that  "(T)he  goal  of  the  21st  century  Single  Market  is  to  make  markets 
work better for the benefit of consumers and businesses, and to promote a more competitive 
and sustainable Europe. To this aim, the European Union has to ensure that the opening of 
markets  and  increasing  competition  results  in  fair  commercial  practices,  so  as  to  maximise 

2 

3 

4 
5 

Article 1(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, of 22 March 1999, laying down detailed rules for 
the  application  of  Article  93  (now  Article  88)  of  the  EC  Treaty  (hereinafter,  Procedural  Regulation) 
precisely  defines  unlawful  aid  as  new  aid  put  into  effect  in  contravention  of  Article  88(3)  of  the  EC 
Treaty. OJ L 83 of 27 March 1999, p. 1. 
ECJ judgement of 14 February 1990 in case C-301/87, France v. Commission ("Boussac"), Rec. 1990, 
p. I-307. Emphasis added. 
See European Council Conclusions of November 2004 and March 2005. 
"A Single Market for Citizens – Interim Report to the 2007 Spring European Council". COM(2007)60 
final of 21 February 2007. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
consumers' welfare and continues to contribute to economic growth and jobs […]". Fostering 
internal  competition  within  the  Single  Market  is  also  one  of  the  best  drivers  for  external 
competitiveness of European industry. 

These objectives are clearly endangered by the Member States' practice of granting unlawful 
aid.  The  State  aid  Action  Plan6  (hereinafter,  SAAP)  therefore  also  calls  for  better  targeted 
enforcement and monitoring, including the effective tackling of unlawful aid. 

Certain  indicators7  show  the  particularly  harmful  character  of  unlawful  aid  compared  to 
notified aid. 

First, as regards unlawful aid, the Commission expresses doubts on its compatibility 
through  an  opening  decision  in  40%  of  cases  compared  to  only  5%  in  the  case  of 
notified aid.  

Second,  the  Commission  prohibits  at  least  part  of  the  aid  through  a  final  negative 
decision  in  24  %  of  all  unlawful  aid  cases.  For  comparison,  in  notified  cases  the 
Commission  is  obliged  to  intervene  with  a  negative  decision  in  just  2.1%  of  the 
cases.  This  higher  rate  of  Commission  intervention  in  case  of  unlawful  aid  clearly 
shows a higher degree of distortion of competition and trade in the internal market 
created by aid awarded in breach of the EC Treaty. 

Third, it is even more alarming to see that in industry and services more than one-
third of decisions on unlawful aid concern rescue and restructuring cases, a type of 
aid which is potentially most prone to distort competition. In comparison, only below 
5%  of  notified  cases  concern  rescue  and  restructuring  aid.  Last  autumn's  State  aid 
Scoreboard8 carried out an in-depth analysis of the: rescue and restructuring aid. The 
results  of  the  analysis  also  showed  that  more  than  half  of  the  ad  hoc  rescue  and 
restructuring  decisions  taken  over  the  period  2000-2005  concerned  unlawful  aid. 
This  breach  of  the  Treaty  concerns  in  particular  the  larger  cases  and  the  larger 
Member States and is more prevalent in restructuring cases than rescue cases.  

The  purpose  of  this  focus  chapter  is  to  analyse  the  different  aspects  of  the  unlawful  aid 
phenomenon  and  to  present  some  factual  information  on  the  part  of  unlawful  aid  which  is 
known to the Commission (i.e., measures for which there has been a Commission decision). 
The reader should keep in mind throughout this chapter that the statistics made available here 
do not present a global picture of total levels of aid unlawfully granted in the EU since, by 
definition, the Commission services do not possess this information.  

1.2. 

Factual information on unlawful aid 

1.2.1.  More than 600 decisions on unlawful aid between 2000 and 2006 

The data in this section are based on the number of cases for which the Commission has taken 
a final decision. These cases are taken up by the Commission in reaction to a complaint or ex 

6 
7 
8 

See points 8 and 23 of the SAAP. COM(2005)107 final of 7 June 2005. 
For further details, see section 1.2 below. 
COM(2006)761 final of 11 December 2006. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
officio9. In addition, the figures include cases which were notified by a Member State, but for 
which  the  measure  was  implemented  fully  or  partially  by  the  Member  State  before  the 
Commission's final decision (i.e., cases where the standstill clause was not respected).  

As  mentioned  above,  this  section  can  only  look  at  unlawful  aid  measures  known  to  the 
Commission. Nevertheless, the statistics offer a useful indication as to which Member States 
have  failed  most  often  to  notify  measures,  what  type  of  measures  these  are  and  how  the 
Commission has dealt with such measures. 

Following  the  SAAP  announcement  to  tackle  unlawful  aid  effectively,  the  Commission's 
services are currently exploring ways to identify areas in which hitherto "unknown" unlawful 
aid  may  have  been  awarded.  One  such  possibility  would  be  to  compare  national  reports  on 
public  support  to  companies  with  the  annual  reports  that  Member  States  are  required  to 
submit  to  the  Commission  according  to  Article  21  of  the  Procedural  Regulation.  In  most 
cases,  the  definitions  of  public  support  and  state  aid  are  rather  different  and  therefore  the 
reports are not directly comparable, but may nevertheless offer relevant insights.  

In  the  period  2000-2006  the  Commission  took  608  decisions  on  unlawful  aid.  In  addition, 
there are around 200 pending unlawful aid cases which are still under Commission scrutiny. 

Table 1: Number of decisions on unlawful aid in the period 2000-200610 

Total 
number of 
decisions on 
unlawful aid 

Number of 
decisions 
after 
preliminary 
examination 
procedure 

Number of 
decisions 
after formal 
investigation 
procedure 

Number of 
negative 
decisions 

EU-25 
Belgium 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Netherlands 
Austria 

608 
26 
4 
17 
148 
12 
70 
63 
17 
105 
3 
1 
28 
12 

367
15
3
16
68
6
35
33
13
71
1
1
14
8

241
11
1
1
80
6
35
30
4
34
2
0
14
4

146 
7 
0 
1 
46 
4 
24 
16 
3 
21 
2 
0 
11 
1 

9 

10 

The term "ex officio case" is used for a state aid case which is not brought to the Commission attention 
through a notification or a complaint but which is started at the Commission's own initiative and on the 
basis of its own investigation. 
In the period 2000-2006 the Commission has not taken any decisions on unlawful aid concerning six 
Member  States:  Estonia,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Malta  and  Slovenia.  Note  that  EU-10  Member 
States  joined  the  Union  on  1st  May  2004  and  therefore  they  are  not  fully  comparable  with  EU-15 
Member States. As Bulgaria and Romania joined the Union on 1st January 2007, they are not included 
in this Scoreboard update.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
  
                                                 
Poland 
Portugal 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 

3 
17 
3 
7 
16 
56 

1
13
1
4
14
50

2
4
2
3
2
6

1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
4 

1.2.2. 

Intervention level for unlawful aid almost ten times higher than for notified aid 

According  to  the  Procedural  Regulation,  the  Commission  first  carries  out  a  preliminary 
examination  of  the  aid  measure  and  then  approves  it11  (or  takes  a  no  aid  decision12),  or 
initiates the formal investigation procedure13 where it has doubts as to the compatibility of the 
aid. After the formal investigation procedure, the Commission can approve the aid measure as 
it  stands14  or  take  a  positive  decision  with  conditions  subject  to  which  an  aid  may  be 
considered compatible with the common market15 or intervene to stop an unjustified distortion 
of  competition  by  taking  a  negative  decision  requiring  the  Member  State  to  abolish  the 
incompatible aid measure16. 

In the period 2000-2006, around 40% of the decisions on unlawful aid were taken at the end 
of a formal investigation procedure compared with 5% of decisions concerning notified aid. 
Looking  at  the  industry  and  services  sectors  only,  the  corresponding  percentages  were  60% 
and 8%. In the other sectors, the share of unlawful aid cases in which a decision was taken at 
the  end  of  the  formal  investigation  procedure  are  as  follows:  25%  for  transport  and  coal, 
followed by agriculture (15%) and fisheries (8%). 

In the period 2000-2006, the Commission intervened in 25.6% of unlawful aid cases by taking 
a negative decision on incompatible aid measures (24.0% of the cases) or taking a conditional 
decision  (1.6%).  The  need  for  the  Commission  to  intervene  in  the  granting  of  aid  with  a 
negative  decision  or,  in  some  cases,  a  conditional  decision  for  at  least  a  part  of  the  aid 
unlawfully implemented by the Member State concerned is therefore almost ten times higher 
than that of notified aid decisions (2.7%).  

The share of cases (25.6%) in which the Commission needs to intervene (also known as the 
'intervention  level')  varies  considerably  according  to  sector:  37%  of  unlawful  cases  in  the 
industry  and  services  sectors,  followed  by  transport  (17%),  agriculture  (9%)  and  fisheries 
(5%). 

There are a number of reasons which could explain why the intervention level is considerably 
higher  in  the  case  of  unlawful  aid  than  for  notified  aid.  First  and  foremost  is  the  scrutiny 
function  that  the  Commission  carries  out  in  the  case  of  notified  aid.  In  notifying  an  aid 
measure, Member States tend to make an effort to bring it into line with the state aid rules. 
While the Commission frequently identifies certain issues related to the compatibility, these 

11 
12 
13 

14 
15 
16 

Decision "not to raise objection" according to Article 4(3) of the Procedural Regulation. 
Decision "does not constitute aid" according to Article 4(2) of the Procedural Regulation. 
Decision  "to  initiate  the  formal  investigation  procedure"  according  to  Article  4(4)  of  the  Procedural 
Regulation. 
"Positive decision" according to Article 7(3) of the Procedural Regulation. 
"Conditional decision" according to Article 7(4) of the Procedural Regulation. 
"Negative decision" according to Article 7(5) of the Procedural Regulation. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
can often be resolved within the scope of the notification procedure through a change in the 
measure. In contrast, for unlawful aid, there is no such scope for Member States to amend a 
particular  measure  and  thus  the  greater  the  likelihood  that  the  measure  may  be  found  to  be 
incompatible.  Another  problem  associated  with  unlawful  aid  is  the  lack  of  information  that 
the Commission tends to receive particularly at the beginning of a preliminary examination of 
such a measure.  

1.2.3.  More than one-third of detected unlawful aid is for rescue and restructuring aid 

Due to data constraints, a breakdown of unlawful aid by primary objective is possible only for 
the industry, services, transport and coal sectors. In 2000-2006, in the industry and services 
sectors,  rescue  and  restructuring  aid  measures  accounted  for  37%  of  the  total  number  of 
decisions on unlawful aid followed by regional development (19%), environmental protection 
(10%),  sectoral  development  (7%)  and  research  and  development  (6%).  Of  the  other 
objectives, none made up more than 4% of the total. 

In 2000-2006, in the transport and coal sectors, sectoral development measures accounted for 
67% of the total number of decisions on unlawful aid followed by rescue and restructuring aid 
19%,  regional  development  (4%)  and  social  support  to  individual  consumers  (4%).  Other 
objectives amounted to 6% of the total. 

As regards the industry and services sectors, in relative terms, decisions involving unlawful 
restructuring  aid  made  up  62%  of  the  total  number  of  decisions  on  restructuring  aid. 
Similarly, unlawful rescue aid accounted for almost half (48%) of all rescue aid. The autumn 
2006 State aid Scoreboard looked in detail at rescue and restructuring aid. It concluded that 
unlawful  aid  occurs  more  often  in  the  context  of  larger  cases  and  is  more  prevalent  in 
restructuring cases than rescue cases. As regards rescue aid, it is well recognised that Member 
States may be under significant time pressure to rescue an ailing firm with immediate action 
being perceived as the only way to keep a firm afloat, although this cannot justify a breach of 
the Treaty. This reason of time pressure cannot be applied to the same extent to restructuring 
aid  where  there  is  a  need  to  prepare  a  restructuring  strategy  which  should  solve  a  firm’s 
problems  in  the  longer  term.  However,  despite  the  possibility  to  grant  rescue  aid,  many 
restructuring  cases  involving  unlawful  aid  do  not  make  use  of  such  an  option  which  would 
allow keeping a firm afloat while at the same time complying with the Treaty obligations. 

1.2.4. 

Share  of  incompatible  unlawful  aid  tends  to  be  higher  in  the  large  Member  States 
and in the industry and services sectors 

Some 73% of the 608 decisions on unlawful aid over the period 2000-2006 concerned the five 
largest  Member  States:  Germany  (24%  of  the  EU-25  total  number  of  unlawful  decisions), 
Italy (17%), Spain (12%), France (10%) and United Kingdom (9%) (see Table 1). 

With the exception of the United Kingdom, these Member States each have a relatively high 
share of incompatible aid, particularly in the industry and services sectors, e.g., in Spain, the 
aid was found to be incompatible in 51% of decisions involving unlawful aid.  

(a) 

Germany 

The high number of decisions on unlawful aid (148 decisions in 2000-2006) in 
both absolute and relative terms is mainly due to unlawfully granted aid to the 
industry  and  services  sectors  (79%)  followed  by  agriculture  (13%)  and 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
transport  (8%).  Around  half  of  the  decisions  in  the  industry  and  services 
sectors  concerned  the  rescuing  and  restructuring  of  companies  in  difficulties. 
Much  of  this  aid  was  granted  unlawfully  in  the  late  1990s  for  former  East 
German  regions.  Most  of  these  decisions  were  taken  during  the  period  2000-
2002. The Commission found that 31% of German unlawful aid measures were 
incompatible  with  the  common  market.  This  rate  was  slightly  higher  for 
decisions on unlawful aid in the industry and services sector (38%). 

(b) 

Italy 

In  the  period  2000-2006  the  Commission  took  105  unlawful  aid  measures 
concerned mostly three broad sectors: agriculture (37%), industry and services 
(33%) and fisheries (25%). On average Italy had 15 decisions on unlawful aid 
per  year  with  an  exceptionally  high  number  of  decisions  (29)  in  2002,  which 
was  mainly  due  to  high  number  of  decisions  in  fishing  sector  (19).  In  the 
industry  and  services  sectors  there  were  36  decisions  in  the  period  under 
review  of  which  8  decisions  concerned  investment  aid  or  other  aid  measures 
not  in  line  with  the  regional  aid  rules  and  5  rescuing  and  restructuring  of 
companies in difficulties. The Commission found that 20% of the unlawful aid 
measures  were  incompatible  with  the  common  market.  However,  for  the 
industry and services sectors, the incompatible aid rate was around twice that 
figure (44%). 

(c) 

Spain 

During  the  period  under  review  the  Commission  adopted  70  decisions  on 
unlawful  aid  of  which  59%  concerned  industry  and  services  sectors  followed 
by  the  agriculture  sector  (20%),  transport  (14%)  and  fisheries  (7%).  The 
Commission  took  41  decisions  on  unlawful  aid  regarding  the  industry  and 
services  sectors  of  which  8  concerned  regional  development  followed  by 
rescuing  and  restructuring  of  companies  in  difficulties  (6),  SME  (4),  training 
(2)  and  environmental  protection  (2).  The  Commission  found  that  34%  of 
unlawful aid measures were incompatible with the common market. This rate 
was  significantly  higher  for  unlawful  aid  cases  in  the  industry  and  services 
sectors (48%). 

(d) 

France 

The Commission adopted 63 decisions on unlawful aid during the period under 
review of which 54% concerned the industry and services sectors followed by 
agriculture  sector  (22%), 
transport  (14%)  and  fisheries  (10%).  The 
Commission  took  33  decisions  on  unlawful  aid  regarding  the  industry  and 
services  sectors  of  which  7  were  to  rescue  and  restructure  companies  in 
difficulties followed by sectoral development (5) and regional development (4), 
training (2) and environmental protection (2). The Commission found that 25% 
of unlawful aid measures were incompatible with the common market. The rate 
was significantly higher (38%) for the industry and services sectors. 

(e) 

United Kingdom 

The Commission adopted 56 decisions on unlawful aid during the period 2000-

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
2006 of which 39% concerned the agriculture sector followed by the industry 
and  services  sectors  (34%),  fisheries  (18%)  and  transport  (9%).  The 
Commission  took  19  decisions  on  unlawful  aid  regarding  the  industry  and 
services  sectors  of  which  3  were  to  rescue  and  restructure  companies  in 
difficulties, as well as 3 each for culture and for research and development. The 
Commission found that 7% of unlawful aid measures were incompatible with 
the common market. This rate was similar to the rate for unlawful aid cases in 
the industry and services sectors (5%). 

(f) 

Other Member States 

A  further  25%  (155  decisions)  of  decisions  on  unlawful  aid  concerned  the  other  ten  EU-15 
Member  States  and  less  than  2%  (11  decisions)  four  EU-10  Member  States  (the  Czech 
Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia). In addition to these 11 decisions, the statistics on 
registered aid cases shows that at the end of December 2006 there were 35 new unlawful aid 
cases registered for 8 of the EU-10 Member States. 

1.2.5.  Trend in the number of decisions on unlawful aid relatively stable since 2003 

In  the  period  2000-2006,  the  Commission  took  on  average  around  90  decisions  per  year  on 
unlawful aid measures. The number was higher in the period 2000-2002 due to the impact of 
the large number of rescue and restructuring cases for former East German companies as well 
as  a  relatively  high  number  of  decisions  on  unlawful  aid  for  the  fisheries  sector  in  2002 
regarding Italy. 

1.3. 

Recovery of unlawful aid17 

Article 14 (1) of the Procedural Regulation states that "where negative decisions are taken in 
cases  of  unlawful  aid,  the  Commission  shall  decide  that  the  Member  State  concerned  shall 
take all necessary measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary". 

•  As  of  31  December  2006,  there  were  60  pending  recovery  decisions,  compared  to  93  in 
December 2004 and 71 on 30 June 2006. In the second half of 2006, 14 pending recovery 
cases  were  closed,  whilst  three  new  recovery  decisions  were  taken  (see  Table  2).  The 
geographical distribution of pending recovery cases is the following: Spain has the highest 
number of pending recovery cases (17), which represents 28% of the EU total. However, 
half  of  the  Spanish  pending  cases  refer  to  Basque  fiscal  schemes  for  which  the 
Commission has initiated Article 88(2) infringement proceedings against Spain for failure 
to implement the decisions. 

•  Taken  together,  Germany,  Italy  and  France  account  for  a  further  55%  of  all  pending 
recovery cases. Germany has reduced its share in the total number of pending cases from 
47% in 2004 to 26% in 2006 (mainly as a result of the closure of a large number of old 
insolvency cases). 

It should also be noted that there are no pending cases in 15 of the 25 Member States. 

Table 2: Pending recovery cases by Member State, second semester 2006 

17 

Excluding recovery cases in the agriculture sector. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Situation  by 
01/07/2006 

18 
Spain 
24 
Germany 
12 
Italy 
7 
France 
Netherlands 3 
1 
Belgium 
1 
Greece 
1 
Portugal 
1 
Ireland 
1 
Poland 
1 
Finland 
1 
Slovakia 
71 
TOTAL 
Source: DG Competition 

New  cases  in 
2nd 
semester 
2006 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
3 

Cases closed 
2nd
in 
semester 2006
1 
8 
1 
2 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
14 

Situation  by 
31/12/2006 

17 
16 
11 
6 
2 
1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
1 
60 

Table 3 provides data on the amounts of aid to be recovered under the 110 recovery decisions 
adopted since 200018. For 86 of these decisions, relatively accurate information exists on the 
amount of aid involved. This information shows that the total amount of aid to be recovered 
on the basis of decisions adopted between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2006 is at least € 
8.7 billion19. 

Table 3: Trend in the number of recovery decisions and amounts to be recovered(°) 
2000- 2006 

Date of decision 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005  2006 

total 

Number of decisions adopted 

16 

20 

23 

10 

23 

12 

7 

111 

reimbursed/or 

247.0 1032.5 1095.4 1015.6 5112.9 38.7  132.6  8674.7 
45.3  9343.5 
225.0 1067.2 1470.1 1230.3 5301.4 4.2 

Total  aid  known  to  be  recovered 
(million euro) 
Amounts recovered  
Of which: 
(a)  Principal 
blocked 
0.3 
6020.2 
Account 
45.0  1229.8 
(b) Aid lost in bankruptcy 
2093.5 
0.0 
(c) Interest 
173.1 
8.7 
0.0 
Aid registered in bankruptcy 
Amount outstanding (°°°) 
22.0  45.0  28.8  120.3  1086.7 34.6  87.3  1424.7 
% still pending to be recovered(°°)  8.9%  4.4%  2.6%  11.8% 21.3% 89.4% 66%  16.4% 

17.1  911.2  1037.6 894.6  3155.3 4.1 
870.9  0.0 
207.9 76.3  29.0  0.7 
79.7  403.5  335.0  1275.2 0.1 
7.5 
16.9  6.2 

133.8  0.0 

in 

18 

19 

On 31 December 2006, there were still a further 8 recovery decisions pending that were adopted before 
1 January 2000. 
The autumn 2005 State aid Scoreboard (COM(2005)624 final of 9 December 2005) reported a total of € 
9.4 billion. This discrepancy is due to the fact that some Member States submitted a revised estimate of 
the amounts to be recovered under some schemes. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                 
Notes: 
(°) Only for decisions for which the aid amount is known.  
(°°) Amount excluding interest.  
(°°°) Total aid known to be recovered less principal reimbursed and aid lost in bankruptcy 
Source: DG Competition 

For 24 of the recovery decisions adopted since 2000, the Member State concerned has not yet 
submitted reliable information on the aid amount involved. Most of these decisions (namely 
22) concern aid schemes. Especially in relation to fiscal and social security schemes, Member 
States appear to have difficulties in collecting accurate information (the main reasons given 
were: large number of beneficiaries; aid granted is partially compatible, which requires a full 
examination  of  each  individual  file;  older  records  are  no  longer  kept).  The  Commission 
continues  its  efforts  to  obtain  information  from  the  Member  States  on  the  aid  amounts 
involved. 

Of  the  €  8.7  billion  of  aid  to  be  recovered  under  decisions  adopted  since  2000,  some  € 6 
billion  of  aid  (and  an  additional  €2.1  billion  of  recovery  interest)  had  been  effectively 
recovered by 31 December 2006. This compares to € 2.3 billion principal recovered reported 
in December 2004 and € 6 billion reported in December 200520.  

The figure of €6 billion represents 71% of the total amount known to be recovered compared 
with 25% in December 2004. In addition, a further € 1.2 billion of unlawful and incompatible 
aid was “lost” in bankruptcy proceedings21 and € 173 million of illegal and incompatible aid 
has been registered in ongoing bankruptcy proceedings. 

During the second half of 2006 no significant amounts have been recovered and the majority 
of the cases closed refer to insolvent companies, in which the recovery amount is usually not 
recovered.  Recovery  of  incompatible  state  aid  is  a  lengthy  process:  10  of  the  recovery 
decisions the execution of which was still pending on 31 December 2006 were adopted before 
1  January  2000.  Of  the  110  decisions  adopted  between  2000  and  2006,  only  60  have  been 
closed/are proposed to be closed by the end 2006 (see Table 4). 

Table 4: Trend in the closure of recovery cases 

Date of the Decision 
2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  Total 

of 

recovery 

Number 
decisions adopted 
Number  of  these  recovery 
cases  that  had  been  closed 
by 31/12/06: 
Source: DG Competition. 

16 

13 

20 

23 

10 

23 

12 

7 

15 

5 

15 

3 

6 

2 

110 

60 

As underlined in the SAAP, the effectiveness and credibility of state aid control presupposes a 
proper enforcement of the Commission’s decisions. The Commission therefore announced in 

20 

21 

Total amount recovered (including interest and aid lost in bankruptcy reported in December 2004 was € 
3.1 billion, and € 8.2 billion in December 2005). 
In  insolvency  cases,  the  recovery  claim  is  normally  only  partially  satisfied.  The  remainder  is  “lost”. 
From  a  competition  perspective,  however,  we  consider  that  the  distortion  of  competition  is  removed 
with the liquidation of the beneficiary (provided that its assets are transferred on market terms).  

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
the SAAP that it will seek to achieve a more effective and immediate execution of recovery 
decisions,  which  will  ensure  equality  of  treatment  of  all  beneficiaries.  To  this  effect,  the 
SAAP announces that the Commission will monitor more  closely the execution of recovery 
decisions  by  Member  States.  Where  Member  States  do  not  take  all  measures  available  to 
implement such decisions, the Commission will more actively pursue non-compliance under 
Articles 88(2), 226 and 228(2) of the EC Treaty. 

Table 5: The pending recovery cases for which the Commission has decided to bring the 
case before the Court of Justice and for which the illegal and incompatible aid is not yet 
recovered 

Case number/title 

MS 

Court case 

CR 44/97 – Magefesa  

SPAIN 

C-499/99 

CR 49/98 – Employment measures  

ITALY 

C-99/02 

CR 48/99 – CR50/99 

SPAIN 

C-485/03, 

C-486/03, 

C 487/03, 

C-488/03, 

C-489/03 

C-490/03 

CR 52/99 – CR54/99 

Basque fiscal aid schemes 

CR 03/99 – Spanish shipyards I 

SPAIN 

C-404/03 

CR  38/98  –  Kimberly  Clark/Scott 
Paper 

FRANCE 

C-232/05 

CR 27/99 – Municipalizzate 

ITALY 

C-207/05 

CR  62/00  –  Thuringen  Porzellan 
(Kahla) 

GERMANY 

C-39/06  

State of play and recent 
developments 

02/07/02: 
judgment 
ECJ 
condemning SPAIN for failing to 
implement CEC decision 

01/04/04: 
judgment 
ECJ 
condemning ITALY for failing to 
implement CEC decision  

14/12/06: 
judgment 
ECJ 
condemning SPAIN for failing to 
implement CEC decision 

judgment 
ECJ 
26/06/03: 
condemning SPAIN for failing to 
implement CEC decision 

18/10/04:  Commission  sent  letter 
of formal notice to Spain  

05/10/06: 
judgment 
ECJ 
condemning  FRANCE  for  failing 
to execute CEC decision 

01/06/06: 
judgment 
ECJ 
condemning ITALY for failing to 
execute CEC decision 

16/02/05:  Commission  decision 
initiate  Art.  88(2)  action 
to 
GERMANY. 
against 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
CR  62/03  –  Urgent  employment 
measures 

ITALY 

C-280/05  

CR  58-59-60/00  –  Basque  fiscal 
aid schemes 

SPAIN 

 C-177/06 

CR 57/03 – Tremonti Bis 

ITALY 

CR 36/01– Beaulieu Ter Lembeek 

BELGIUM 

C-187/06 

CR  8/04  –  Fiscal  incentives  for 
newly listed companies 

ITALY 

CR  13/B/2003  -  France  Telecom- 
Business Tax Scheme 

FRANCE 

C-441/06 

24/01/06:  Application  lodged  at 
the ECJ pursuant to Article 88(2) 

Press release: IP 62/00 

06/04/05:  Commission  decision 
to 
initiate  Art.  88(2)  action 
against ITALY 

11/07/05:  Application  lodged  at 
the ECJ pursuant to Article 88(2) 

Press release: IP 62/03 

21/12/05:  Commission  decision 
initiate  Art.  88(2)  action 
to 
against 
SPAIN
04/04/06:  Application  lodged  at 
the ECJ pursuant to Article 88(2) 

Press release: IP 58/00,  

IP 59/00, 

IP 60/00 

25/01/06:  Commission  decision 
to 
initiate  Art.  88(2)  action 
against ITALY 

Press release: IP 57/03 

25/01/06:  Commission  decision 
initiate  Art.  88(2)  action 
to 
against 
BE
12/04/06:  Application  lodged  at 
the ECJ pursuant to Article 88(2) 

Press release: IP 36/01 

19/07/06:  Commission  decision 
initiate  Art.  88(2)  action 
to 
against ITALY  

Press release: IP 8/04 

19/07/06:  Commission  decision 
initiate  Art.  88(2)  action 
to 
against 
FRANCE
25/10/06:  Application  lodged  at 
the ECJ pursuant to Article 88(2) 

Press release: IP 13/B/2003 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
  
 
  
  
  
  
  
CR57/02 - Exonérations fiscales en 
faveur de la reprise d'entreprises en 
difficulté - Article 44 septies CGI 

FRANCE 

 C-214/07 

C11/04 - Olympic Airways 

GREECE 

C19/02 - Olympic Airways 

GREECE 

C-415/03  

CR  81/97  –  Social 
reductions – Venezia e Chioggia 

security 

ITALY 

24/10/06:  Commission  decision 
initiate  Art.  88(2)  action 
to 
against FRANCE 

Press release: IP 57/02 

26/04/06 Commission decision to 
initiate  Art.  88(2)  action  against 
GREECEIP 11/04 

26/04/06:  Commission  decision 
to  initiate  Art  228  action  against 
GREECE  failure  to  comply  with 
judgement  of  Court  of  Justice 
(case C-415/03) 

Press release: IP 19/02 

10/05/07:  Commission  decision 
to 
initiate  Art.  88(2)  action 
against ITALY 

Press release: IP 81/97 

1.4. 

Negative decisions without recovery 

While Article 14(1) of the Procedural Regulation provides that a Member State shall recover 
unlawful  aid  from  the  beneficiary,  it  also  states  that  the  Commission  shall  not  require 
recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general principle of Community law. This is 
mostly the case when legitimate expectations are involved. 

In  the  period  2000-2006,  the  Commission  refrained  from  ordering  recovery  in  18  decisions 
concerning measures in the industry and services sectors, of which 14 related to schemes and 
2 to ad hoc aid cases. With regard to all 16 schemes concerned, the Commission restored the 
level playing field of competition for the future by ordering the Member State concerned to 
abolish the measure by a certain date. 

Among  the  measures  in  which  the  Commission  did  not  order  recovery  are  nine  cases22
concerning  the  Belgian  schemes  for  coordination  centres  granting  fiscal  privileges  to 
undertakings  providing  intra-group  services  for  multinational  undertakings23.  This  scheme 
dates back to 1984 at which time the Commission considered that it didn't involve state aid 
within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. Following the Council's initiative on the 

22 

23 

C  45/2001,  C 46/2001,  C  47/2001,  C 48/  2001,  C 49/2001,  C  50/2001, C  51/2001,  C 54/2001  and  C 
30/2002. 
SG(84) D/6421 of 16 May 1984. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Code  of  conduct  on  business  taxation24,  the  Commission  revised  the  functioning  of  this 
regime and, on 11 July 2001, proposed to Belgium to align it with the state aid rules. After 
Belgium  refused  to  do  so  in  February  2002,  the  Commission  took  a  negative  decision25  in 
2003 ordering Belgium to discontinue the scheme, closing it immediately to new entrants and 
phasing  it  out  with  respect  to  existing  beneficiaries  not  later  than  31  December  2010. 
However, since the Commission had initially raised no objections in relation to this scheme, it 
constituted  an  existing  aid  scheme,  which  could  only  be  modified  for  the  future.  The 
beneficiaries were thus not required to pay back any advantage they had received in the past. 
A  number  of  Member  States  (France,  Germany,  Ireland,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands  and 
Spain), relying on the initial Commission decision regarding the Belgian scheme, had adopted 
schemes  similar  to  the  Belgian  one.  In  view  of  the  legitimate  expectations  created  by  the 
Belgian scheme, the Commission took a similar approach in these cases and did not require 
recovery of the advantages granted in the past. 

In the France Télécom (hereinafter, FT) case26, the ERAP's27 offer to provide a shareholder's 
advance amounting to € 9 billion, placed in the context of the French government statements 
made  from  July  to  September  2002,  which  clearly  helped  maintain  FT's  investment  rating, 
was  considered  to  be  state  aid.  However,  in  so  far  as  the  aid  depends  on  conduct  which 
preceded the notification of the shareholder loan proposal, a diligent operator could have had 
confidence in the lawfulness of the conduct of the Member State concerned. The Commission 
therefore concluded that ordering the aid's recovery would have been contrary to the general 
principles of Community law. 

In  other  cases  the  decision  not  to  order  the  recovery  of  aid  related  to  completely  different 
reasons.  In  the  case  of  the  German  financial  measures  in  favour  of  Ingenieur-  und 
Gewerbebau  GmbH28  (IGB)  the  beneficiary  company  was  dissolved  by  order  of  the  local 
court  on  account  of  a  lack  of  assets  and  any  continuation  of  its  activities  in  any  form 
whatsoever was ruled out. Therefore, the Commission concluded that a recovery order would 
serve no purpose. 

1.5. 

Tackling unlawful aid 

1.5.1.  The role of Member States 

The  SAAP  has  stressed  the  need  to  strengthen  the  commitment  of  Member  States  to  their 
obligation  to  enforce  the  state  aid  rules29.  Member  States  are  indeed  responsible  for  the 
respect of their obligations under the EC Treaty disregarding problems caused, for instance, 
by  national  administrative  structures  (centralised  v.  decentralised  Member  States)  or  by 
national  legislation.  Each  of  the  specific  obligations  established  by  the  EC  Treaty  is,  in 

24 

25 
26 

27 

28 

29 

See ECOFIN conclusions of 1 December 1997 including a package of three initiatives aimed at tackling 
harmful tax competition. 
Case C15/2002 - OJ L282 of 30 October 2003 
C  13a/2003  (ex  NN  779/2002)  –  Financial  measures  put  in  place  by  the  State  in  support  to  France 
Télécom. Final negative decision published in OJ l 257 of 20 September 2006, p. 11. 
ERAP is a state-owned industrial and commercial establishment. Its mission is to acquire, at the request 
of  the  French  government,  equity  interests  in  companies  in  the  energy,  pharmaceutical  and 
telecommunications sectors. 
State  aid  case  C  66/2001  (ex  NN  2/2000).  Final  negative  decision  published  in  OJ  L  314  of  18 
November 2002, p. 72. 
See point 17 of the SAAP. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
addition, reinforced by the general duty of loyal co-operation established in Article 10 of the 
EC Treaty. 

Coordination,  advice  and  supervision/scrutiny  of  state  aid  issues  in  the  different  Member 
States seem to be organised around one of the following three models: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

They are fully integrated into the governmental structure of the country.  

They are part of the competences of the National Competition Authorities. 

They are dealt with by independent monitoring authorities.  

Apart from the Danish Competition Authority (Konkurrencestyrelsen) and the UK Office of 
Fair Trading, only the National Competition Authorities of some of the new EU-10 Member 
States seem to have competences in the field of state aid. All EU-10 Member States had, as 
part  of  their  legal  obligations  under  the  European  Agreements,  to  set  up  independent 
authorities  for  state  aid  control  in  the  years  prior  to  accession.  The  experience  was  largely 
positive  and  in  a  number  of  cases  these  authorities  have  retained  certain  coordination 
functions after accession to the EU in May 2004. 

In  the  Czech  Republic,  for  instance,  the  Office  for  the  Protection  of  Competition  (UOHS) 
cooperates with state aid providers in both notifying the state aid to the Commission and in 
the  process  of  granting  the  state  aid  as  such,  it  keeps  a  register  of  state  aid  provided  in  the 
country and submits to the Commission the annual report on state aid. 

Another good example can be found at the Cypriot Office of the Commissioner for State aid 
control whose main role is to monitor its correct implementation by the Republic of Cyprus of 
the  Community  state  aid  law  "whose  objective  is  the  maintenance  and  strengthening  of 
competition  in  the  internal  market,  for  the  benefit,  mainly,  of  European  consumers"30.  This 
includes carrying out ex ante and interim evaluations of the effectiveness and impact of the 
different state aid measures aiming at reducing and re-orientating their State aid expenditure. 

Some interesting developments are also taking place in countries such as Spain where a draft 
of  a  new  law  for  the  protection  of  competition  ("Ley  de  defensa  de  la  competencia")  is 
currently  under  study  in  the  National  Parliament.  The  draft  foresees  the  creation  of  an 
independent  competition  authority,  “the  National  Competition  Commission  (NCC)",  which 
would eventually include a state aid unit with more proactive possibilities to act in the state 
aid  field31  without  interfering  with  the  Commission's  exclusive  powers  concerning  the 
compatibility assessment of state aid measures. The competences of such a unit should focus 
on  the  analysis,  from  a  competition  point  of  view,  of  the  criteria  for  granting  aid  with  the 
objective of drafting reports and making recommendations to the granting authorities. To this 
end,  the  draft  law  sets  up  a  number  of  information  obligations  from  the  various  levels  of 
administration (national, regional, local) to the NCC.  

30 

31 

EN 

the  webpage  of 

See 
(http://www.publicaid.gov.cy/publicaid/publicaid.nsf/dmlindex_en/dmlindex_en?opendocument). 
See Article 11 of the draft Spanish law for the protection of competition ("Proyecto de Ley de defensa 
de la competencia"). 

the  Cypriot  Commissioner 

for  State  aid  control 

the  Office  of 

23 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Recently,  the  ECJ  judgement  in  the  "Scott  case"32  has  also  emphasized  the  Member  States' 
responsibilities  regarding  the  recovery  of  unlawfully  granted  aid.  In  this  case,  France  was 
condemned  for  failure  to  execute  a  Commission  recovery  decision  because  of  its  national 
legal system and not because of its behaviour. The ECJ insists that the repayment of the aid 
has to take place without delay and that recovery must be immediate. It stresses that the time-
frame  within  which  the  aid  must  be  recovered  is  indeed  essential  in  order  to  ensure  the  re-
establishment  of  the  ex  ante  situation  in  the  market.  National  procedures  providing  for  an 
automatic  suspensory  effect  of  actions  brought  against  recovery  orders  and  preventing  the 
immediate  restoration  of  the  previously  existing  situation,  thereby  prolonging  the  unfair 
competitive advantage resulting from unlawful and incompatible aid, are against the principle 
of  effectiveness  laid  down  in  Article  14(3)  of  the  Procedural  Regulation  and  should  be  left 
unapplied.  It  is  against  this  double  benchmark  (concrete  and  immediate  recovery)  that  the 
Commission will assess the actions taken by Member States to execute Commission recovery 
decisions. 

1.5.2.  The role of competitors and other interested parties and the role of national courts 

As  the  last  sentence  of  Article  88(3)  of  EC  Treaty  has  direct  effect33,  individuals  have  the 
possibility to invoke it before national courts which have to draw all the consequences of the 
illegality of the aid including, eventually, ordering its recovery34. It has to be borne in mind 
that neither the initiation of a procedure by the Commission (be it under Article 88(2) or (3) 
of  the  EC  Treaty)  relieves  national  courts  of  their  duty  to  safeguard  rights  of  individuals  in 
case of breach of the notification obligation35 nor has the final Commission decision the effect 
of regularising ex post the illegality of the aid36.  

The Commission has repeatedly stressed the importance of making use of this possibility for 
private enforcement of the state aid rules37.  

The SAAP has also underlined the need to increase transparency and advocacy about state aid 
policy to allow undertakings, the academic world, competition specialists, consumers and the 
broader  public  to  get  involved  and  act  against  unlawful  aid,  in  particular  before  national 
judges, as well as the need to raise awareness of company auditors, national market regulators 
and national Courts of Auditors38. 

32 
33 
34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

See ECJ judgement of 5 October 2006 in case C-232/05, Commission v. France. 
See ECJ judgement of 15 July 1964 in case 6/64, Flaminio Costa v. ENEL, Rec. 1964, p. 585. 
See ECJ judgement of 11 December 1973 in case 120/73, Gebrüder Lorenz GmbH v. Germany, Rec. 
1973, p. 1471. 
See  ECJ  judgement  of  11  July  1996  in  case  C-39/94,  Syndicat  Français  de  l'Express  International 
(hereinafter, SFEI) v. La Poste, Rec. 1996, p. I-3547.  
See  ECJ  judgement  of  29  November  1991  in  case  C-354/90,  Fédération  Nationale  du  Commerce 
Extérieur des Produits Alimentaires et Syndicat National des Négociants et Transformateurs du Saumon 
v. France, Rec. 1991, p. I-5505. 
See Notice on cooperation between national courts and the Commission in the State aid field. OJ C 312 
of 23 November 1995, p.8. 
Point 56 of the SAAP announces a possible revision of this Notice, which would focus particularly on 
the need to extend it to other national bodies. 
See points 17 and 55 of the SAAP. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
A  study  recently  carried  out  by  a  group  of  experts  on  behalf  of  the  Commission  on 
enforcement  of  state  aid  law  at  national  level39  concluded  that:  (1)  European  companies 
increasingly rely on state aid law to obtain the annulment of a discriminatory imposition of a 
financial burden from which another company is exempted or where the tax or levy is used to 
finance unlawful aid, but (2) companies rarely use state aid rules as an instrument to challenge 
the distortion of competition and trade caused by unlawful subsidies granted to competitors. 
The  conclusions  of  the  study  also  point  to  the  fact  that  too  often  excessively  long 
administrative  and  judicial  procedures  at  national  level  result  in  unacceptable  delays  in  the 
recovery of unlawful aid.  

According to the same study, the main impediments to effective enforcement of state aid law 
in national courts is not to be found in shortcomings or inefficiencies in the Member States’ 
legal  systems  or  to  a  lack  of  knowledge  of  EC  law  by  national  judges.  Instead,  the  study 
argues that the diversity of the procedures available in Member States for private parties for 
the  enforcement  of  state  aid  law  and  the  legal  uncertainties  relating  to  these  procedures  (in 
particular  locus  standi,  availability  of  interim  relief,  burden  of  proof,  causation  and  unclear 
substantive  rules)  may  discourage  private  parties  to  enforce  state  aid  law  before  national 
courts. 

This means that, despite a growing awareness of state aid rules at national level – both within 
the  business  community  and  in  the  legal  professions  –  this  tool  is  not  yet  fully  effective  to 
properly tackle the unlawful aid problem40. 

1.5.3.  The role of the European Commission 

The Commission, in its role of guardian of the Treaties41, can initiate unlawful aid procedures 
based either on ex officio investigations or on information received from competitors and/or 
other interested parties who have, according to Article 20(2) of the Procedural Regulation, the 
right to submit information on the alleged unlawful aid to the Commission. 

According  to  the  Procedural  Regulation42,  the  procedure  for  the  Commission  to  deal  with 
unlawful aid is similar to the one applicable to notified aid. The main difference concerns the 
absence  of  deadlines  (both  for  completing  the  first-phase  investigation  and  for  adopting  a 
final decision after opening of formal investigation proceedings according to Article 88(2) of 
the  EC  Treaty)  which  is  explained  by  the  absence  of  notification.  Besides,  as  further 
explained below, the Commission has the possibility to adopt interim measures in the form of 
information, suspension and recovery injunctions. 

(a)  Fight against the ongoing distortion of competition and trade 

The "suspension injunction" foreseen in Article 11(1) of the Procedural Regulation provides 
for the Commission possibility to require a Member State to suspend unlawful aid until the 

39 

40 

41 
42 

JESTAEDT, T., DERENNE, J. and OTTERVANGER, T. (Coord.). Study on the enforcement of state 
aid law at national level. Competition studies 6, OPOCE. Luxembourg, March 2006. Please note that 
this study covers only EU-15. 
Even though the number of cases increased substantially (from 116 to 386) only in very few cases the 
action brought by a competitor before a national court resulted in the actual suspension or recovery of 
an unlawful aid. 
See Article 211, first indent, of the EC Treaty. 
See Recitals 11 to 14 and Chapter III (Articles 10 to 15) of the Procedural Regulation. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Commission  has  taken  a  decision  on  the  compatibility  of  aid  with  the  common  market.  In 
practice, the suspension injunction is rarely used. The most recent example43 of the use of this 
tool  dates  from  2005  when  the  Commission  required  Greece  to  suspend  further  granting  of 
unlawful state aid in the form of tax breaks under the Greek Law 3220/2004, which reduced 
the tax base of many companies in various sectors by 35% of their profits. This law was never 
notified  to  the  Commission  in  clear  breach  of  Article  88(3)  of  the  EC  Treaty.  The 
Commission requested Greece to immediately suspend the granting of state aid, even before 
reaching a final decision on the compatibility of the measure in order to prevent the distortion 
of  competition  and  trade  in  the  internal  market  from  continuing.  Greece  complied  with  the 
Commission's decision by suspending the possibility for companies to derive further benefits 
from the reserve fund until the Commission has reached a final decision on the case. 

The  "recovery  injunction"  foreseen  in  Article  11(2)  of  the  Procedural  Regulation 
enables the Commission to request a Member State to provisionally recover unlawful 
aid until the Commission has taken a decision on its compatibility. The adoption of 
such a decision requires that three cumulative conditions are fulfilled: (1) according 
to established practice, inexistence of doubts about the aid character of the measure 
concerned,  (2)  urgency  to  act,  and  (3)  serious  risk  of  substantial  and  irreparable 
damage to a competitor. The imposition of these conditions makes the application of 
recovery injunction difficult in practice and, consequently, the Commission has not 
used this tool yet.  

(b)  Restoration of the ex ante competitive situation 

The  "negative  decision  with  recovery"  foreseen  in  Article  14  of  the  Procedural 
Regulation  provides  that,  if  the  unlawful  aid  is  found  to  be  incompatible  with  the 
common  market,  the  Commission  shall  request  a  Member  State  to  recover  the  aid 
from the beneficiary unless that would be contrary to a general principle of law. The 
recovery  shall  take  place  without  delay  and  according  to  national  procedures. 
Member State concerned must, therefore, take all necessary measures to ensure the 
effectiveness  of  the  Commission  decision  to  recover  the  aid.  The  powers  of  the 
Commission to recover aid will be subject to a limitation period of ten years44.  

The SAAP insists on the fact that the effectiveness and credibility of state aid control 
presupposes  a  proper  enforcement  of  the  Commission’s  decisions,  especially  as 
regards  the  recovery  of  illegal  and  incompatible  state  aid.  However,  experience 
shows  that  the  implementation  of  recovery  decisions  by  Member  States  is  still  far 
from  being  satisfactory  and,  therefore,  the  Commission  should  continue  to  seek  to 
achieve a more immediate and effective execution of recovery decisions, which will 
ensure equality of treatment of all beneficiaries. In line with the measures announced 
in  the  SAAP45  the  Commission  is  monitoring  more  closely  the  execution,  in 
accordance with national procedures, of recovery decisions by Member States. And, 
where  it  appears  that  recovery  is  not  carried  out  in  an  immediate  and  effective 

43 

44 
45 

See  state  aid  case  C  37/2005  (ex  NN  11/2004)  –  Tax  exempt  reserve  fund.  Decision  to  open  formal 
investigation proceedings published in OJ C 20 of 27 January 2006, p. 16. No final decision has been 
adopted yet. 
See Article 15 of the Procedural Regulation. 
See point 53, first indent, of the SAAP. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
manner,  the  Commission  is  more  actively  pursuing  non-compliance  under  Articles 
88(2), 226 and 228 of the EC Treaty46.  

A  clear  and  recent  example  of  this  stricter  approach  can  be  found  in  the  Olympic 
Airways case. In December 2002 the Commission found that Greece had misused an 
aid examined and approved by the Commission in the nineties and that, in addition, 
Olympic Airways had received new aid which was not duly notified. Consequently, 
the Commission ordered Greece to recover all the aid granted after 14 August 1998. 
Since Greece didn’t comply with this order, the Commission decided, in April 2003, 
to make use of its powers under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty and bring the matter 
before the ECJ. On 12 May 2005, the ECJ47 confirmed that the Greek authorities had 
failed  to  recover  from  the  airline  a  state  aid  estimated  in  at  least  €  161  million. 
Greece  didn't  respect  this  judgement  either  and  in  October  2006  the  Commission 
adopted, according to Article 228 of the EC Treaty, a decision requesting the ECJ to 
impose a lump sum penalty of € 10 512 per day since the 2005 judgement and until 
the effective implementation by Greece of the 2002 decision. Moreover, in case this 
decision would still not be fully implemented by the time the ECJ issues its second 
judgement,  the  Commission  has  also  requested  to  the  ECJ  to  impose  on  Greece  a 
periodic penalty payment of € 53 611 per day from the day of this second judgement 
and  until  the  effective  implementation  of  the  original  decision  is  carried  out.  The 
case is still pending. 

In  the  same  line,  the  use  of  the  so-called  Deggendorf  case-law48  has  also  been 
reinforced.  This  case  law  confirmed  that,  when  assessing  a  new  aid  measure,  the 
Commission has the power to take into account the fact that the beneficiary of this 
new aid has not fully repaid earlier unlawful and incompatible aid that was subject of 
a recovery decision. In such cases the Commission may eventually decide that the, 
otherwise compatible, aid cannot be paid out as long as the previous aid has not been 
fully  reimbursed.  It  constitutes,  therefore,  an  additional  means  to  put  pressure  both 
on Member States and beneficiaries to comply with recovery decisions. 

However,  between  1997  and  2005  the  Deggendorf  case-law  was  applied  only 
occasionally in relation to individual aid cases. But in 2005, in line with the measures 
announced in the SAAP, the Commission decided to start applying it in a strict and 
systematic way and to extend its scope of application by: 

46 
47 
48 

For further details, see Table 5 of this report. 
ECJ judgement of 12 May 2005 in case C-415/03, Commission v. Greece. 
CFI judgement of 13 September 1996 in joined cases T-244/93 and T-486/93, Textilwerke Deggendorf 
GmbH (hereinafter, TWD) versus Commission, Rec. 1995, p. I-2265; ECJ judgement of 15 May 1997 
I-2549. 
in 

Commission, 

C-355/95 

versus 

TWD 

1997, 

Rec. 

case 

P, 

p. 

In 1995, the Commission adopted a decision in which it ordered the German authorities to suspend the 
payment of new compatible aid to TWD until they had completed the recovery of an old unlawful and 
incompatible  aid  from  that  company.  This  decision  was  upheld  by  the  CFI  and  the  ECJ.  In  its 
judgement  the  CFI  confirmed  that  "When  the  Commission  considers  the  compatibility  of  a  State  aid 
with the common market, it must take all the relevant factors into account including, where relevant, the 
circumstances already considered in a prior decision and the obligations which that previous decision 
may  have  imposed  on  a  Member  State.  It  follows  that  the  Commission  had  the  power  to  take  into 
consideration, first, any accumulated effect of the old[…] aid and the new […] aid and, secondly, the 
fact that the (old) aid declared unlawful […] had not been repaid" (see point 56 of the above mentioned 
CFI judgement).  

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
(1) 

Applying the Deggendorf principle to legal entities other than the beneficiary of aid in 
cases where the beneficiary of new aid belongs to the same "economic unit"49 as the 
beneficiary of the old aid and there are clear indications of a possible circumvention of 
the Deggendorf case-law. 

–   

In  March  2005  the  Commission  authorised  an  environmental  aid  to  a  district 
heating  project  in  Rome50.  The  beneficiary  of  this  aid  was  AceaElectrabel 
Produzione  SpA  (hereinafter,  AEP),  a  firm  jointly  controlled  by  ACEA  and 
Electrabel.  ACEA,  an  energy  company  controlled  by  the  Municipality  of  Rome, 
previously benefited from an aid that the Commission declared to be unlawful and 
incompatible  in  2002  and  that,  two  years  later,  was  not  recovered  by  the  Italian 
authorities.  Consequently,  the  Commission  decision  established  that  the  new 
compatible aid could not be paid until the beneficiary, who was part of the ACEA 
group, had reimbursed the old aid. 

–    On  3  August  2005  AEP  brought  an  action  for  annulment  before  the  CFI51 
against the Commission decision on the grounds that, among other considerations, 
the beneficiary of the new aid measure is not the same and does not constitute a 
single economic entity with the beneficiary of the old aid and, therefore, the order 
to suspend the payment of the new aid appears to be unjustified. The case is still 
pending. 

(2) 

(3) 

Including in the new notification forms52 a Deggendorf clause which request Member 
States to indicate whether, in case of individual aid, "any potential beneficiary of the 
measure  received  state  aid  which  is  subject  of  an  outstanding  recovery  order  by  the 
Commission". 

Going from affecting only individual or ad hoc measures to including aid schemes as 
well,  through  the  insertion  in  the  decisions  approving  new  aid  schemes  of  a 
commitment  by  the  Member  State  affected  to  suspend  the  payment  of  aid  under  the 
new  scheme  to  any  undertaking  that  has  benefited  in  the  past  from  unlawful  and 
incompatible aid (be it individual aid or aid scheme) and this until the Member State 
has  verified  that  such  enterprise  has  complied  fully  with  the  outstanding  recovery 
decision53. 

(4) 

Incorporating  the  Deggendorf  principle  in  new  legislative  texts  (i.e.,  rescue  and 
restructuring guidelines54, block exemption regulation on regional aid55, etc.). 

49 

50 

51 
52 

53 

54 

Cases where for instance the beneficiary of the new aid is a newly created legal entity controlled by the 
beneficiary of the old unlawful aid. 
See state aid case C 35/2003 (ex N 90/2002) – Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (Lazio). Final 
conditional decision published in OJ L 244 of 7 September 2006, p. 8. 
Case T-303/05. 
See point 11 of Part I – General Information of Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 
of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC)No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the 
application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (hereinafter, the Implementing Regulation). OJ L 140 of 30 
April 2004, p. 14. 
See,  as  a  matter  of  example,  state  aid  cases  N  410/2005,  N  610/2005,  N  620/2005,  N  9/2006,  N 
264/2006, N 291/2006 and N 390/2006. 
See  point  2.5  of  the  Community  guidelines  on  State  aid  for  rescuing  and  restructuring  firms  in 
difficulty. OJ C 244 of 1 October 2004, p. 5. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Finally,  in  order  to  improve  and  speed-up  the  execution  of  its  recovery  decisions,  the 
Commission is preparing a notice56 recalling the principles underlying the recovery policy and 
setting out on the one hand the measures taken by the Commission to facilitate the execution 
of  recovery  decisions  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  actions  that  Member  States  could  take  to 
ensure that they reach full compliance with the rules and principles as established by the body 
of European law and, in particular, the case law of the Community Courts. 

2. 

PART TWO: LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS 

2.1. 

State Aid Action Plan 

The  Commission  continues  to  implement  various  aspects  of  the  State  aid  Action  Plan 
(SAAP)57, which set out in June 2005 the guiding principles for a comprehensive reform of 
State  aid  rules  and  procedures  over  the  next  five  years.  Since  the  last  Scoreboard  was 
published in the autumn, the Commission has adopted the following final or draft legislative 
texts: 

2.2. 

Prolongation of Shipbuilding Framework 

In  October  2006,  the  Commission  decided  to  prolong  the  Framework  on  state  aid  rules  for 
shipbuilding by two years, until 31 December 200858. The prolonged Framework, which came 
into force at the beginning of 2004 takes into account the characteristics of the shipbuilding 
industry,  including  provisions  about  the  use  of  aid  for  innovation  which  are  unique  in  EU 
state aid law. Given the limited period of application of these rules, the Commission wants to 
acquire more experience before deciding on the future of these rules. The Framework contains 
specific provisions on innovation aid regional aid, closure aid, export credits, development aid 
and  employment  aid  that  reflect  the  specific  characteristics  of  the  shipbuilding  industry  and 
market. 

2.3. 

New rules on State aid in agricultural sector 

The  Commission  adopted  in  December  2006  new  rules  on  the  granting  of  State  aid  in  the 
agricultural  sector.  These  rules  are  in  two  parts:  an  exemption  regulation59  which  exempts 
Member  States  from  the  obligation  to  notify  State  aid  given  to  small  and  medium-sized 
undertakings involved in agricultural production provided that certain requirements are met, 
and guidelines60 which complement the regulation and lay down rules applicable to notified 
aid. The two documents cover the period 2007 to 2013. The new categories of aid included in 
the  new  guidelines  include  aid  for  compliance  with  standards,  "Natura  2000"  aid  and  aid 

55 

56 
57 

58 

59 

60 

See Recital 13 and Article 7(g) of 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 of 1 
November 2006, pp. 31 and 36.  
The adoption of this notice is foreseen for the end of 2007. 
COM(2005) 107 final of 7 June 2005, 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/others/action_plan/ 
Commission communication concerning the prolongation of the Framework on State aid to shipbuilding 
- adopted by the Commission on 24 October 2006. OJ C 260 of 28 October 2006, p. 7. 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006, of 15 December 2006, on the application of Articles 87 
and  88  of  the  Treaty  to  State  aid  to  small  and  medium-sized  enterprises  active  in  the  production  of 
agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001. OJ L 358 of 16 December 2006, p. 3. 
Community guidelines for State aid in the agriculture and forestry sector 2007 to 2013. OJ C 319 of 27 
December 2006, p. 1. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
relating to the payments provided for in Directive 2000/60/EC (water policy), aid relating to 
exemption  from  excise  duties  as  provided  for  in  Directive  2003/96/EC  (taxation  of  energy 
products  and  electricity)  and  aid  to  the  forestry  sector.  As  regards  the  processing  and 
marketing of agricultural products, the granting of State aid will from now on be governed by 
the provisions applicable to State aid in the industrial sector. The exemption regulation will 
make  it  possible  for  aid  to  be  granted  to  farmers  faster,  which  is  particularly  important,  for 
example, where they sustain losses due to bad weather or animal or plant diseases. 

2.4. 

Commission Regulation on de minimis aid 

In December 2006, the Commission adopted a new de minimis Regulation61 exempting small 
subsidies  from  the  obligation  to  notify  them  in  advance  for  clearance  by  the  Commission 
under EC Treaty state aid rules. Under the new Regulation, aid of up to EUR 200 000 and up 
to  EUR  100  000  for  the  road  transport  sector,  granted  over  any  period  of  three  fiscal  years 
will not be considered as state aid. Loan guarantees will also be covered to the extent that the 
guaranteed part of the loan does not exceed EUR 1.5 million. In order to avoid abuses, forms 
of aid for which the inherent aid amount cannot be calculated precisely in advance (so-called 
'non-transparent' aids) and aid to firms in difficulty have been excluded from the Regulation. 
The Regulation took  account  of  comments received from  a  series  of  public  consultations  in 
the course of 2006. The Regulation entered into force on 1 January 2007. 

2.5. 

Prolongation of block exemption regulation 

The Commission adopted in December 2006 a Regulation62 to extend until 30 June 2008, the 
period of application of Regulations (EC) No 2204/2002 on State aid for employment, (EC) 
No  70/2001  on  State  aid  for  small  and  medium  sized  enterprises  and  (EC)  No  68/2001  on 
training  aid.  The  prolongation  of  the  validity  of  these  regulations  is  sought  to  allow  for  the 
necessary  period  of  preparation  of  a  future  single  block  exemption  Regulation,  which  will 
regroup  the  current  regulations  and  possibly  add  other  areas,  as  announced  in  the  State  Aid 
Action Plan. 

2.6. 

Prolongation of Cinema Communication 

The  Commission  adopted  in  June  2007  a  Communication63  extending  until  31st  December 
2009 at the latest the application of the current rules on state aid to cinematographic and other 
audiovisual  works.  This  Communication  extends 
laid  down  Cinema 
Communications  of  2001  and  2004.  As  announced  in  2004,  when  the Communication  was 
renewed,  a  study  on  the  economic  and  cultural  impact  of  territorialisation  clauses,  obliging 
producers  to  spend  a  certain  proportion  of  the  film  budget  (currently  up  to  80%) in  the 
Member State granting the aid, was launched. The final study results are expected at the end 
of 2007, and will be used as an input for the future revision of the rules. 

rules 

the 

61 

62 

63 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of the 15th December 2006 on the application of Articles 
87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid. OJ L 379, 28.12.2006. 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 1976/2006,  of  20  December  2006,  amending  Regulations  (EC) 
No 2204/2002,  (EC)  No 70/2001  and  (EC)  No 68/2001  as  regards  the  extension  of  the  periods  of 
application (Prolongation of existing State aid block exemptions). OJ L 368 of 23 December 2006, p. 
85. 
Prolongation of the Cinema Communication, adopted by the European Commission on 13 June 2007, 
Press release IP/07/820 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.7. 

Commission Draft Regulation on de minimis aid in the fisheries sector 

In June 2006, the European Commission has adopted a draft Regulation on de minimis aid in 
the fisheries sector. Under the new Regulation, which would apply only to the fisheries sector, 
the ceiling would be set at € 30 000 per three-year period, per beneficiary, on condition that 
the total amount of such aid represents less than 2.5% of the annual national fisheries output. 
None of this aid may be used to purchase or construct new vessels or to enhance existing fleet 
capacity. Member States have to record all relevant information to show that these conditions 
have been respected. The draft Regulation has been discussed with Member States and then 
published  in  the  Official  Journal  C  276  dated  14.11.2006,  to  invite  stakeholders  to  submit 
comments. The regulation is due to be adopted by the Commission in July 2007. 

2.8. 

Commission  draft  Regulation  on  raising  the  ceiling  for  de  minimis  aid  in  the 
agriculture sector 

In  April  2007  the  Commission  adopted  a  draft  Regulation  raising  the  ceiling  for  small 
amounts of aid (“de minimis” aid) in the agriculture sector to €6 000 per beneficiary over any 
period  of  three  years  and  the  maximum  total  per  Member  State  to  0.6%  of  the  value  of 
agricultural  output.  It  also  sets  out  a  clearer  definition  of  the  scope  of  such  aid.  The  draft 
Regulation  gives  the  Member  States  greater  room  for  manoeuvre  in  granting  aid  without 
distorting competition. At present, under the Regulation64 adopted in October 2004, aid in the 
agriculture sector not exceeding €3 000 per beneficiary over any period of three years or 0.3% 
of the value of agricultural output for each Member State is deemed not to distort or threaten 
to  distort  competition.  The  draft  regulation  will  first  be  discussed  with  the  Member  States 
then  published  in  the  Official  Journal  to  invite  stakeholders  to  make  their  comments.  After 
that  the  Member  States  will  again  be  consulted  on  the  text.  Following  this  wide-ranging 
consultation exercise and taking account of the comments received, the Commission intends 
to adopt a definitive regulation towards the end of the year. 

2.9. 

Draft Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection 

The current Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection65 expire at the 
end  of  2007.  The  Commission  services  have  launched  the  revision  of  these  guidelines,  by 
publishing a first draft of the revised guidelines on DG Competition's web site66 in May 2007. 
This draft is available for public consultation and comments from interested stakeholders, and 
will be the subject of a multilateral discussion with Member States. The final adoption of the 
revised Environmental guidelines is envisaged by the end of this year.  

2.10. 

Proposal for a Commission Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 
implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules 
for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty 

The  Commission  approved  the  proposal  for  modification  of  Regulation  794/200467  in  June 
2007.  The  proposal  will  be  published  on  DG  Competition's  web  site  and  will  be  subject  to 

64 
65 

66 

67 

Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004, of 6 October 2004. OJ L 325 of 28 October 2004, p. 4. 
Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection, Official Journal C 37, 03.02.2001, 
pages 3-15 
Draft  Community  guidelines  on  environmental  protection,  published  on  10  May  2007, 
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/state_aid/reform/guidelines_environment_en.pdf 
OJ L 140, 30.4. 2004, p.1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation No 1935/2006, OJ L 407, 30.12. 
2006, p.1. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
discussion  with  the  Member  States  in  the  Advisory  Committee  on  State  aid.  The  final 
adoption of a  Commission Regulation amending  Regulation (EC)  794/2004 is envisaged  by 
the end of 2007. The  proposed amendments concern primarily the transmission of  State  aid 
notifications,  the  method of  calculation of interest rate for the recovery of  unlawful aid and 
the update of notification forms for R&D&I and risk capital aid measures. 

2.11.  Commission report on State aid to the coal industry 

The  Regulation  on  State  aid  to  the  Coal  industry68  requires  the  European  Commission  to 
present a report on its application by the end of December 2006. Based on the conclusions of 
the  Report,  the  Commission  may  then  propose  amendments  to  the  Regulation.  As  the 
Regulation expires at the end of 2010, the Report also offers the Commission the opportunity 
to give first indications as to its view on State aid to the Coal industry after this date. 

The  Commission  has  adopted  its  report69  on  21  May  2007.  The  report  finds  that  there  are 
important differences in the competitive situation of coal mines in Europe. Whereas mines in 
Germany,  Spain,  and  Hungary  have  production  costs  of  more  than  twice  the  world  market 
price  for  coal,  and  are  therefore  dependent  on  operating  aid,  mines  in  the  Czech  Republic, 
Poland, Great Britain and Slovakia are more or less competitive on the world market. These 
mines  receive  either  no  subsidies  at  all  or  subsidies  for  new  investments  and/or  mitigating 
inherited  liabilities  only.  The  Report  describes  the  changes  to  State  aid  policies  which  took 
place in the Member States since the Coal Regulation came into force. It focuses particularly 
on  types  of  aid  which  were  introduced  by  the  Member  States  and  the  results  of  the 
restructuring  processes  conducted  in  the  Coal  sector  with  the  use  of  subsidies.  The  Report 
also  provides  an  overview  of  the  impact  of  State  aid  to  the  Coal  industry  on  the  internal 
market, namely on the production of coal, electricity, coke and steel.  

In  view  of  the  fact  that  the  global  coal  market  appears  to  function  efficiently  the  Report 
concludes  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  propose  amendments  to  the  Coal  Regulation  for  the 
period  2008  to  2010.  The  Coal  Regulation  will  expire  on  31  December  2010.  The 
Commission Report invites the Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee, 
the  Committee  of  the  Regions  and  all  stakeholders  concerned  to  provide  their  input  on  the 
Report. 

2.12.  Regional aid maps 2007-2013 approved for 25 Member States 

By the end of March 2007 the Commission had approved under EC Treaty State aid rules the 
regional aid maps covering the period 2007-2013 for 25 Member States. Two remaining EU 
Member States (Italy and The Netherlands) are unable to grant any regional aid within their 
territory until a new map has been approved by the Commission70. These decisions form part 
of a wider exercise to review regional aid systems in all Member States. A regional aid map 
defines the regions of a Member State eligible for national regional investment aid for large 
enterprises under EC Treaty state aid rules and establishes the maximum permitted levels of 

68 

69 

70 

Council  Regulation  (EC) No  1407/2002 of  23 July  2002 on State  aid  to  the  coal  industry,  OJ  L 205, 
02/08/2002 P. 0001 – 0008, 
http://eurlex.europa.eu/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexplus!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdo
c=302R1407 
Commission Report on the Application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1407/2002 on State Aid to the 
Coal Industry, COM2007(253), 21.05.2007, 
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/state_aid/doc/com_2007_0253_en.pdf 
The Netherlands notified their regional aid map in May 2007. Italy has not yet notified its map. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
such  aid  in  the  eligible  regions.  The  adoption  of  a  regional  aid  map  is  a  pre-condition  to 
ensure the continuity of the regional policy and Structural Fund programmes as from January 
2007, as the validity of all previous maps expired on 31st December 2006. 

3. 

PART  THREE:  AID  AWARDED  UNDER  THE  STATE  AID  BLOCK  EXEMPTION 
REGULATIONS 

With a view to reducing the administrative burden for specific types of aid, block exemptions 
for aid to SME, training aid, employment aid, certain types of aid in the fisheries sector and 
aid to SME in the agricultural sector have come into force over the past few years71. Initial 
results  are  positive:  the  number  of  measures  being  notified  for  these  types  of  aid  has  fallen 
considerably since 2001 as Member States make increasing use of the possibilities offered by 
the  block  exemption  regulations.  By  the  end  of  2006,  Member  States  had  informed  the 
Commission  that  they  implemented  almost  1700  block  exempted  measures  since  the 
introduction of the regulations for SME and training in 2001 (see Table 6). In 2006 alone, the 
Commission received more than 400 summary information forms on newly introduced block 
exempted  measures:  183  on  aid  for  SME  primarily  in  the  industry  and  services  sectors,  a 
further 119 for SME in the agricultural sector, 57 on training aid, 35 on aid to employment, 
and 24 for exempted aid in fisheries. While the number of forms submitted by the Member 
State  in  2006  remained  stable,  the  use  of  employment  and  agriculture  block  exemption 
regulations has increased.  

Four  Member  States,  Italy  (25%  of  the  total  number  of  measures),  the  United  Kingdom 
(21%),  Germany  (13%)  and  Spain  (10%)  accounted  almost  for  70%  of  all  the  information 
forms  submitted  2001-2006.  The  number  of  measures  submitted  by  some  of  the  EU-15 
Member States is rather low: less then 20 in total in Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Luxembourg, 
Portugal  and  Sweden.  The  EU-10  Member  States  accounted  for  more  than  24%  of  the 
measures  submitted  in  2006.  In  the  agricultural  sector,  the  possibility  to  exempt  aid, 
introduced in 2004, has been taken up by 17 of the 25 Member States, in the fisheries sector 
this possibility, introduced end of 2004, was used by 11 Member States. 

Table 6: Trend in the number of measures for which information forms were submitted 
under the State aid block exemption regulations, 2001-2006, EU-25 

71 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001, of 12 January 2001, on State aid to SME – OJ L 10 of 13 
January 2001, p. 33. Commission Regulation No 364/2004, of 25 February 2004, amending Regulation 
(EC) No 70/2001 as regards the extension of its scope to include aid for research and development – OJ 
L  63  of  28  February  2004,  p. 22.  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  68/2001,  of  12  January  2001,  on 
training aid – OJ L 10 of 13 January 2001, p. 20). Commission Regulation No 363/2004, of 25 February 
2004,  amending  Regulation  (EC)  No  68/2001  –  OJ  L  63  of  28  February  2004,  p. 20.  Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 2204/2002, of 5 December 2002, on State aid for employment – OJ L 337 of 13 
December 2002, p. 3. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004, of 23 December 2003, on State aid to 
SME  in  the  agricultural  sector  –  OJ  L  1  of  03  January  2004,  p.  1.  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1595/2004,  of  8  September  2004,  on  State  aid  to  SME  active  in  the  production,  processing  and 
marketing of fisheries products – OJ L 291 of 14 September 2004, p. 3. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Type of State aid 
block exemption 
SME
Training
Employment
Agriculture
Fish
Total

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Year

102
48
-
-
-
150

123
80
0
-
-
203

139
55
8
-
-
202

149
79
21
72
1
322

197
68
26
88
22
401

Total 
number
893
387
90
279
47
1696

183
57
35
119
24
418

Note: The table excludes cases withdrawn. Figures for the EU-10 are included as of 1 May 2004. Source: DG 
Competition 

Table 7: Number of measures by Member State for which information sheets were 
submitted under the State aid block exemption regulations, 2001-2006 

Type of block exemption regulation

Member State
EU-25
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Greece
Spain
France
Ireland
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom

SME

893
5
18
6
115
6
20
94
6
10
247
10
7
3
1
12
6
52
20
41
1
0
6
4
0
203

Training
387
25
2
1
73
9
3
28
3
8
104
0
1
2
0
3
5
2
9
5
3
1
1
0
1
98

Employment

Agriculture

Fish

Total number

90
3
1
0
10
3
3
8
3
0
7
5
0
1
0
10
3
2
0
24
0
0
1
0
1
5

279
5
3
0
17
0
1
37
48
0
55
1
11
0
0
1
0
32
12
7
0
2
1
3
0
43

47
0
0
0
0
4
1
5
0
1
18
0
 2
1
0
 0
 0
4
0
0
0
1
0
6
0
4

1696
38
24
7
215
22
28
172
60
19
431
16
21
7
1
26
14
92
41
77
4
4
9
13
2
353

Note:  The  table  excludes  cases  withdrawn.  Figures  for  the  ten  new  Member  States  are  included  as  of  1  May 
2004. Source: DG Competition 

As  regards  expenditure  under  the  block  exempted  measures,  new  data  for  2006  will  be 
published in the autumn 2007 Scoreboard. Data for 2005 were included in the autumn 2006 
Scoreboard72. 

72 

COM (2006) 761 final, 11.12.2006 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
4. 

PART FOUR: STATE AID CONTROL PROCEDURES  

4.1. 

Registered Aid Cases 

The Commission controls the Member States’ granting of State aid by means of a formal and 
transparent procedure. According to the Procedural Regulation, "any plans to grant new aid 
shall  be  notified  to  the  Commission  in  sufficient  time  by  the  Member  State  concerned".  In 
around 8% of registered aid cases, it was not the Member State but the Commission who had 
to  initiate  the  control  procedure  after  finding  out  about  the  existence  aid  following,  for 
example, a complaint73. 

In 2006, there were 1009 cases74 registered by the Commission: 921 cases were notified by 
Member  States,  84  were  non-notified  cases  initiated  by  the  Commission  and  4  were  cases 
examining  existing  aid.  In  addition,  information  forms  for  more  than  400  measures  were 
submitted  under  the  block  exemption  regulations.  Excluding  the  information  forms,  34%  of 
all registered cases in 2006 concerned the agricultural sector and 53% the industry and service 
sectors. Of the remaining cases, 9% involved transport and energy and 3% the fisheries sector 
(see, Table 8). 

Of the 921 notifications, just over half were received from five of the largest Member States: 
Italy accounted for 18% of the total, Germany for 11%, France for 9%, Spain for 9% and the 
United Kingdom for 6%. In addition, also the Czech Republic had in 2006 a relatively high 
number  of  registered  notifications  (8.5%).  Of  the  84  non-notified  cases,  14  concerned 
Germany, 13 Italy, 10 the United Kingdom and 8 France. 

Table 8: Number of registered aid cases in 2006 

Sector 

Notified aid 
cases 

Non-notified 
aid cases 

Existing aid 
cases 

Total 

Agriculture 
Manufacturing and 
services 
Fisheries 
Transport and coal 
Total 

316

495
28
82
921

27

41

6   
10   
84

1

3

4

344 

539 
34 
92 
1009 

Source: DG Competition, DG Fisheries, DG Agriculture, DG Transport. 

4.2. 

Commission Decisions 

In  2006,  the  Commission  took  710  final  decisions75,  a  12 %  increase  compared  with  the 
previous  year.  In  the  vast  majority  of  cases,  the  Commission  approved  the  measures, 
concluding  that  the  examined  aid  was  compatible  (91 %  of  all  decisions  in  2006)  with  the 
State aid rules or did not constitute State aid (4 % of all decisions). Where the Commission 
has  doubts  whether  certain  aid  measures  comply  with  the  rules,  it  carries  out  a  formal 

73 

74 
75 

In 2006 there were more than 200 registered complaints, some of which may have led (or may lead) to 
new registered cases. 
This figure excludes measures submitted under the block exemption regulations. 
Excluding decisions to open the formal investigation procedure, corrigenda, injunctions, proposals for 
appropriate measures. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
investigation  during  which  third  parties  and  all  Member  States  are  invited  to  provide 
observations.  At  the  end  of  this  investigation  procedure,  the  Commission  either  takes  a 
positive,  conditional  or  no  aid  decision  (making  up  3 %  of  all  decisions)  or  that  it  does  not 
comply with State aid rules and hence is not compatible with the Common Market and takes a 
negative decision (2 % of all decisions). 

Table 9 shows the share of incompatible and compatible aid cases on which the Commission 
reached a decision between 2004 and 2006. Over this three-year period, five Member States 
accounted for more than 60% of all final decisions: Italy (23% of the total), Germany (13%), 
France (9%), the United Kingdom (9%) and Spain (8%). Following accession in May 2004, 
just  over  280  final  decisions  on  new  aid  measures  had  been  taken  in  the  EU-10  Member 
States by the end of 2006. 

Around half (50%) of all final decisions over the period 2004-2006 were in the industry and 
services sectors, followed by agriculture (41%) transport and coal (6%) and fisheries (3%). It 
is important to bear in mind that these figures do not distinguish between large and complex 
cases  involving  billions  of  euro  and  requiring  a  lengthy  investigation  and  relatively  minor 
measures for which the aid amount may be less than one million euro. 

Of the 79 negative decisions over this three-year period, more than half concerned Italy (22) 
and  Germany  (19).  They  were  followed  by  France  (10),  the  Netherlands  (6),  Belgium  (4), 
Spain (3), and United Kingdom (3). No other Member State exceeded 2 negative decisions in 
the last three years. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
Table 9: Number of negative and positive decisions, 2004-2006 

Negative decisions 

Approved 
without 
objections
1698
37
55
45
210
12
26
147
140
37
407
9
23
19
5
17
3
100
45
72
20
8
47
23
38
153

Total 
1941 
55 
63 
55 
258 
12 
30 
157 
168 
42 
456 
9 
23 
20 
6 
18 
3 
120 
48 
79 
23 
10 
49 
25 
44 
168 

Other 
positive 
decisions
155
14
8
9
25
0
2
6
17
4
26
0
0
1
0
1
0
12
2
6
2
2
1
1
4
12

EU-25 
Belgium 
Czech Republic 
Denmark 
Germany 
Estonia 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Cyprus 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Luxembourg 
Hungary 
Malta 
Netherlands 
Austria 
Poland 
Portugal 
Slovenia 
Slovakia 
Finland 
Sweden 
United Kingdom 

All 
negative 
decisions
79

of which 
recovery 
ordered 
42

4   
0   
1
19

0   
2
3
10
1
22

0   
0   
0   
1   
0   
0   
6
1   
1
1
0   
1
1
2
3   

1
11

2
3
6
1
10

3

1
1

1
1
1

Note: Some double-counting exists in those cases for which there is both a negative 
and positive decision. The category ‘other positive decisions’ is made up of positive 
and  conditional  decisions  following  a  formal  investigation  procedure  as  well  as  all 
‘no  aid’  decisions.  Source:  DG  Competition,  DG  Fisheries,  DG  Agriculture,  DG 
Transport. 

Further information on methodological issues may be found on the online Scoreboard: 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/scoreboard/conceptual_remarks.html 

EN 

37 

   EN