Commission Staff Working Document - Accompanying the Report from the Commission - State Aid Scoreboard - Autumn 2009 Update - Facts and figures on State aid in the EU Member States {COM(2009) 661 final}
Date: 2009-12-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, European Commission, State aid, control of State aid, economic analysis, economic recession, impact study, report

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 7.12.2009 
SEC (2009) 1638 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Accompanying the 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

State Aid Scoreboard 

- Autumn 2009 Update - 

Facts and figures on State aid in the EU Member States 

{COM(2009) 661 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 4 

State aid in the context of the economic crisis ........................................................................... 4 

Scope and content....................................................................................................................... 5 

State aid as defined under Article 87 of the EC Treaty.............................................................. 6 

Revised format of the State aid autumn Scoreboard .................................................................. 6 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

State aid in 2008 in absolute and relative terms........................................................... 7 

Total State aid and State aid per sector as % of GDP .................................................. 7 

Impact of crisis measures on total State aid ................................................................. 8 

Total State aid and State aid per sector as % of GDP (crisis measures excluded)....... 9 

Broad sectoral distribution of aid (with and without crisis measures)....................... 12 

Trends and patterns of state aid expenditure in the Member States........................... 13 

Levels of State aid to industry and services ............................................................... 13 

State aid for horizontal objectives of common interest.............................................. 16 

2.2.1.  Horizontal versus sectoral aid in 2008 ....................................................................... 16 

2.2.2.  State aid to horizontal objectives ............................................................................... 17 

2.2.3.  Trend in State aid for horizontal objectives and sectoral objectives.......................... 21 

2.2.4.  State aid for research and development and innovation............................................. 22 

2.2.5.  State aid for SMEs including risk capital................................................................... 24 

2.2.6.  State aid for environmental protection....................................................................... 24 

2.2.7.  State aid supporting regional development and cohesion .......................................... 25 

2.3. 

State aid earmarked for specific sectors..................................................................... 27 

2.3.1.  State aid for rescue and restructuring firms in difficulty ........................................... 27 

2.3.2.  State aid to the shipbuilding sector ............................................................................ 27 

2.3.3.  State aid to the steel sector ......................................................................................... 27 

2.3.4.  State aid to the coal sector.......................................................................................... 28 

2.3.5.  State aid to the transport sector .................................................................................. 28 

2.3.6.  State aid to the agricultural sector.............................................................................. 30 

2.3.7.  State aid to the fisheries sector................................................................................... 31 

2.4. 

State aid instruments .................................................................................................. 32 

2.4.1.  State aid instruments and aid volumes in 2008.......................................................... 32 

2.4.2.  Trend in the use of aid instruments (crisis measures excluded)................................. 34 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

State aid in the context of the financial and economic crisis ..................................... 35 

General economic background................................................................................... 35 

Chronology of the crisis and the Commission's response.......................................... 36 

EN 

2 

   EN 

3.3. 

3.4. 

3.5. 

3.6. 

3.7. 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

Measures approved, take-up and review.................................................................... 41 

State aid granted in 2008............................................................................................ 44 

Measures adopted under the Temporary Framework................................................. 47 

Special reference to the car sector.............................................................................. 48 

Special reference to the air transport sector ............................................................... 49 

Simplification of the State aid rules ........................................................................... 49 

A new architecture for State aid control .................................................................... 49 

Types of aid measures used by Member States ......................................................... 51 

Enforcement the state aid rules .................................................................................. 54 

Unlawful aid............................................................................................................... 54 

Recovery of unlawful aid ........................................................................................... 54 

Enforcement of State aid Law: Cooperation with national courts ............................. 56 

Ex-post monitoring..................................................................................................... 57 

Methodological Notes .............................................................................................................. 58 

Annex: Statistical tables ........................................................................................................... 60 

Table 1-1: Key figures and trend on State aid as percentage of GDP and share of horizontal 

objectives as percentage of total aid for industry and services and their trend (all 
cases; 2008)................................................................................................................ 60 

Table 1-2: Key figures and trend on State aid as percentage of GDP and share of horizontal 
objectives as percentage of total aid for industry and services and their trend (excl. 
crisis measures) .......................................................................................................... 61 

Table 1-3:   State aid for primary objectives and sectoral aid as % of total aid (crisis 

measures excluded); 2008 .......................................................................................... 62 

Table 1-4:   Trend in share of primary objectives in total aid between 2003-2005 and 2006-

2008 as percentage point difference (crisis measures excluded) ............................... 63 

Table 2: Main set of rules adopted since the launch of the SAAP in 2005.............................. 64 

Table 3-1: Overview of measures reviewed by the Commission under the Temporary 

Framework until 9 November 2009 ........................................................................... 67 

Table 4-1: Trend in the number of recovery decisions and amounts to be recovered (1) 2000- 

2009 (by 30 June 2009).............................................................................................. 70 

Table 4-2: Recovery in the fisheries sector.............................................................................. 70 

Table 4-3: Pending recovery decisions (by 30 June 2009) ...................................................... 71 

Table 4-4: Pending recovery cases where the Commission has decided to bring the case 

before the Court of Justice and where illegal and incompatible aid has not yet been 
recovered (30 June 2009) ........................................................................................... 74 

Table 5: Summary of rules for the transport sector.................................................................. 77 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
INTRODUCTION 

State aid in the context of the economic crisis 

Over the past decade, the EU experienced steady economic growth whereby GDP increased 
on  average  by  roughly  1.5%  per  annum.  Between  2002  and  2007,  the  level  of  State  aid, 
expressed as a percentage of GDP, decreased on average by around 2% per year and stood at 
less  than  0.5%  in  2007.  During  this  period,  Member  States  continued  their  effort  to  reduce 
budget deficits which reached lower levels than the beginning of the millennium. The rate of 
unemployment  fell  in  line  with  the  economic  trend  though  with  some  delay  and  stood  at 
approximately 7% EU-wide in 2008. 

The  financial  crisis  has  caused  an  abrupt  end  to  GDP  growth,  low  levels  of  State  aid 
expenditure and decreasing budget deficits. Unemployment is expected to rise in the coming 
years up to 10%. Economic activity contracted in the second half of 2008. This has led to a 
fall of GDP by approximately 1.4%. It is expected to decline further (by almost 4%) for the 
entire year 2009 and to stabilise in 2010 with small growth expected to be 0.75% and 1.5% in 
2011.  Budget  deficits  have  increased  substantially,  returning  to  levels  reached  at  the 
beginning of the decade, with significant variations between Member States however. As can 
be  expected,  State  aid  expenditure  has  also  risen  since  most  Member  States  have  given 
support to their economies to stabilise the financial sector. 

Aid granted to the real economy through the Temporary Framework measures is not shown in 
this report since expenditure only occurs from 2009 and underlying data will only be available 
in 2010. 

After the break-down of the inter-banking market in September 2008, Member States injected 
substantial amounts of aid to the banking sector in order to prevent collapses of banks in the 
EU with the aim of reducing systemic risks which many banks have posed on the functioning 
of  the  financial  markets.  It  is  this  kind  of  aid  which  contributed  most  to  the  significant 
increase of State aid expenditure in 2008. 

A  stable  banking  system  is  key  to  provide  the  economy  with  liquidity,  mainly  in  form  of 
credit. Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (hereinafter "SME") in particular need financing 
from  banks  to  invest  in  new  technologies,  thereby  creating  job  opportunities  for  the  future. 
Recapitalisation measures and aid to the real economy were put in place by Member States to 
ensure both that lending to the economy continues and that the real economy could continue 
to invest. The massive aid which contributed to stabilise the banking sector should eventually 
reap future dividends in the form of new jobs and opportunities to exploit new technologies, 
as  many  enterprises  are  able  to  stay  in  business  because  of  continued  access  to  finance 
(though this is admittedly more difficult than in previous years).  

Needless to say, State aid expenditure has to return to pre-crisis levels over the next years and 
budget  deficits  will  also  have  to  decrease.  A  big  challenge  for  Member  States  will  be  the 
sharp rise in unemployment expected over the next years (around 10.25% in 2010). Only by 
returning  to  economic  growth,  can  public  spending  be  reduced  over  time.  Current  State  aid 
contributes to stabilising the economy in order to boost return to growth. By gradually ending 
crisis-caused state support over the next years at the appropriate time, the path of economic 
growth will not be jeopardised through a sudden lack of resources but it will ensure a smooth 
transition towards sustainable growth. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
Scope and content 

This autumn 2009 update of the State aid Commission Staff Working Document (hereinafter 
"the Scoreboard")1 focuses on the State aid situation in the twenty-seven Member States for 
the year 2008 and gives detail on the underlying trends. 

When starting to analyse State aid expenditure in 2008, a higher aid volume was expected due 
to aid in response of the financial crisis. Many Member States granted substantial aid to the 
financial  sector,  be  it  in  form  of  rescue  and  restructuring  aid  or  aid  directed  to  remedy  a 
serious  disturbance  of  the  economy.  By  presenting  State  aid  expenditure  including  the  aid 
volumes  granted  to  crisis-related  measures  (hereinafter  "crisis  measures"),  the  report  would 
probably  draw  the  wrong  conclusions  since  high  aid  volumes  related  to  crisis  measures 
certainly distort the overall picture on State aid.  Where appropriate or necessary, the report 
henceforth identifies instances of State aid volumes excluding crisis measures, thereby being 
able to focus on the essential developments, as if there were no crisis measures. Aid measures 
qualify as crisis measures if they were adopted under sector specific State aid rules introduced 
in  the  context  of  the  current  global  financial  crisis  (for  more  detail  on  the  individual 
Communications,  see  chapter  3).  Measures  which  respond  to  the  financial  crisis  but  were 
approved  prior  the  State  aid  rules  aforementioned  also  count  as  crisis  measures.  The  report 
updates on all crisis measures and gives an outlook for 2009. 

In  order  to  analyse  data  and  trends  of  the  Member  States'  response  to  successive  European 
Council call for “less and better targeted aid”, State aid granted to remedy the crisis situation 
will  be  excluded  from  total  aid.  This  update  of  the  Scoreboard  also  reports  on  progress 
towards  delivering  a  comprehensive  and  coherent  reform  package  for  State  aid  that  began 
with the State Aid Action Plan2 (hereinafter "SAAP") in 2005. 

This  Annex  of  the  Scoreboard  comprises  five  chapters.  Key  statistical  information  on  State 
aid awarded by each Member State in 2008 is included in Chapter 1 and 2 where detailed data 
show  the  trend  of  State  aid  expenditure.  Chapter  3  provides  an  update  of  the  spring  2009 
Scoreboard on the financial and real economy State aid cases. It also provides an outlook for 
2009,  based  on  latest  developments.  Chapter 4 provides an overview on the simplification of 
State aid rules that have been put into place since the SAAP in 2005. In particular, it will update 
on the use of block exempted aid by Member States.  Chapter  5  reports on  ongoing  efforts  to 
enforce  the  State  aid  rules  and  to  recover  unlawful  aid.  Finally,  tables  in  annex  show  key 
figures  of  State  aid  expenditure,  the  follow-up  on  the  SAAP,  the  case  lists  in  regard  of  the 
financial and economic crisis and on recovery. 
The  Directorate-General  Competition  publishes  this  Scoreboard  on  its  website3,  where 
previous editions can also be found. Also available on the website are a series of key indicators 
and in-depth statistics covering the EU as a whole as well as individual Member States. 
The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) publishes an annual scoreboard4 on the volume of 
State  aid  granted  in  Iceland,  Liechtenstein  and  Norway.  Data  for  these  countries  have  also 
been included in Tables 1-1 and 1-2 in Annex. 

1   Any  reference  to  the  Scoreboard  in  this  text  refers  to  this  document  (the  Commission's  staff  working 

document).  

2  COM(2005) 107 final, 7.6.2005 
3   http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/studies_reports.html  
4   http://www.eftasurv.int/information/sascoreboard/   

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
State aid as defined under Article 87 of the EC Treaty 

The Scoreboard covers State aid as defined under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty that Member 
States  granted  up  to  the  end  of  2008.  All  State  aid  data  refer  to  the  implementation  of 
Commission  decisions  but  exclude  cases  which  are  still  under  examination.  With  respect  to 
general measures implemented by Member States, they do not constitute State aid as defined 
by Article 87(1).  

State  aid  is  expenditure  which  represents  an  economic  advantage  passed  onto  undertakings 
engaged  in  economic  activities.  In  cases  of  grants,  the  economic  advantage  passed  onto  the 
beneficiary  normally  corresponds  to  budgetary  expenditure.  For  other  aid  instruments, 
advantage to the beneficiary and cost to government may differ. For guarantees, for example, 
the beneficiary avoids the risk associated with the guarantee, since it is carried by the State. 
Such risk-carrying by the State should normally be remunerated by an appropriate premium. 
Where  the  State  forgoes  all  or  part  of  such  a  premium,  there  is  both  a  benefit  for  the 
undertaking  and  a  drain  on  the  resources  of  the  State.  Thus,  even  if  it  turns  out  that  no 
payments are ever made by the State under a guarantee, there may nevertheless be State aid 
under  Article  87(1)  of  the  Treaty.  The  aid  is  granted  at  the  moment  when  the  guarantee  is 
given, not when the guarantee is invoked nor when payments are made under the terms of the 
guarantee.  

Revised format of the State aid autumn Scoreboard 

With  the  autumn  2009  Scoreboard,  the  Commission  publishes  the  report  in  a  new  format 
composing  of  a  summary  adopted  by  the  College  of  Commissioners  and  an  annex  (only 
available in English) presenting facts and figures. While the summary outlines the principal 
developments of State aid expenditure on the basis of the analysis of their underlying data and 
other  detected  trends,  the  staff  report  gives  detail  on  facts  and  trends.  Needless  to  say,  it 
covers the entire scope as provided in previous autumn editions. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
1. 

STATE AID IN 2008 IN ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE TERMS 

2008's State aid expenditure in the EU covers total State aid, aid to industry and services and 
aid  granted  through  crisis  measures  inter  alia.  The  indicator  of  'State  aid  as  percentage  of 
GDP' takes into account the general economic situation in the particular Member State as well 
as  that  of  the  EU  as  a  whole.  The  static  picture  (i.e.  focus  on  the  data  of  the  year  under 
review) shows aid levels in absolute and relative terms. It will set the tone for a comparative 
analysis  of  aid  expenditure  since  the  Scoreboard  also  deals  with  the  impact  of  the  financial 
crisis on State aid. 

1.1. 

Total State aid and State aid per sector as % of GDP 
Figure 15: Total State aid as % of GDP (all sectors; crisis measures included), 2008 

Total State aid as % of GDP; 2008

Estonia
Italy

Greece
Austria

Slovakia
Spain

Romania
Cyprus

Slovenia
Lithuania

Czech Republic
Poland

Sw eden
Finland

EU-12
Portugal

Bulgaria
France

Malta
Denmark

EU-27
EU-15

Hungary
Germany

Netherlands
United Kingdom

Latvia
Belgium

Luxembourg
Ireland

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

Industry and services as % of  GDP
Agriculture, f isheries and transport as % of  GDP

Total State aid6 granted by the Member States amounted to approximately € 279.6 billion in 
20087.  In  absolute  terms,  the  United  Kingdom  showed  the  highest  aid  level  (€ 72.5 billion) 

5   Source: DG Competition, DG Energy and Transport, DG Agriculture and DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries: 
Note: Member States are ranked in ascending order according to the total amount of aid expressed as % of 
GDP.  Data  cover  all  State  aid  measures  as  defined  under  Article  87(1)  of  the  EC  Treaty  that  have  been 
awarded by Member States and examined by the Commission. Included are all sectors except railways and 
Services of General Economic Interest. 

6  The total covers aid to manufacturing, services, coal, agriculture, fisheries and part of the transport sector but 
excludes aid to the railway sector, aid for compensation for services of general economic interest due to the 
lack of comparable data. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
followed  by  Germany  (€ 66.8 billion),  Ireland 
Belgium (€ 19.4 billion). 
In relative terms, State aid amounted to 2.2% of  EU-278 GDP  in 2008.  This average masks 
significant disparities between Member States: the share of total aid to GDP amounts to less 
than  1%  (of  GDP)  in  ten  countries  and  exceeds  the  average  in  eight  countries.  In  the  latter 
group, the sharp increase on State aid was due to the crisis measures. 

(€ 37.5 billion),  France  (€ 26.8 billion)  and 

1.2. 

Impact of crisis measures on total State aid 

Crisis  measures  implemented  and  reported  by  Member  States  in  2008  amounted  to 
approximately € 212.2 billion or around 1.7% of GDP.  
Figure 29: Total State aid to industry and services as % of GDP (all cases versus crisis 
measures excluded); EU-27; 2008 

Total State aid to industry and services as % of GDP (all cases 
versus crisis cases excluded); EU-27; 2008

2.1

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

0.4

0.1

0.1

Aid to industry and services as % of GDP 

Aid to agriculture, fisheries and transport as
% of GDP

EU-27 (all cases)

EU-27 (crisis measures excluded)

Figure  2  clearly  shows  which  impact  the  crisis  measures  had  on  total  State  aid  granted  by 
Member States to industry and services when expressed as percentage of GDP. 

The big increase of State aid to industry and services at EU-27 level can be attributed to the 
thirteen  Member  States  which  granted  aid  to  financial  institutions  in  response  to  the  crisis. 
Many of the EU-1210 countries saw no need to support their banking sector and hence their 
aid  levels  remained  unaffected  by  crisis  measures.  For  detailed  information  on  crisis 
measures, see chapter 3. 

7   Crisis measures included 
8   EU-27 means all Member States of the EU.  
9   Source: DG Competition, DG Energy and Transport, DG Agriculture and DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. 

Note: Data cover State aid to industry and services. 

10  EU-12 includes Member States which entered the EU in 2004 or thereafter. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
 
1.3. 

Total  State  aid  and  State  aid  per  sector  as  %  of  GDP  (crisis  measures 
excluded)  

Figure 311: Total State aid (crisis measures excluded) as % of GDP (all sectors) 2008 

Total State aid as % of GDP; 2008 
(crisis measures excluded)

Luxembourg
United Kingdom
Estonia
Italy
Netherlands
Greece
Austria
Belgium
Spain
EU-15
France
Slovakia
EU-27
Germany
Romania
Cyprus
Slovenia
Denmark
Lithuania
Latvia
Sw eden
Portugal
Czech
Poland
EU-12
Ireland
Finland
Bulgaria
Malta
Hungary

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Industry and services as % of  GDP
Agriculture, f isheries and transport as % of  GDP

11  Source: DG Competition, DG Energy and Transport, DG Agriculture and DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries: 
Note: Member States are ranked in ascending order according to the total amount of aid expressed as % of 
GDP.  Data  cover  all  State  aid  measures  as  defined  under  Article  87(1)  of  the  EC  Treaty  that  have  been 
awarded by Member States and examined by the Commission. Included are all sectors except railways. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 412: Total State aid (crisis measures excluded) as a percentage of GDP (industry 

and services only) 2008 

Total State aid as % of GDP; 2008 
(crisis measures excluded)

Estonia
Bulgaria
Luxembourg
United Kingdom
Romania
Latvia
Netherlands
Italy
Greece
Belgium
Ireland
Austria
France
EU-15
Spain
Slovakia
EU-27
Finland
Slovenia
Cyprus
Lithuania
Germany
Denmark
EU-12
Czech
Poland
Sw eden
Portugal
Malta
Hungary

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Industry and services as % of  GDP

When  excluding  crisis  measures,  total  State  aid  amounted  to  around  € 67.4 billion  in  2008. 
Germany granted most aid (around € 15.7 billio n), followed by France (€ 10.3 billion), Italy 
(€ 5.5 billion), Spain (€ 5.2 billion) 

and the United Kingdom (€ 3.8 billion). 

In  relative  terms,  total  State  aid  amounted  to  0.54%  of  EU-27  GDP  in  2008.  This  average 
masks significant disparities between Member States: the share of total aid to GDP amounts 
to less than the average in eleven Member States.  

In  sectoral  terms,  around  € 47.2 billion  of  ai d  was  earmarked  for  the  manufacturing  and 
services sectors, roughly € 1.7 billion  for the other non manufacturing sectors13, € 2.7 billion 
for  coal,  € 12 billion  for  agriculture 14  and  fisheries  and  approximately  € 2.4 billion  for  the 
transport  sector  (excluding  railways)15.  Crisis  aid  implemented  in  2008  relates  only  to  the 
financial services sector and is therefore allocated to 'manufacturing and services'. 

12  Source: DG Competition. Note: Member States are ranked in ascending order according to the total amount of 
aid expressed as % of GDP. Data cover all State aid measures as defined under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty 
that have been awarded by Member States and examined by the Commission.  

13  It includes aid for mining and quarrying, oil and gas extraction, aid for electricity, gas and water supply and 

aid for construction. 

14  For Agriculture: € 11.76 billion 
15  DG Agriculture is responsible for aid to the agricultural sector, DG Maritime and Fishery Affaires for aid to 

fisheries and DG Transport and Energy for aid to the transport sector, coal and railways.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Significant differences were found between Member States regarding the sectors to which aid 
was  directed.  In  2008,  aid  directed  at  manufacturing  and  services,  other  non  manufacturing 
sectors  and  coal  represented  75%  or  more  of  total  aid  inter  alia  in  Belgium,  the  Czech 
Republic,  Denmark,  Germany,  Italy,  France,  Austria,  Portugal,  Sweden  and  the  United 
Kingdom.  In  few  Member  States,  aid  to  agriculture,  fisheries  and  transport  still  accounts  to 
more  than  50%,  namely  in  Bulgaria,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Romania  and  Finland.  Aid  to  the 
agricultural and fisheries sectors accounted in the EU-12 Member States for around twice the 
share  of  the  EU-1516  average.  Due  to  the  particularities  associated  with  aid  to  agriculture, 
fisheries  and  transport,  it  is  worth  looking  at  total  aid  less  these  sectors  i.e.  total  aid  to 
industry and services.  

Aid to industry and services17 

Total  aid  to  industry  and  services  amounted  to  approximately  € 265 billion 18  in  2008.  In 
absolute terms, the United Kingdom granted most aid (€ 71.8 billion) followed by Germany 
€ 65.3 billion), Ireland (€ 36.3 bill
ion), France (€ 24.1 billion), Be lgium (€ 19 billion), and the 
Netherlands (€ 15.6 billion). 

In relative terms, State aid to industry and services amounted to 2.1% of EU-27 GDP in 2008. 
This second indicator produces a rather different ranking of Member States. Fourteen Member 
States granted aid representing less than 1% of GDP and only seven Member States exceed on 
the  average,  namely  Belgium,  Germany,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Luxembourg,  the  Netherlands,  and 
the United Kingdom.  

Italy 

When  excluding  crisis  measures,  aid  awarded  to  industry  and  services  amounts  to 
€ 52.9 billion in 2008. Germany granted most  aid (around € 14.2 billion) followed by France 
(€ 7.6 billion), 
the  United  Kingdom 
(€ 3.1 billion). 
In  relative  terms,  State  aid  to industry  and  services  amounted  to  0.42%19  of  EU-27  GDP  in 
2008. This average masks significant disparities between Member States: the share of total aid 
to GDP amounts to less than the average in fourteen countries. 

(€ 4.5 billion),  Sp ain 

(€ 4.4 billion)  and 

Aid to industry and services represent 78% of total State aid, of which 4.1% or € 2.7 billion 
are allocated to the coal industry. The remainder of aid is shared between agriculture (almost 
17.5% of total aid), fisheries (0.4% of total aid), and transport20 (3.6% of total aid). 

Around  half  of  the  Member  States  lie  below  the  EU  average  (0.44%  of  GDP)  of  aid  for 
industry and services. However, some increase in aid expenditure in 2008 was expected due 
to the crisis. 

16  EU-15 comprises Member States that joined the EU before 2004.  
17  See methodological notes with respect to aid for industry and services at the end of this document. 
18  Crisis measures included. 
19  Crisis measures excluded 
20  Excluding railways 

EN 

11 

   EN 

                                                 
 
1.4. 
Figure 521 

Broad sectoral distribution of aid (with and without crisis measures) 

: Total State aid (all cases); EU-27; 2008 

Total State Aid by sector; EU 27; 2008

Agriculture + 
Fisheries
4%

Transport 
(Excl.Railways)
1%

Industry + 
services
95%

Figure 622 

: Total State aid (crisis measures excluded); EU-27; 2008 

Total State Aid by sector; EU 27; 2008 
(crisis measures excluded)

Agriculture+ 
Fisheries
18%

Industry+ services
78%

Transport 
(Excl.Railw ays)
4%

Figures  5  and  6  present  the  distribution  of  State  aid  per  sector.  Due  to  the  significant  aid 
volume granted for crisis measures, Member  States  dedicated  almost  all  aid  to  industry  and 
services (95%) in 2008. The other sectors represent only a small aggregated share of 5%.  

When excluding crisis measures, Member States roughly awarded 78% of aid to industry and 
services. The remainder of aid is shared between agriculture and fisheries (18%) and transport 
(4%)23.  

21  Source: DG Competition, DG Energy and Transport, DG Agriculture and DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 
22  Source: DG Competition, DG Energy and Transport, DG Agriculture and DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
2. 

TRENDS AND PATTERNS OF STATE AID EXPENDITURE IN THE MEMBER STATES 

After  the  static  view  above,  the  analysis  continues  with  trends  and  patterns  of  State  aid 
expenditure  in  the  Member  States.  The  degree  to  which  Member  States  have  (or  have  not) 
reduced  the  level  of  State  aid  can  be  measured  by  looking  not  only  at  State  aid  relative  to 
GDP  in  particular  years  but  on  the  same  information  over  a  number  of  years  in  order  to 
eliminate  annual  fluctuations  and  delayed  reporting24  as  far  as  possible.  The  periods  into 
which expenditure data were grouped are 2003-2005 and 2006-2008. 

2.1. 

Levels of State aid to industry and services 

In  view  of  the  fact  that  data  on  aid  to  agriculture,  fisheries  and  transport  contains 
particularities25 which prevent the production of aggregate information across all sectors for 
the  purposes  of  trend  analysis  in  particular,  all  State  aid  observations  will  exclude  these 
sectors. 

Total  State  aid  to  industry  and  services  obviously  includes  aid  granted  for  crisis  measures. 
Crisis-related aid (€ 212.5  billion) contributed to a five times higher level of total State aid to 
industry and services in 2008 compared with 2007. This would influence many key data and 
undermine the comparability of data between individual years. Furthermore, crisis measures 
represent aid granted under exceptional circumstances and can clearly be attributed as aid to 
the financial sector. Where appropriate, State aid expenditure for crisis measures is therefore 
not  taken  into  account  for  the  purpose  of  analysing  trends  and  patterns.  See  chapter  3  for 
details on crisis measures.   
Figure 726: State aid to industry and services since 1992 

State aid to industry and services

P
D
G

f
o
% 

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

State aid incl. crisis measures

State aid excl. crisis measures

23  Excluding railways 
24  In spite of the Member States’ obligation (Annex III, Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 
2004) to report State aid expenditure figures for the year t-1, some Member States are able to report figures 
for some measures only for year t-2. In addition, unlawfully granted State aid is included in the Scoreboard 
data only after Commission’s decision on particular unlawful aid case and retroactively added to the year in 
which the aid was granted. Therefore, overall aid levels could possibly be underestimated for the most recent 
years. 

25  For  instance,  aid  to  the  agricultural  sector  is  earmarked  through  a  set  of  particular  objectives  which  are 

different from those for industry and services' primary objectives.     

26  Source: DG Competition 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Figure 7 shows the long-term trend on State aid expenditure for industry and services in the 
EU. During the Nineties, the overall level of aid was around 0.7% of GDP27 on average on a 
downward path. This decline can be partly explained by the work that began in the mid 1980s 
to make effective State aid control a key component of the Single Market Programme. State 
aid further widened and strengthened in the 1990s mainly due to preparation for the European 
Monetary Union. 

New impetus from the Lisbon Strategy launched by the European Council in 2000 and then 
the  SAAP  in  2005  resulted  in  further  declining  aid  expenditure  for  industry  and  services, 
fluctuating between 0.4% and 0.6% GDP between 2000 and 200728.  

Three  main  factors  contributed  to  this  decrease:  first,  due  to  a  period  of  economic  growth 
since  2000,  Member  States  granted  considerably  less  rescue  and  restructuring  aid  for  ailing 
firms. 2007 showed an exception with the support to Northern Rock29 and Sachsen LB30. Both 
cases are now included under the crisis measures. Second, State aid to the coal sector showed 
a  continued  downward  trend.  The  decrease  can  be  primarily  observed  in  Poland,  France, 
Germany,  and  to  a  lesser  extent,  Spain.  Apart  from  that,  no  further  significant  rescue  and 
restructuring aid was granted. Third,  pre-accession commitments and continued efforts after 
accession both contributed to the downward trend since the EU-12 Member States continued 
to adjust their State aid policies and practices to the requirements under EU State aid law and 
policies.   

This positive downward trend abruptly stopped due to the financial crisis. The strong upward 
move in 2008 can be almost exclusively attributed to the crisis measures, which is a five times 
higher than in 200731.  

In order to see expenditure developments on State aid without the distorting effect of the crisis 
measures,  crisis  measures  will  be  excluded  from  total  aid  to  industry  and  services  for  the 
purpose  of  the  further  analysis.  On  this  basis,  the  trend  shows  a  moderate  upward  move  in 
2008. Compared with 2007, aid for industry and services increased by approximately 0.04% 
of  GDP.  For  instance,  Germany  granted  more  regional  aid  to  foster  investment  in  the  new 
German  Länder  and  parts  of  Berlin32.  Spain  gave  more  aid  for  environmental  protection33. 
Poland  substantially  increased  employment  aid  and  introduced  new  block  exempted  aid 
representing  several  € 100 million  of  expenditure.  Only  aid  earmarked  for  horizontal 
objectives  contributed  to  the  increase.  Aid  for  sectoral  development  and  rescue  and 
restructuring aid was lower compared to 2007.  

It is important to emphasise that this upward move nevertheless represents a level of State aid 
expenditure which is below the level of 2006 and it is within the trend average seen between 
2000 and 2007.  

27  1997 had a peak due to the Credit Lyonnais aid.   
28  The aid to BGB in 2002 contributed to another peak in the long-term trend.  
29  NN 70/2007 Northern Rock  
30  C 9/2008 Restructuring aid to Sachsen LB  
31  Higher aid levels were already expected in 2007 - see Autumn 2008 Scoreboard, p. 16 - where the first signs 
of the financial crisis appeared on the screen, e.g. rescue and restructuring of Northern Rock and Sachsen LB. 

32  N 357a/2006 Investitionszulagengesetz 2007 and XR 6/2007 Investitionszulagengesetz 2007 
33  A large part can be attributed to NN 61/2004 Tax exemption on bio fuels. 

EN 

14 

   EN 

                                                 
Figure 834:  

Trend in State aid to industry and services as % of GDP (crisis measures 
excluded) 

Trend in State aid to industry and services (excl. crisis cases) 
as %  of GDP

Romania

Cyprus

Malta

Poland

Czech Republic

EU-12

Bulgaria

Slovenia

Germany

Slovakia

Italy

EU-27

Spain

Luxembourg

Estonia

EU-15

United Kingdom

France

Denmark

Finland

Netherlands

Latvia

Ireland

Greece

Austria

Belgium

Lithuania

Sweden

Portugal

Hungary

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

% of GDP

2003-2005

2006-2008

The trend in State aid expenditure to industry and services, as shown in figure 8, underlines 
engagement of Member States to reduce aid expenditure. Firstly, a majority of Member States 
were  able  to  reduce  aid  levels  in  the  period  2006-2008  as  compared  with  2003-2005.  On 
average in the EU-27, the trend has been stable between the periods 2006-2008 compared to 
2003-2005. However, many of the EU-12 countries achieved significant reduction by 1% of 
GDP or even more. As a result, the average EU-12 expenditure reduced by almost half, i.e. 
from more than 1% of GDP in 2003-2005 to slightly above 0.5% in 2006-2008. Many EU-15 
countries were also able to reduce aid levels, now down at approximately 0.4% of GDP in the 
period  2006-2008,  i.e.  almost  equal  to  the  EU-27  average.  Despite  the  increase  of  aid  to 
industry  and  services  in  2008,  the  trend  analysis  has  not  shown  a  reversal  of  the  long-term 
downward trend in EU-27.  

Despite the positive downward trend, some Member States increased aid expenditure in 2006-
2008 compared to 2003-2005. Hungary substantially increased aid expenditure. Most aid was 

34  Source: DG Competition 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
earmarked  for  regional  development  by  granting  investment  aid  to  regional  development 
programmes.  The  other  area  of  increased  expenditure  was  aid  for  employment.  Portugal 
granted  substantial  aid  to  financial  services,  mainly  fiscal  aid.  However,  the  increase  of  the 
trend  for  2006-2008  can  be  explained  from  the  statistical  effect  that  Portugal  reported 
substantial  aid  volumes  (Madeira  tax  regime)  in  2006  and  2007  whereas  high  expenditure 
discontinued  in  2008.  Being  in  phase-out,  the  future  trend  for  Portugal  can  be  expected  to 
return to lower levels. A very similar pattern of statistical effect can be identified with respect 
to  Sweden  and  awarding  large  volumes  of  aid  for  environmental  protection  since  2005. 
Belgium granted more aid for horizontal objectives and some further aid for financial services 
(outside the crisis measures). Lithuania awarded more aid to regional development, as well as 
Greece. Ireland increased aid for research and development and support for SMEs.     

2.2. 

State aid for horizontal objectives of common interest 

State  aid  for  horizontal  objectives,  i.e.  aid  that  is  not  granted  to  specific  sectors,  is  usually 
considered  as  being  better  suited  to  address  market  failures  and  thus  less  distortive  than 
sectoral and ad hoc aid. Research and Development and Innovation (hereinafter "R&D&I"), 
safeguarding  the  environment,  support  to  SMEs,  employment  creation,  the  promotion  of 
training  and  aid  for  regional  economic  development  are  the  most  prominent  horizontal 
objectives pursued with State aid. 

2.2.1.  Horizontal versus sectoral aid in 2008 
Figure 935: Total State aid, aid to industry and services as % of GDP, share of horizontal 

aid 

Figures in (..) include 
crisis measures 

EU-27 

EU-15 

EU-12 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Total  State  Aid 
less 
railways 
(in billion EUR) 

Total  State  Aid 
for  industry  and 
services 
(billion 
EUR) 

Total  State 
Aid 
less 
railways  as 
% of GDP 

Total  State 
Aid 
for 
industry  and 
services  as 
% of GDP 

Horizontal 
objectives as  % 
of  total  aid  to 
industry 
and 
services 

67.4 (279.6) 

52.9 (265.0) 

0.54 (2.2) 

0.42 (2.1) 

87.61 (17.49) 

57.1 (268.3) 

45.8 (256.9) 

0.50 (2.3) 

0.40 (2.2) 

87.68 (15.62) 

10.3 (11.3) 

7.1 (8.1) 

1.05 (1.1) 

0.72 (0.82) 

87.17 (76.79) 

1.6 (19.4) 

1.2 (19.0) 

0.46 (5.63) 

0.36 (5.52) 

99.01 (6.40) 

0.4 (0.4) 

0.04 (0.0) 

1.30 (1.30) 

0.12 (0.12) 

91.25 (91.25) 

Czech Republic 

1.4 (1.4) 

1.2 (1.2) 

0.97 (0.97) 

0.78 (0.78) 

93.75 (93.75) 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

1.9 (4.7) 

1.7 (4.5) 

0.80 (2.02) 

0.71 (1.93) 

93.71 (34.47) 

15.7 (66.8) 

14.2 (65.3) 

0.63 (2.68) 

0.57 (2.62) 

86.93 (18.87) 

0.05 (0.05) 

0.01 (0.01) 

0.29 (0.29) 

0.09 (0.09) 

100.00 (100.00) 

1.9 (37.5) 

0.7 (36.3) 

1.05 (20.20) 

0.38 (19.53) 

84.50 (1.63) 

1.0 (1.0) 

0.8 (0.8) 

0.42 (0.42) 

0.33 (0.33) 

97.57 (97.57) 

5.2 (6.2) 

4.4 (5.3) 

0.48 (0.56) 

0.40 (0.48) 

78.91 (65.02) 

10.3 (26.8) 

7.6 (24.1) 

0.53 (1.37) 

0.39 (1.23) 

95.60 (30.17) 

35 Source: DG Competition, DG Agriculture, DG Mare and DG Transport 

EN 

16 

   EN 

                                                 
Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

5.5 (5.5) 

4.5 (4.5) 

0.35 (0.35) 

0.29 (0.29) 

85.30 (85.30) 

0.1 (0.1) 

0.1 (0.1) 

0.65 (0.65) 

0.47 (0.47) 

94.99 (94.99) 

0.2 (1.2) 

0.0 (1.0) 

0.88 (5.05) 

0.20 (4.37) 

99.94 (4.53) 

Lithuania 

0.3 (0.3) 

0.2 (0.2) 

0.82 (0.82) 

0.53 (0.53) 

100.00 (100.00) 

Luxembourg 

0.1 (2.9) 

0.1 (2.9) 

0.20 (7.83) 

0.15 (7.78) 

100.00 (1.88) 

Hungary 

Malta 

2.5 (2.5) 

1.9 (1.9) 

2.38 (2.38) 

1.81 (1.81) 

81.18 (81.18) 

0.1 (0.1) 

0.1 (0.1) 

2.00 (2.00) 

1.74 (1.74) 

2.26 (2.26) 

Netherlands 

2.2 (16.2) 

1.5 (15.6) 

0.36 (2.73) 

0.25 (2.62) 

97.81 (9.45) 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

1.3 (1.3) 

1.1 (1.1) 

0.46 (0.46) 

0.38 (0.38) 

98.67 (98.67) 

3.7 (3.7) 

2.9 (2.9) 

1.02 (1.02) 

0.80 (0.80) 

93.28 (93.28) 

1.6 (2.0) 

1.5 (2.0) 

0.93 (1.19) 

0.92 (1.18) 

16.34 (12.76) 

0.9 (0.9) 

0.3 (0.3) 

0.64 (0.64) 

0.18 (0.18) 

52.86 (52.86) 

0.2 (0.2) 

0.2 (0.2) 

0.66 (0.66) 

0.47 (0.47) 

89.16 (89.16) 

0.4 (0.4) 

0.3 (0.3) 

0.53 (0.53) 

0.42 (0.42) 

83.91 (83.91) 

2.1 (2.1) 

0.8 (0.8) 

1.13 (1.13) 

0.44 (0.44) 

98.37 (98.23) 

3.0 (3.4) 

2.7 (3.1) 

0.92 (1.03) 

0.82 (0.94) 

99.59 (87.77) 

United Kingdom 

3.8 (72.5) 

3.1 (71.8) 

0.21 (4.00) 

0.17 (3.96) 

90.99 (3.87) 

Table 9 makes clearly visible the impact of the crisis measures on totals by comparing total 
aid including or excluding crisis measures. 

As chapter 3 shows, crisis measures is aid granted to the financial sector and hence classify as 
sectoral aid. If the corresponding aid volumes were included in the total of the sectoral aid for 
2008, the share of horizontal objectives in relation to total aid to industry and services would 
amount  to  approximately  17%.  Around  83%  would  be  sectoral  aid  whereby  the  crisis 
measures represent the largest part of it (more than two-third).  

However,  the  analysis  of  horizontal  aid  is  more  informative  when  looking  at  State  aid  to 
industry  and  services  when  crisis  measures  are  excluded.  It  then  shows  that  horizontal 
objectives represent a share of almost 88% for aid granted in 2008 while sectoral aid stands 
around 12%. In absolute terms, aid earmarked for horizontal objectives amounted to roughly 
€ 46.3 billion in 2008 and sectoral  aid to about € 6.6 billion. It is  worth to note with respect to 
sectoral  aid  that  the  trend  shows  a  slight  decrease  of  sectoral  aid  between  the  period  2003-
2005 and 2006-2008, mainly due to lower aid granted to the coal sector.  

2.2.2. 

State aid to horizontal objectives  

In  21  Member  States,  at  least  three-quarters  of  all  the  aid  awarded  in  2008  was  for 
horizontal objectives of common interest 

EN 

17 

   EN 

Aid earmarked for horizontal objectives accounted for almost 88% of total aid to industry and 
services in 2008. The remaining 12% was aid directed at specific sectors36: financial services 
other  than  the  crisis  measures  (2%),  coal  (5%),  other  services  (1%),  manufacturing  sectors 
(2%) and other non-manufacturing sectors (less than 2%).  

In seventeen Member States, 90% or more of all the aid awarded in 2008 was earmarked for 
horizontal objectives. In Ireland, Hungary, Slovakia and Spain, the share of horizontal aid was 
between 70% and 85% while the share was significantly lower in Romania (53%), Portugal 
(16%)  and  Malta  (2%).  The  low  share  of  horizontal  aid  (and  thus  relatively  high  share  of 
sectoral aid) in Malta can be explained by a tax relief measure under the Business Promotion 
Act,37  while  in  Portugal  it  is  due  to  a  large  regional  aid  tax  scheme  (being  phased  out)  in 
Madeira  which  in  practice  benefits  a  limited  number  of  sectors.  In  Romania,  a  significant 
proportion of aid continues to be awarded to the manufacturing sector as well as to the mining 
industry.  

In  absolute  terms,  aid  to  horizontal  objectives  amounted  to  around  € 46.3 billion  in  2008. 
Compared  with  2007,  it  increased  by  roughly  € 7 billion.  Regardle ss  of  the  individual 
horizontal  objective  to  which  aid  was  earmarked,  individual  Member  States  contributed 
differently  to  this  increase.  For  instance,  Belgium's  and  Italy's  contribution  were  around 
€ 400 million,  Germany  and  Hungary  contributed  roughly  € 1 billion  each,  Spain  allocated 
€ 200 million  and  Poland  contributed  € 1.5 billi on.  The  remainder  is  dispersed  among  many 
other Member States. In this respect, only in few Member States were aid levels reduced for 
horizontal objectives (e.g. Sweden and United Kingdom) whereby sectoral aid also decreased 
in these Member States i.e. the reduction of horizontal aid was not set off by an increase of 
sectoral aid.  

The  additional  amounts  granted  were  found  in  Germany,  where  a  large  part  was  used  for 
regional  development  (roughly  € 900 million) 38  and  a  smaller  share  for  research  and 
development (about € 160 million). For Spain, the increase of about € 200 million was largely 
due to an increase in aid for regional development. Hungary also substantially increased aid 
(about € 1 billion), mostly favouring regional  development and employment. Poland granted 
aid of approximately € 500 million for  inter alia employment39.   

Large  disparities  between  Member  States  in  the  share  of  aid  awarded  to  various 
horizontal objectives 

When  comparing  Member  States,  it  is  important  to  bear  in  mind  that  aid  measures  are 
classified  according  to  their  primary  objective  at  the  time  the  aid  was  approved  and  not 
according to the final recipients of the aid40.  

The largest proportion of aid was earmarked for regional development (roughly 26% of total 
State aid for industry and services), which were in the EU-12 countries widely used (around 
44%), but also in Greece (75%), France and Spain (roughly 40% each). 

36  These percentages exclude those measures with a horizontal objective that are nevertheless earmarked for the 

manufacturing and services sectors. 

37  Case MT/6/2002. Accession Treaty 2003, OJ L 236 of 23.9.2003, p. 797, OJ C 227 E, 23.9.2003, p. 2. 
38  For instance N357a/2006 Investitionszulagengesetz 2007 
39  For instance XE 11/2004 Compensation des coûts liés à l'insertion des personnes handicapées dans les PME, 

N 575/2007 Secteur du charbon 2008-2015  

40  With respect to GBER measures which have objectives but no primary objective, groups of these objectives 
have  been  mapped  into  the  corresponding  primary  objective  in  order  to  receive  the  total  aid  earmarked  for 
horizontal objectives. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

                                                 
The  second  largest  proportion  of  aid  concerning  horizontal  objectives  was  allocated  to  the 
environment (roughly 24% of all total State aid for industry and services). Sweden (86%), the 
Netherlands (65%), Austria (42%), the United Kingdom (41%) and Germany (40%) devoted a 
substantial part of aid to these objectives. In contrast, the average for the EU-12 countries was 
6%. 

In third position was aid to R&D&I activities with a share of 16%. It was favoured mostly by 
Belgium (46%), Luxembourg (36%), Finland (29%), Romania (26%) and France (25%). 

Together, these three objectives represent two-third of total aid to industry and services in the 
EU-27 and hence are the most widely used horizontal objectives of common interest.  

All other objectives taken together account for roughly one quarter of total aid to industry and 
services: SMEs (9% of total aid)41, employment (6%), culture and heritage conservation (3%), 
training (2%), risk capital (1%), and other horizontal objectives (roughly 1%) which include 
objectives such as commerce and internationalisation and natural disasters. 

The  relative  share  of  objectives  is  considerably  different  in  the  EU-12  countries  where  the 
predominant  objective  is  aid  for  regional  development  (44%),  followed  by  employment  aid 
(19%), R&D&I (6%), environmental aid (6%) and SMEs (4%). The relatively high share of 
employment  aid  in  EU-12  is  due  mainly  to  a  Polish  block  exempted  scheme  for  disabled 
people.42 

Block exempted measures 
Table  1043:  Block  exempted  measures  as  %  of  total  horizontal  aid  to  industry  and 
services 

Trend in the share of exempted aid in total aid directed at the same horizontal 
objective, industry and services, EU-27; 2003-2008

%

100

80

60

40

20

0

Share of exempted aid in
Training aid

Share of exempted aid in aid to
SME (incl. R&D for SMEs)

Share of exempted aid in aid to
employment

Share of exempted aid in aid to
regional development

Share of exempted aid in total
horizontal aid

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Year

41  This  figure  only  captures  aid  exclusively  earmarked  for  SMEs  for  which  there  was  no  other  primary 
objective. For example, risk capital aid which accounts for 1.0 % of total aid (included in "other horizontal 
objectives") is also exclusively directed to SMEs. Indeed total aid granted to SMEs is much higher since most 
schemes  for  other  horizontal  objectives  such  as  environment,  regional  development,  research  and 
development are open to companies regardless of their size. 

42  XE 11/2004 Compensation des coûts liés à l'insertion des personnes handicapées dans les PME  
43  Source: DG Competition 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure  11:  Trend  in  the  share  of  block  exempted  aid  in  total  aid  directed  at  the  same 
horizontal objective, industry and services (EU-27; 2003-2008)  

Year

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Horizontal objectives in € billion
Share of exempted aid in %
Aid for SME (incl. R&D for SMEs)
Share of exempted aid in aid for SME (incl. R&D for SMEs)(in %)
Employment
Share of exempted aid in Employment (in%) 
Training
Share of exempted aid in Training (in %)
Regional development
Share of exempted aid in regional development (in %)
Total horizontal aid
Share of exempted aid in total horizontal aid (in%)

5.3
49
3.2
44
0.9
89
13.7
38
46.3
22  
Member  States  awarded  a  total  of  roughly  € 10 billion  aid  under  block  exemptions  for 
industry and services in 2008. Under the Block Exemption Regulations (hereinafter "BER"), 
aid is earmarked for employment, regional investment aid, SME and training. For aid awarded 
under the General Block Exemption Regulation (hereinafter "GBER")44, much of the aid was 
earmarked for the same objectives as the BERs provide.  

5.8
28
3.4
14
0.6
80
9.6
-
41.8
6

5.3
34
3.7
18
0.9
78
10.3
-
44.6
7

6.0
24
2.2
9
0.9
83
9.3
-
38.8
6

5.9
20
2.2
1
0.9
70
10.0
-
38.2
5

4.5
53
2.9
28
0.7
85
9.8
25
41.0
15

In  relative  terms,  block  exempted  aid  represented  a  share  of  approximately  22%  of  total 
horizontal aid to industry and services in 2008.  

For instance, almost 89% of training aid was granted through block exemption in 2008. When 
looking at the trend, training aid had been granted at a high rate through block exemption over 
the  entire  period  under  review.  In  absolute  terms,  training  aid  amounted  to  roughly 
€ 0.8 billion.  

In 2008, € 5.1 billion of aid was awarded for re gional investment aid. Compared with 2007, 
the  figure  represents  an  increase  of  € 2.7 billion.  The  main  contributing  factor  here  was  a 
regional investment scheme of around € 1 billion in Germany. 45 Although only introduced in 
2007,  block  exempted  aid  earmarked  for  regional  investment  aid  reached  a  share  of  almost 
38% of total aid awarded under the same objective only one year later.  

Member States awarded block exempted aid to employment amounting to around € 1.4 billion 
in 2008. It is an increase by € 0.6 billion comp ared to 2007. Employment aid exempted under 
block exemption represents a share of 44% of total aid award to the same objective. 

Finally,  block  exempted  aid  for  SMEs  amounted  to  € 2.6 billion  in  2008,  an  increase  of 
€ 0.2 billion compared to 2007. Block exempted SME aid has a share of roughly 50% of total 
aid award to the same objective.  

The main reason for the comparatively low percentage of block exempted aid for employment 
and  SME  in  total  aid  for  the  same  objective  can  be  explained  by  ongoing  high  expenditure 
under  a  few  large  schemes  authorised  prior  to  the  entry  into  force  of  the  block  exemption 
regulations46. In  addition, large French SME  schemes that  do  not  meet  all  criteria  for  block 

44 Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6 August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible 

with the common market in application of Article 87 and 88 of the Treaty (OJ L 214, 9.8.2008, p. 3)  

45  XR  31/2007  Gemeinschaftsaufgabe  „Verbesserung  der  regionalen  Wirtschaftsstruktur“  (GA);  36. 

Rahmenplan: Teil II A – Gewerbliche Wirtschaft 

46  In particular a Danish scheme for social measures in the employment sector (NN 10/2002, ex N 425/2001) 
and an Italian scheme to promote industrial production in less-favoured regions (N 715/1999, amended by N 
440/2006). 

EN 

20 

   EN 

                                                 
exempted  aid  account  for  almost  half  of  aid  to  SME  granted  outside  block  exempted 
measures47.   

2.2.3.  Trend in State aid for horizontal objectives and sectoral objectives 

Figure 12: Trend in share of primary objectives as % of total aid (2006-2008 compared 
with 2003-2005)48 

Trend in share of primary objectives as % of total 
aid (crisis measures excluded)

SME

Research &
Development

Regional
development 

30

20

10

0

Training

Aid objectives EU-27
2003-2005
Aid objectives EU-27
2006-2008

Employment 

Environment/
energy saving

Other horizontal
objectives

Total
sectoral aid (including rescue and
restructuring aid)

47  N 596a/2007 (approved on 11.03.2008), N 70a/2006 (22.06.2006), N 211/2003 (16.12.2003) 
48  Source: DG Competition. Note: Data cover industry and services only. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 13: Trend in level of aid by primary objective, EU-27, 2003-200849 

Trend in level of aid (horizontal objectives and sectoral aid) as % of GDP;
EU-27 (crisis measures excluded)

P
D
G

f
o
%

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

Other sectoral aid

Financial Services

Coal

Other Horizontal
objectives

R&D&I

Environment

Regional development

SME & risk capital

Employment & training

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

When looking at the trend with respect to aid earmarked for horizontal objectives in 2008, it 
has  been  broadly  stable,  now  representing  almost  88%  of  total  aid  to industry  and  services. 
Compared  with  previous  periods,  74%  in  2004  and  around  50%  in  the  mid-Nineties,  it 
confirms a clear upward move. The underlying trend also confirms the upward move on aid 
oriented to horizontal objectives. During the period 2003-2005 on average 72% of aid were 
earmarked for horizontal objectives while during 2006-2008 it increased to 84%50. 

Nevertheless, the long-term trend still shows that Member States direct a relatively high level 
of aid towards horizontal objectives. A clear positive trend was observed, to varying degrees, 
in many Member States. In particular, all EU-12 Member States are progressively redirecting 
aid towards horizontal objectives. 

Looking  at  individual  objectives,  the  orientation  of  aid  at  EU-27  level  shifted  in  favour  of 
regional development, environmental protection and research and development. Expenditure 
on other horizontal objectives was relatively stable while sectoral aid decreased51. 

2.2.4. 

State aid for research and development and innovation 

Overall Research and Development spending 

49 Source: DG Competition. Note: Data cover industry and services only. 

50  It  should  be  noted  that  the  average  share  of  horizontal  aid  in  the  period  2006-2008  is  slightly  higher  since 
rescue  and  restructuring  aid  granted  to  the  banking  sector  prior  to  the  entry  into  force  of  the  crisis-related 
Communications  were  classified  as  sectoral  aid  but  not  qualified  as  crisis  measures50.  By  excluding  them 
retrospectively, the share of horizontal aid as % of total aid to industry and services slightly increase for 2007. 

51  Crisis measures excluded 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
 
Investment in research and development (hereinafter "R&D") is a crucial factor to strengthen 
the  competitiveness  of  the  EU  economy  and  to  ensure  sustainable  growth.  The  Barcelona 
European Council in 2002 recognised this by setting a 3% of GDP target for expenditure on 
R&D by 2010. Two thirds of this expenditure should be funded by the private sector and the 
other third by public funding. 

Figures  for  2007  show  that  investment  in  R&D  is  not  sufficient  to  meet  the  Barcelona 
objectives:  for  the  EU  as  a  whole,  overall  R&D  investment  stood  at  1.85%  of  GDP,  with 
public R&D funding amounting to 0.62 % of GDP. Sweden and Finland are the only Member 
States  to  reach  the  3%  level  with  3.6%  and  3.47%  respectively.  Public  R&D  funding  is 
highest in Austria, Sweden, Finland, France, Germany, Denmark and Portugal, with all seven 
Member  States  above  the  EU  average.  Drawing  conclusions  from  the  so  far  sluggish 
development of R&D investment, it is clear that with growth remaining at the current level, 
the European economy will not achieve the Barcelona targets by 2010. Rather, growth needs 
to be accelerated and new impetus given to investment in R&D. 

State aid for research, development and innovation  

National  governments  have  a  range  of  measures  to  choose  from  to  fund  and  consequently 
trigger  R&D&I,  the  exact  range  and  balance  of  which  depend  on  the  national  context  and 
form  the  policy  mix.  These  public  measures  might  contain  State  aid  that  could  distort 
competition by favouring some enterprises over others. On the other hand, State aid may in 
certain circumstances be the best available option to provide incentives for additional private 
R&D&I investment. The Commission thus tries to strike a balance through the application of 
the framework on R&D&I aid thereby ensuring that R&D&I is furthered to the largest extent 
while minimising distortions of competition. 

EU-wide,  State  aid  expenditure  on  R&D&I  amounted  to  € 8.6 billion  in  2008.  This 
represented  a  relatively  small  share  in  public  R&D  funding  although  there  are  significant 
differences  between  Member  States  (Figure  10):  while  State  aid  to  R&D&I  accounted  for 
0.07%  of  GDP  in  2008,  the  overall  public  funding  for  R&D  was  0.62%  of  GDP52.  Eight 
Member States awarded R&D&I aid above the average level: Belgium (0.17% of GDP), the 
Czech  Republic  (0.14%),  Finland  (0.13%),  France  (0.10%),  Germany  (0.09%),  Austria 
(0.09%)  and  Hungary  (0.07%)  while  Cyprus,  Slovakia,  Greece,  Poland,  Latvia,  Malta, 
Lithuania and Portugal granted less than 0.01% of GDP. 

For the Union as a whole, the level of R&D&I aid increased from 0.05% of GDP to 0.07% 
comparing two consecutive periods 2003-2005 and 2006-2008. 

52 Public R&D expenditure in 2007 – data for 2008 not available 

EN 

23 

   EN 

                                                 
Figure 14: Public expenditure on R&D as % of GDP, 200853 54 

Sweden (3.60)

Finland (3.47)

Austria (2.56)

Denmark (2.55)

Germany (2.54)

France (2.08)

Belgium (1.87)

EU 27 (1.85)

United Kingdom (1.79)

Netherlands (1.70)

Luxembourg (1.62)

Czech Republic (1.54)

Slovenia (1.45)

Ireland (1.31)

Spain (1.27)

Portugal (1.18)

Estonia (1.14)

Italy (1.13)

Hungary (0.97)

Lithuania (0.82)

Malta (0.59)

Latvia (0.59)

Poland (0.57)

Greece (0.57)

Romania (0.53)

Bulgaria (0.48)

Slovakia (0.46)

Cyprus (0.45)

0,00

0,10

0,20

0,30

0,40

0,50

0,60

0,70

0,80

0,90

1,00

%of GDP

R&D aid Other public expenditure on R&D

2.2.5. 

State aid for SMEs including risk capital 

Aid to SMEs including risk capital amounted to approximately € 5.3 billion in 2008 of which 
risk  capital  represents  € 0.4  billion.  In  relative  terms,  roughly  10  %  of  horizontal  aid  was 
exclusively earmarked for SMEs, with risk capital contributing less than 1% to this sum.  

Aid  expenditure  to  SMEs  has  been  relatively  stable  over  time.  Expressed  in  %  of  GDP,  it 
remained at a level of around 0.04% of GDP (on average).   

2.2.6. 

State aid for environmental protection 

Aid  earmarked  for  environmental  protection  amounted  to  roughly  € 12.7 billion  in  2008,  of 
which € 2.9 million was granted through the GBER 55. In relative terms, it represents roughly 
24% of total horizontal aid56. 

53 Source: DG Competition and Eurostat. Note: Figures on R&D public expenditure are not directly comparable 
with State aid expenditure data as i) the source is different and ii) for many countries, data are not available 
for 2008. Nevertheless, the graph provides an indication as to the approximate share of State aid in total R&D 
public expenditure. While the graph itself shows public expenditure on R&D, the figure presented next to a 
Member  State'  name  indicates  total  R&D  expenditure  (public  and  private)  as  a  percentage  of  GDP.  This 
shows progress towards the Barcelona target of 3% of GDP. 

54 Member States sorted by the overall (public and private) R&D expenditure – presented in brackets as % of 

GDP 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
For the European Union as a whole, the trend of aid for environment increased from 23% to 
26% of total horizontal aid between the periods 2003-2005 and 2006-2008.  

Environmental  aid  encompasses  a  wide  range  of  objectives,  including  support  measures  for 
renewable  energy,  energy-saving,  waste  management,  rehabilitation  of  polluted  industrial 
sites and improvement of production processes. For these types of measures, aid granted by 
Member States pursues a direct benefit to the environment. State aid expenditure data for such 
cases  can  therefore  be  taken  as  a  proxy  measure  for  the  intended  environmental  benefit, 
regardless  of  the  form  in  which  the  aid  may  be  awarded  (grant,  tax  exemption,  guarantee, 
etc.).  This  represented  approximately  38%  of  total  environmental  aid  expenditure  in  2008 
(around € 4.9 billion). 

A second category of State aid measures assessed under the environmental aid guidelines are 
reductions or exemptions from environmental taxes. Here, the environmental objective of the 
measure is pursued by the tax itself. Any reduction or exemption from environmental taxes, 
i.e.,  the  part  of  the  measure  constituting  aid,  has  an  indirect  environmental  objective  by 
facilitating  the  introduction  or  modification  of  such  taxes.  Expenditure  data  currently 
available  for  this  category  of  aid  schemes  indicate  the  amount  of  tax  revenue  foregone  and 
can therefore not serve as a proxy measure of the environmental benefit the taxes themselves 
have  brought.  In  2008,  about  62%  of  total  environmental  aid  expenditure  (around 
€ 7.8 billion) fell under this category. 

The  overall  level  of  expenditure  in  environmental  aid  measures  in  the  EU  is  strongly 
influenced  by  the  largest  aid  grantors,  Germany,  Netherlands  and  Sweden,  whereby  in 
Germany and Sweden tax exemptions account for a large share of total environmental aid in 
each country. A CO2 tax reduction for industry and a tax exemption from the energy tax on 
electricity  led  to  a  remarkable  rise  in  aid  expenditure  for  Sweden  from  2003  onwards.  In 
Germany,  expenditure  rose  steadily  up  to  2006  following  the  approval  in  2002  of  measures 
that  prolonged  several  tax  exemptions  from  the  German  energy  taxation  on  electricity  and 
mineral oils. Following modifications to these tax exemptions, environmental aid expenditure 
fell  significantly  by  more  than  € 2 billion  between  2006  and  2008.  Moreover,  aid  granted 
through tax exemptions usually benefits energy intensive industries including sometimes big 
polluters which had to be accepted in order to allow for certain types of environmental taxes 
to be introduced. 

The Commission's Climate Change/Energy Package of January 2008 implemented a series of 
targets for the year 202057: 20% CO2 emissions reduction, 20% share for renewable energy in 
EU  energy  consumption  and  20%  increase  in  energy  efficiency.  The  package  included  a 
policy  mix  of  regulatory  measures,  including  new  Community  Guidelines  on  State  aid  for 
Environmental Protection.58 These have since been complemented by the new GBER adopted 
in July 2008 which included specific provisions for environmental protection. 

2.2.7. 

State aid supporting regional development and cohesion 

Aid earmarked for regional development 

55  The GBER entered into force only on 29 August 2008.    
56  Expenditure  data  currently  available  for  this  category  of  aid  measures  indicate  the  amount  of  tax  revenue 
foregone and can therefore not serve as a proxy measure for the environmental benefit the taxes themselves 
have  brought.  In  2008,  around  79%  of  total  expenditure  (around  € 9.9 billion)  was  aid  granted  through  tax 
exemption. 

57  Targets set by the March 2007 Council. 
58  OJ C 82 of 01.04.2008, p. 1. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
The  Commission  Guidelines  on  national  regional  aid  for  2007-201359,  applicable  as  of  1 
January 2007, clarify the general approach taken by the Commission to consider whether aid 
granted  to  promote  the  economic  development  of  certain  disadvantaged  areas  within  the 
European Union is compatible with single market rules The aim of regional aid is to develop 
the economic, social and territorial cohesion of a Member State and of the EU as a whole. 

The  Commission  encourages  Member  States  to  grant  regional  aid  on  the  basis  of  multi-
sectoral schemes,  which form part of a  national regional policy. These schemes provide the 
general conditions under which a Member State can grant regional aid, normally without the 
need  to  notify  their  individual  cases  to  the  Commission.  In  October  2006,  the  Commission 
adopted  a  block  exemption  regulation  concerning  national  regional  investment  aid60  which 
remains  applicable  until  end  2013  though  Member  States  may  also  notify  regional  aid 
measures under GBER. 

Member  States  granted  aid  earmarked  for  regional  development  of  about  € 13.7 billion  in 
2008,  which  includes  € 4.9 billion  aid  granted 
approximately 26% of total horizontal aid for industry and services or 0.1% of EU-27 GDP. 

through  block  exemption.  It  represents 

The  long-term  trend  has  increased  from  18%  to  22%  between  the  periods  2003-2005  and 
2006-2008.  Greece,  Poland,  Portugal,  Sweden  and  the  Czech  Republic  were  the  largest 
contributors to this increase while the increase and decrease in other Member States balanced 
each other out. 

Aid pursuant to Article 87(3)(a) and (c)  

Aid for regional development can also be looked from the perspective of aid in relation with 
provisions  of  Article  87(3)(a)  and  Article  87(3)(c)  EC  Treaty.  Article  87(3)(a)  provides  for 
aid  that  promotes  the  economic  development  of  areas  where  the  standard  of  living  is 
abnormally low or where there is a serious underemployment, so-called category 'a' regions. 
The  regional  aid  angle  under  Article  87(3)(c)  refers  to  aid  to  facilitate  the  development  of 
certain  economic  areas,  where  such  aid  does  not  adversely  affect  trading  conditions  to  an 
extent contrary to the common interest, so-called category 'c' regions. 

It is worth to recall that aid earmarked for category 'a' or 'c' regions may not have necessarily 
regional  development  as  horizontal  objective  but  it  can  be  earmarked  for  other  objectives. 
Due to this effect, the figures presented on the basis of the category, which follows below, are 
different from those above.  

In  2008,  almost  € 14 billion  of  aid  was  direct ed  to  'a'  regions  in  2008.  While  many  EU-15 
Member States have identified some 'a' regions within their country, the entire territory of the 
EU-12 Member States is eligible as 'a' region with the exception of Cyprus and the cities of 
Prague, Bratislava and Budapest. For several EU-12 Member States, almost all State aid for 
industry and services was granted as regional aid.  

Aid  to  'a'  regions  increased  in  2008  by  one  quarter  compared  to  2007  (€ 11 billion  to 
€ 14 billion),  with  Poland,  Germany,  Spain  a nd  France  as  main  contributors.  However,  the 
long-term trend shows a decrease from € 17 b illion to € 13 billion on average between 2003-
2005 and 2006-2008. Disparities between the Member States in the levels of aid reserved for 
assisted 'a' regions may reflect not only differences in regional policy but also the size of each 
country's eligible population as well as the extent to which each Member State grants aid at a 
sub-central level. 

59  OJ C 54/13 of 4.3.2006 
60  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 of 24 October 2006; OJ L 302, 01.11.2006 p.29 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Around  € 7.4 billion  has  been  reported  as  aid 
for  assisted  'c'  regions  in  2008.  All  EU-15 
Member  States  have  identified  some  'c'  regions  in  their  country  as  well  as  some  EU-12 
countries. Aid to 'c' regions decreased in 2008 by 23%61. Main contributors to this decrease 
were Germany and France. 

In  some  instances,  Member  States  reported  aid  aggregated  for  'a'  and  'c'  regions  which 
amounted to € 2 billion. 

2.3. 

State aid earmarked for specific sectors 

2.3.1. 

State aid for rescue and restructuring firms in difficulty 

Disregarding  the  recent  crisis–related  cases,  € 576 million  was  granted  as  rescue  and 
restructuring aid in 2008. This strengthened a downward trend observed in the last years. On 
average,  in  the  period  2003-2005  the  total  rescue  and  restructuring  aid  amounted  to 
€ 3.4 billion per year while in th e period 2006-2008 only to € 845 million. 

In the last six years, the extent to which Member States have (or have not) used State aid to 
rescue  and  restructure  their  ailing  firms  has  varied  considerably.  Eight  Member  States 
accounted  for  96%  of  the  rescue  and  restructuring  aid.  Romania  made  up  23%  of  the  total 
followed  by  France  (20%),  the  Czech  Republic  (18%),  Poland  (16%),  the  United  Kingdom 
(9%),  Austria  (6%),  Italy  (2%)  and  Spain  (2%).  This  does  not  necessarily  reflect  a  regular 
recourse to State aid for rescue and restructuring in each of these countries as one large rescue 
case  may  be  sufficient  to  place  them  in  this  group.  At  the  other  end  of  the  scale  are  seven 
Member States (Estonia, Ireland Cyprus, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary and Sweden) who did 
not award any ad hoc rescue and restructuring aid to ailing firms (in the industry and services 
sectors) between 2003 and 200862. 

Over this six-year period, the banking sector (excluding the crisis measures) accounted for, on 
average, 22% of all rescue and restructuring aid. 

Chapter 3 includes an overview of the recent rescue and restructuring aid cases in the banking 
sector. 

2.3.2. 

State aid to the shipbuilding sector 

In 2008, an estimated € 466 million was granted to  the shipbuilding sector mainly by Poland 
(€ 194 million),  Spain  (€ 86 million),  Germany  (€ 79 million),  Italy  (€ 26 million)  and 
Denmark  (€ 24 million).  The  amount  of  State  ai d  to  the  shipbuilding  sector  fell  from  an 
annual  average  of  € 736 million  for  the  period  2003-2005  to  € 387 million  for  the  period 
2006-2008. 

2.3.3. 

State aid to the steel sector 

Since  the  European  Coal  and  Steel  Community  (ECSC)  Treaty  expired  on  23  July  2002, 
general  State  aid  rules  have  been  applied  for  the  steel  sector,  with  the  exception  that  no 
investment or restructuring aid may be granted to steel production unless it is closure aid.63 In 
2008,  no  new  aid  was  authorised  by  the  Commission  for  the  steel  sector.    Ongoing 
this was principally granted by the United 
expenditure however, amounted to € 142 million; 

61  2007: € 10 billion 
62  It is worth noting that rescue and restructuring aid granted to the financial sector in these Member States has 

been covered under the aid volumes of the crisis measures.  

63  Aid under the Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 of 6.August 2008 declaring certain categories of aid 
compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (OJ L 214, 9.8.2008, p. 
3-47)  remains  possible  with  the  exception  of  regional  aid  favouring  activities  in  the  steel  sector  (Article 
1(3)(e)). 

EN 

27 

   EN 

                                                 
Kingdom (€ 100 million - climate change levy) as  environmental aid, by Slovakia as sectoral 
aid  (€ 41 million)  and  by  Ireland  (€ 0.6 million)  as  regional  aid.  There  is  a  clear  decreasing 
trend in the aid to the steel sector from an annual average of € 656 million in the period 2003-
2005 to € 160 million in the period 2006-2008. Th e downward trend can be largely explained 
by  the  fact  that  some  Member  States  such  as  Poland,  Romania  and  Sweden  stopped  or 
reduced considerably (e.g. the Czech Republic) granting State aid after the year 2003 or 2004 
to companies in the steel sector. 

2.3.4. 

State aid to the coal sector 

Again, as the ECSC Treaty expired on 23 July 2002, a Council Regulation established a new 
legal framework for state aid to the Community coal industry thereafter. 

The overall amount of State aid to the coal sector in the Union (EU-27) stood at € 2.7 billion 
in 2008, a 15% reduction compared to 2007 (€ 3.4  billion) and both the absolute amount and 
the  share  of  aid  related  to  current  production  continued  to  decline.  More  generally,  as  from 
2001, aid to current production decreased significantly and steadily in line with the agreement 
on  the  reduction  of  volumes  of  aid  to  the  coal  industry.  As  stipulated  by  Regulation 
1407/2002, the total amount of aid to current production to be granted annually should in any 
event not exceed the amount of aid authorized by the Commission for the reference year 2001 
(for new Member States – the year of accession to the EU). 

Reduction of the aid to current production was mainly achieved through a gradual closure of 
the  least  competitive  mines,  accompanied  by  considerable  reductions  in  the  number  of 
persons employed in the EU's coal sector. Relatively high coal prices in 2008 played a role as 
well.  Nearly  all  the  aid  not  related  to  current  production  was  directed  at  covering  the  costs 
incurred  in  the  process  of  (partial)  mine  closures  and  at  financing  so-called  inherited 
liabilities. 

Eight Member States granted aid to the coal sector in 2008. Germany and Spain continue to 
account for the bulk of it (around 90%). Broadly speaking, coal mining in the EU-12 Member 
States  is  more  competitive  than  in  the  EU-15  Member  States.  For  more  information  on  the 
EU's coal sector and coal subsidies, please refer to the Report on State aid to the coal industry 
 as  well as to the Commission's web-page devoted to coal issues65. 
published in May 200764
Commission decisions on coal-related state aids can also be found on the web66. 

In  view  of  the  forthcoming  expiry  of  Regulation  1407/2002  (on  31  December  2010),  the 
Commission has recently carried out a public consultation on the future policy options with 
respect to aid to the coal industry67. Future updates on this subject will be available at the coal 
page of the Commission's web-site. 

2.3.5. 

State aid to the transport sector 

Introduction 

State  aid  to  the  transport  sector  is  governed  by  special  rules  in  the  Treaty,  as  well  as 
secondary  legislation  and  rules  of  soft  law  (see  table  5  in  Annex).  Member  States  spend 

64 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0253:FIN:EN:PDF 
65 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/coal/index_en.htm 
66  http://ec.europa.eu/energy/coal/state_aid/decisions_en.htm  (EN or FR versions) and 

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/state_aid/register/ii/by_sector_b.html  (authentic 
language versions) 

67 http://ec.europa.eu/energy/coal/consultations/2009_07_15_en.htm 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
considerable resources for the provision of Services of General Economic Interest (SGEI) in 
the transport sector and for the construction, management and maintenance of infrastructure. 
The amount of State aid granted for environmental measures, such as aid for the acquisition of 
new transport vehicles which go beyond Community standards or which increase the level of 
the  environmental  protection  in  absence  of  Community  standards,  has  increased  in  recent 
years. 

With regard to public resources for the provision of SGEI, Community law foresees a number 
of mechanisms allowing for and encouraging the provision of such services. Member States 
must, however, ensure that the public financing granted complies with the rules laid down and 
in particular avoids overcompensation and the distortion of competition. 

Over  the  years,  the  public  financing  of  transport  infrastructure  has  raised  more  and  more 
questions  about  the  application  of  State  aid  rules,  as  many  infrastructures  are  operated  on  a 
commercial basis and either by private undertakings or under public-private-partnerships. 

Expenditure and trend 

For  the  transport  sector  as  a  whole  across  the  EU  (excluding  railways  -  see  below),  around 
€ 2.4 billion of aid was awarded per year ove r the period 2006-2008, a 3% increase compared 
with  the  annual  average  over  the  period  2003-2005  (€ 2.3 bill ion).  With  respect  to  the 
different transport sectors, the following developments can be observed: 

Maritime transport 

Almost  two-thirds  of  total  transport  aid  (around  € 1.5 billion  per  year)  was  awarded  to  the 
maritime sector during the period 2006-2008. 

Most  cases  in  this  sector  concern  the  public  financing  of  port  infrastructure,  social  aid  to 
seafarers and special taxation rules for shipping companies ("tonnage tax" schemes). 

Land transport 

Railways 

A  large  amount  of  public  financing  for  railways  does  not  need  to  be  notified  to  the 
Commission,  either  because  it  does  not  constitute  State  aid  within  the  meaning  of  Article 
87(1)  of  the  EC  Treaty  or  because  it  is  exempted  from  notification  in  accordance  with 
Regulations  1191/69  and  1192/69.  Member  States  are  however  required  to  report  to  the 
Commission  overall  public  expenditure  to  this  sector.  Over  € 46 billion  was  reported  by 
Member States for 2008. 

Disparities  between  Member  States  may  reflect  different  interpretations  of  the  scope  of  this 
annual reporting exercise (see table on website). 

Following complaints from competitors in this sector, the Commission initiated in 2007-2008 
formal investigation procedures in Germany and Denmark. 

Road transport 

Like  in  the  case  of  the  railway  sector,  a  large  amount  of  public  financing  for  bus  services 
operated  under  a  public  service  contract  is  not notified  to  the  Commission  either  because  it 
does not constitute State aid or because it is exempted from the notification obligation. As a 
result,  the  aid  amounts  reported  for  road  and  combined  transport  sector  -  € 836 million  per 
year on average during the period 2006-2008 - underestimate the amount of public financing 
of these services. 

Following  complaints  from  competitors  in  this  sector,  the  Commission  initiated  formal 
investigation procedures in Austria, Germany, Ireland and the Czech Republic between 2006 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
and  2008.  In  2008,  it  took  final  positive  decisions  concerning  public  service  contracts  for 
public passenger transport by bus in Austria and the Czech Republic. Further investigations in 
these and other Member State are ongoing. 

In the environmental area, the Commission maintains its policy of approving aid to favour the 
uptake of cleaner technology, in particular on old vehicles. In 2008 the Commission approved 
several  State  aid  measures  for  the  acquisition  of  lorries  satisfying  the  Euro V  pollution 
standard. 

Aviation 

Since the entry into force of the 2005 guidelines on financing of airports and start-up aid to 
airlines  departing  from  regional  airports,  the  Commission  has  adopted  a  number  of  positive 
decisions  (including  Germany,  Poland,  Ireland,  Malta,  Cyprus  and  the  United  Kingdom), 
relating to the two main types of State aid defined by the guidelines – State aid to airports and 
start-up aid to airlines. 

The  Commission  has  also  assessed  several  cases  concerning  the  public  financing  of  the 
construction of new airports, the extension of existing ones and the purchase of equipment to 
comply  with  safety  and  security  standards.  Since  the  operation  of  airports  constitutes  an 
economic activity, the Commission must assess whether the public financing has an impact on 
competing  airports  in  particular.  In  most  cases,  the  Commission  considers  that  the  planned 
investments  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  accessibility  of  the  region,  which  outweighs  the 
potentially negative impact on competition. 

The Commission is also examining a large number of complaints concerning investment aid 
and start-up aid. In some of these cases, the Commission has opened  a formal investigation 
procedure.  It  is  possible  that  the  public  financing  of  new  routes  is  in  accordance  with  the 
behaviour of a private investor acting under normal market conditions and in such cases there 
is no State aid. In other cases, the public investment does constitute State aid but can still be 
declared compatible if the conditions laid down in the 2005 guidelines are fulfilled. 

In 2008 the Commission also dealt with cases concerning the privatisation and liquidation of 
the Italian and Greek flag carriers. 

Over  the  period  2006-2008,  an  annual  average  of  € 100 million  of  aid  was  reported  by 
Member States for the air transport sector. 

2.3.6. 

State aid to the agricultural sector 

New cases registered and decisions taken in 2008 

When looking at cases registered in 2008 by DG Agriculture, 144 new measures were notified 
to the Commission and 146 were decided. 

Based on the primary objective, it appears that almost 16% of the 140 decisions involved aids 
for  investment  in  agricultural  holdings,  followed  by  12.6%  of  aid  to  compensate  damages 
caused  by  natural  disasters  or  exceptional  occurrences,  9.8%  of  aid  for  advertising  of 
agricultural products, 7.7% of aid to compensate farmers for losses caused by adverse weather 
conditions,  7%  of  aids  for  the  forest  sector  and  6.3%  of  aid  in  favour  of  environmental 
protection. Aid for combating animal diseases, for research and development and provision of 
technical support represented 4% on average (or 12.6% regrouped together). 

Of the new aid measures, 27.8% were notified by Italy, followed by Spain (15.3%), Germany 
(11.8%) and France (7%). The breakdown by country is marginally different when looking at 
block exempted measures: 20.5% of the 433 measures were communicated by Italy, followed 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
by  Spain  (20%),  Slovenia  (10.8%)  and  France  (9.5%),  Germany  and  United  Kingdom  both 
with more than 4%. 

Expenditure 

the 

€ 12.5 billion 

in  2007.  Th e  discrepancy  with 

The results of the annual reporting exercise, introduced for the first time in 2004, show that 
the  total  amount  of  State  aid  awarded  to  the  agricultural  sector  in  2008  is  € 11.76 billion 
compared  with 
total  for  2007 
(€ 12,79 billion)  published  in  the  autumn  2008  Sc oreboard  is  due  to  corrections  made  by 
Member  States  in  their  annual  reports  submitted  in  2009  for  the  period  2003-2008.  The 
highest expenditure was reported by France (€ 2 b illion), followed by Germany (€ 1.3 billion), 
Ireland (€ 1.2 billion) an d Finland (€ 1.2 billion). 
In  almost  all  Member  States,  the  vast  majority  of  aid68  was  granted  for  investment  in 
agricultural  holdings  (around  € 2391.4 million),  followed  by  € 1074.2 million  of  aid  for  the 
livestock  sector,  € 692 million  of  aid  linked  to   tax  exemptions  under  Directive  2003/96/EC, 
provision  of  technical  support  (€ 556.3 million),  aid  for  animal  diseases  (€ 487.5 million), 
protection 
agri-environmental 
(€ 410.3 million).  With  respect  to  investment 
in  processing  &  marketing,  aid  amounted  to 
€ 174.9 million.  In  this  amount,  a  portion  represen ts  marketing  aid  which  is  granted  to  the 
industry processing agricultural products69. 

(€ 431.9 million) 

environmental 

commitments 

and 

By  comparing  figures  of  2007  with  2008,  the  seven  Member  States  which  increased  their 
State aid expenditure are in descending order: Ireland, Slovakia, Poland, Portugal, the Czech 
Republic, Estonia and Germany; all other Member States spent less. 

Block exempted aid 

The  total  of  aid  granted  under  BERs  amounted  to  € 1.5 billion  in  2008,  corresponding  to 
12.4%  of  the  total  State  aid  expenditure  in  agriculture.  In  2007,  this  figure  was  8.55%.  By 
analysing  the  results  per  country,  it  was  found  that  89%  of  the  Latvian  aid  expenditure 
concerned  measures  granted  under  BERs,  followed  by  Greece  (72%),  Cyprus  (45%),  Italy 
(34%), France and Spain (16.6%). 

2.3.7. 

State aid to the fisheries sector 

Expenditure 

The  total  amount  of  State  aid  awarded  to  the  fisheries  sector  was  estimated  at  more  than 
€ 290 million  in  2008 70.  The  data  are  based  on  the  figures  received  from  Member  States' 
annual reports on existing aid schemes. Spain reported the highest figures with € 113 million, 
followed by France (more than € 75 million),  Netherlands (€ 34 million), the Czech Republic 
and  Ireland  (both  € 20 million).  Further  breakdown  of  expenditure  figures  are  not  available 
for the fisheries sector. 

Block exemption 

The  total  amount  of  paid  block-exempted  aids  in  2008  is  about  € 4.2 million,  with  Italy 
accounting for 65% of this total. 

68  Block exempted aid excluded 
69  A further mining of the data is not possible as the relevant detail which would be necessary for such purpose 

is not part of the scope of reporting.  

70  Estimation 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Eight aid measures have been block-exempted under the new block exemption regulation in 
force since 19 August 200871: XF 1/2009, 2/2009, 4/2009, 5/2009, 6/2009, 7/2009, 8/2009 and 
9/2009. These aids amount to € 16.7 million,  among which Spain accounts for € 16 million. 

2.4. 

State aid instruments 

All State aid represents a cost or a loss of revenue to the public authorities and a benefit to 
recipients.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  with  respect  to  subsidised  loans  or  guarantees  the 
actual aid element may significantly differ i.e. be lower than the nominal amount. 

The  choice  of  aid  instruments  which  Member  States  may  use  in  a  particular  aid  scenario 
largely  depends  on  the  aim  of  the  aid  measure.  In  this  respect,  the  crisis  measures  certainly 
distort the picture on the preference for aid instruments. The analysis therefore distinguishes 
between all measures and those excluding the crisis measures. 

State aid instruments and aid volumes in 2008 

2.4.1. 
Figure 1572: Share of aid instruments in total aid for industry and services,  

    EU27, 2008 

Aid instruments as % in 2008 (EU 27)

Grants
16%

Tax exemptions
8%

Equity participation
37%

Guarantees
35%

Tax deferrals
0%

Soft loans
4%

71  Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2008 of 22 July 2008 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the 
Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing 
of fisheries products 
72  Source: DG Competition 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 1673: Share of aid instruments in total aid for industry and services  

(crisis measures excluded), EU27, 2008 

Aid instruments as % in 2008 (EU 27) 
(crisis measures excluded)

Tax deferrals
0%

Soft loans
4%

Equity 
participation
1%

Guarantees
1%

Tax exemptions
42%

Grants
52%

When regarding total State aid  granted for industry and services (all cases) in 2008, the aid 
instrument used the most frequently was the equity participation (roughly 37%), followed by 
guarantees (35%) and grants (16%). Less frequently used were the other instruments like tax 
exemptions (8%) and soft loans (around 4%). It comes as no surprise that equity participation 
was  the  most  prominent  instrument  used  in  2008,  given  the  predominance  of  the  crisis 
measures whereby Member States often entered as share holder in banks. 

When  excluding  crisis  measures  from  total  aid  to  industry  and  services  in  2008,  the  aid 
instrument  most  frequently  used  by  Member  States  was  grants  (roughly  52%),  followed  by 
tax exemptions (approximately 42%). Much less used were the other instruments i.e. soft loan 
(4%), guarantee (around 1%), and equity participation (less than 1%). 

Many  Member  States,  e.g.  the  Netherlands,  Belgium,  Luxembourg,  Denmark,  Ireland  and 
Finland gave 50% or more of aid through grants. The remainder is relatively small, whereby 
soft  loans  represented  4%  and  guarantees  1%  whereas  equity  participations  don’t  play  an 
important role. 

73  Source: DG Competition 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.4.2.  Trend in the use of aid instruments (crisis measures excluded) 
Figure 1774: Aid instruments EU-27 as % of 3 year average (2003-2005)  

Aid instrument (EU-27) as % of 3 year average (2003-2005) 
(crisis measures excluded)

Tax deferrals
3%

Soft loans
3%

Guarantees
3%

Equity participation
1%

Tax exemptions
37%

Grants
53%

Figure 1875: Aid instruments EU-27 as % of 3 year average (2006-2008)  

Aid instruments EU-27 as % of 3-year average 
(2006-2008) 
(crisis measures excluded)

Tax 
exemptions
42%

Equity 
participation
0%

Soft loans
3%

Tax 
deferrals
1%

Guarantees
1%

Grants
53%

74 Source: DG Competition 
75 Source: DG Competition 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
The  comparison  between  the  periods  2003-2005  and  2006-2008  shows  a  slight  shift  on  the 
use  of  aid  instruments  by  Member  States.  On  average,  the  use  of  grants  was  stable  while 
Member States increasingly made use of tax exemptions. The latter can partly be explained by 
the fact that some Member States ran tax schemes where a relatively large amount of aid is 
granted by tax reductions. 

When looking to the period 2006-2008 in isolation, grants accounted for roughly 53% of total 
aid  in  the  manufacturing  and  service  sectors.  Many  Member  States,  e.g.  the  Netherlands, 
Luxembourg,  Denmark,  Ireland  and  Finland  even  50%  or  more  of  their  aid  through  grants. 
State  aid  awarded  through  tax  exemption  represents  the  2nd  largest  use  of  aid  instruments, 
roughly  42%.  The  remainder  is  relatively  small,  whereby  soft  loans  represent  3%  and 
guarantees 1% whereas equity participations don’t play an important role.  

This  situation  on  the  use  of  aid  instruments  varies  from  Member  State  to  Member  State 
however.  While  the  above  trend  for  the  period  2006-2008  broadly  follows  the  pattern 
displayed in many Member States, there are of course deviations in a few Member States, e.g. 
in  Sweden,  where  roughly  83%  of  the  aid  is granted through tax  exemptions and  only 17% 
through grants. In Portugal, the situation is broadly similar whereby only one aid measure, the 
Madeira tax regime, accounts for most of the aid volume granted. 

3. 

STATE AID IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS 

3.1. 

General economic background 

One year after the first rescue measures adopted in favour of individual banks, there are signs 
of economic recovery in the European Union. The EU’s latest Interim Forecast of September 
200976  sees  improvements  in  the  economic  situation  of  the  European  economy  where 
financial  conditions  have  improved  over  the  summer  with  several  financial  indicators 
returning to pre-crisis levels. 

The  contraction  in  overall  economic  activity  slowed  significantly  in  the  second  quarter  of 
2009  and  after  a  cumulative  decline  of  more  than  4%  in  the  fourth  quarter  of  2008  and  the 
first quarter of 2009, GDP contracted by a mere 0.2% q-o-q in the EU (and 0.1% in the euro 
area)  in  the  second  quarter  of this  year.  However,  despite  the  new  outlook,  the  fall  in  GDP 
remains unchanged at -4% in both the EU and the euro area for the year as a whole. 

The labour market situation remains difficult with an unemployment rate in July of 9.0% in 
the EU which is expected to deteriorate further in the second half of 2009. Public finances in 
2009  are  equally  expected  to  be  strongly  affected  by  the  downturn,  due  in  part  to  the 
discretionary fiscal stimulus measures taken by many EU governments within the framework 
of the Recovery Plan. 

The application of the State aid rules and, in a broader context, the regulatory, monetary, and 
fiscal policies put in place by the Union, the European Central Bank and the Member States 
are  providing  tangible  support  and  stimulus  for  economic  activity.  However,  there  are 
substantial  uncertainties  regarding  the  economic  situation  and  the  sustainability  of  the 
recovery remains to be tested. Several of the temporary factors that are set to boost growth in 
the  short  term  are  likely  to  diminish  over  time.  A  lasting  and  sustainable  recovery  might 
therefore need more time to materialise. 

76  European Commission, Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs, Interim forecast September 

2009. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

                                                 
Building on the recommendations of the de Larosière77 report and the discussions in the G20 
context, the Commission presented a proposal78 for reforming the way financial markets are 
regulated and supervised which should facilitate a return to market conditions. The proposal 
for a European structure for supervision and a European body to oversee the stability of the 
financial system as a whole will establish a new regulatory framework for banking operations 
in the European Union. At the same time, the global system will undergo substantial changes, 
subsequent to the European and US developments and the discussions in the G20 framework. 
In the meeting of 18-19 of June 2009, the European Council79 reaffirmed its commitment to 
restoring confidence and the proper functioning of financial markets. It stressed also that all 
policy measures at EU level must be consistent with single market principles, ensure a level 
playing field and provide for a credible exit strategy. 

3.2. 

Chronology of the crisis and the Commission's response 

The  purpose  of  this  chapter  is  to  provide  an  overview  of  the  Commission's  response  to  the 
financial and economic crisis from a State aid control perspective. More detail is provided for 
the Restructuring Communication for financial institutions as all other crisis instruments were 
already  presented  comprehensively  in  the  special  Scoreboard  edition  on  the  financial  and 
economic crisis in spring 2009.80  

The first signs of the financial crisis arriving in the EU were seen in early autumn 2008. Some 
banks, e.g. Northern Rock81, Sachsen LB82, IKB83, required state intervention to stabilise their 
business. State aid was granted under the existing rescue and restructuring rules.84  

The Banking Communication 

With the worldwide collapse of interbank lending markets in September 2008, mainly caused 
by  the  overall  loss  of  confidence  following  the  bankruptcy  of  Lehman  Brothers,  the  main 
priority  for  state  intervention  was  to  secure  and  re-stabilise  the  financial  system.  The 
Commission  in  its  Banking  Communication  of  October  2008  (hereinafter  "the  Banking 
Communication")85    laid  down  the  basic  rules  and  conditions  under  which  financial 
institutions  in  difficulty  could  receive  State  aid  in  the  form  of  (i)  guarantees  to  cover  their 
liabilities  and  (ii)  recapitalisation  measures.  The  framework  furthermore  provided  for 
measures in case of controlled winding-up of operations.  

The Recapitalisation Communication 

Since credit lending  conditions  deteriorated further in autumn 2008 and threatened to affect 
the  real  economy,  many  Member  States  considered  supporting  financial  institutions  with 

77  The High Level Group on Financial Supervision in the EU, chaired by Jacques de Larosière, Report, Brussels 

25 February 2009. 

78  On  27  May  2009  the  Commission  adopted  a  Communication  on  the  European  financial  supervision,  COM 
(2009) 252 final, describing its plans for putting into effect the recommendations of the de Larosière report. 
This Communication will be followed by legislative proposals in the autumn. 

79  See point II of the Presidency’s Conclusions of the Brussels European Council 18/19 June 2009. 
80  See Spring 2009 Scoreboard, pages 11-13. 

(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/archive/scoreboard_arch.html). 

81  NN 70/2008 Northern Rock 
82  C 9/2008 Restructuring aid to Sachsen LB  
83  C 10/2008 Restructuring aid to IKB  
84  See autumn 2008 Scoreboard, chapter 5, p. 51 

(http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/archive/scoreboard_arch.html). 

85  Commission  Communication:  The  application  of  State  aid  rules  to  measures  taken  in  relation  to  financial 
institutions  in  the  context  of  the  current  global  financial  crisis,  adopted  on  13  October  2008;  OJ  C  270, 
25.10.2008, p. 8–14. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
capital injections. The overall aim was to ensure that financial institutions continue lending to 
the real economy. In its Recapitalisation Communication of December 2008 (hereinafter "the 
Recapitalisation  Communication"),86  the  Commission  provided  detailed  guidance  on 
recapitalisation  measures,  building  on  the  criteria  already  set  out  in  the  Banking 
Communication. The Communication aims to ensure that such measures shall be designed in 
a way to take the individual situation of the financial institution concerned fully into account.  

The Temporary Framework for the real economy 

In  parallel  with  the  recapitalisation  measures  directly  addressing  financial  institutions,  the 
Commission by introducing the Temporary Framework for State aid measures87 (hereinafter 
"the Temporary Framework") saw the need to counteract the increasing difficulty of the real 
economy to obtain credit and other types of financial support. Member States were allowed to 
grant aid under existing instruments for all sectors of the economy through higher limits on 
grants, credit guarantees, loans and risk capital. The rules established by the Commission on 
the design of the measures have aimed to support access to finance thereby maintaining levels 
of investment.      

The Impaired Assets Communication 

While  temporary  rescue  measures  have  proven  to  be  an  important  tool  in  coping  with  the 
crisis,  they  are  not  viable  in  the  long  term/sufficient  to  support  long  term  viability.  Deep 
structural reforms of some individual banks are unavoidable and State aid cannot be used to 
delay the process. Cleaning up impaired assets is an additional measure that many banks will 
need  to  undertake,  often  in  combination  with  restructuring  measures.  The  Commission 
Communication  on  the  Treatment  of  impaired  assets  in  the  Community  banking  sector 
(hereinafter  "the  Impaired  Assets  Communication"),88  adopted  in  February  2009,  provides 
guidance for state interventions in the context of efforts of financial institutions to clean their 
balance sheets of 'toxic assets'.  

The Restructuring Communication for financial institutions 

Finally,  the  Commission  adopted  the  Restructuring  Communication  on  23  July  200989 
(hereinafter  "the  Restructuring  Communication").  This  Communication  complements  the 
three previously issued communications on State aid to banks: the Banking Communication, 
the  Recapitalisation  Communication  and  the  Impaired  Assets  Communication,  and  outlines 
the criteria that the Commission will apply to restructuring aid for banks in the current period 
in order to ensure long-term viability of financial institutions in the EU.     

Where  a  financial  institution  has  received  State  aid,  the  Member  State  should  submit  a 
viability  plan,  or  a  more  fundamental  restructuring  plan,  in  order  to  confirm  or  re-establish 
individual bank's long-term viability without reliance on State support. Criteria have already 
been  established  to  delineate  the  conditions  under  which  a  bank  may  need  to  be  subject  to 
more  substantial  restructuring  and  when  measures  are  needed  to  cater  for  distortions  of 
competition resulting from the aid. Member States must provide a restructuring plan where it 
has recapitalised a distressed bank or when a bank, in connection with the crisis, has received 

86  Commission Communication: Recapitalisation of financial institutions in the current financial crisis, adopted 

on 5.12.2008; OJ C 10, 15.1.2009, p. 2-10. 

87  Commission  Communication:  Temporary  framework  for State  aid  measures  to  support  access  to  finance  in 
the  current  financial  and  economic  crisis,  adopted  on  17  December  2008;  OJ  C  16,  22.1.2009,  p.1; 
consolidated version OJ C83 of 07.04.2009 . 

88  C 72, 26.03.2009, pages 1-22 
89  "The  return  to  viability  and  the  assessment  of  restructuring  measures  in  the  financial  sector  in  the  current 

crisis under the State aid rules"; OJ C 195, 19.8.2009, p.9 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
aid  (except  for  participation  in  a  guarantee  scheme)  exceeding  2%  of  the  bank's  total  risk-
weighted assets. For banks that are not distressed, i.e. fundamentally sound and have received 
a  limited  amount  of  aid,  no  restructuring  plan  would  be  required.  However,  Member  States 
would have to submit a viability review enabling the Commission to assess viability of these 
banks  and  the  Communication  explains  what  type  of  information  the  Commission  would 
expect to receive in these cases. 

With  the  Restructuring  Communication  the  Commission  has  explained  its  approach  to 
assessing aid for the restructuring of banks in the current crisis. 

The Restructuring Communication of 14 August 200990 

The Restructuring Communication is based on the same basic principles set out in the Community Guidelines on 
State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty91: 

-  Restructuring  aid  should  lead  to  the  restoration  of  viability  of  the  undertaking  in  the  longer  term  without
    State aid; 

- Restructuring plan shall provide information on the business model of the beneficiary 
- Stress test of the bank's business 
- Aid shall be granted for the minimum period and, in any event, for no longer than five years 
- Viability could also be achieved through sale of  the bank 

- Adequate sharing of the restructuring costs; 

- Limitation on the restructuring costs and use of own resources in the first place 
- Burden-sharing may also be required at a later stage  

- Measures must be taken to minimise distortions of competition; 

- Taylor-made measures to ensure effective and proportionate aid with a view to limiting distortions of 
   competition  
- Avoiding the use of State aid to fund anti-competitive behaviour 

- Monitoring of the restructuring 

- Detailed reports on the progress of restructuring, first report after six months  

- Commission applies the Communication under which Member States notify restructuring aid until 
   31 December 2010 

The new guidelines explain how the Commission will apply these principles in light of the nature and the global 
scale of the current systemic crisis. 

In order to devise sustainable strategies for the restoration of viability, banks will be required 
to  stress  test  their  business  and  to  include  a  thorough  diagnosis  of  the  bank's  problems. 
Special  attention  will  be  given  to  the  design  of  a  restructuring  plan,  and  in  particular  to 
ensuring a sufficiently flexible and realistic timing of the necessary implementation steps. 

Costs associated with the restructuring must be borne not only by the State but also by capital 
holders.  Nonetheless,  thresholds  concerning  burden  sharing  are  not  fixed  ex  ante.  Where 
significant burden sharing is not immediately possible due to market circumstances at the time 
of the rescue, this should be addressed at a later stage. 

90  Commission  Communication  on  the  return  to  viability  and  the  assessment  of  restructuring  measures  in  the 

financial sector in the current crisis under the State aid rules OJ C 195/2009 of 19/8/2009. 

91  Communication  from  the  Commission  -Community  guidelines  on  State  aid  for  rescuing  and  restructuring 

firms in difficulty,  OJ C 244/2004 of 1/10/2004. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Measures to limit distortion of competition by a rescued bank in the same Member State or in 
other Member States should be designed in a way that limits any competitive disadvantage to 
other banks while taking into account the systemic nature of the current crisis. 

The  "one  time  last  time"  rule  for  banks  in  crisis  would  not  necessarily  apply  if  such  non-
application is justified. 

The Commission's intervention in crisis cases 

Regarding  the  above-mentioned  Communications,  the  Commission  has  been  and  will 
continue playing a key role in coordinating Member States' action  with a view to maintaining 
a  level  playing  field,  preserving  the  integrity  of  the  common  market  and  fighting  harmful 
protectionism.  The  Commission  will continue to  monitor closely the  situation  in  the  market 
and  review  Member  States'  support  measures  in  order  to  ensure  that  they  are  designed  in  a 
way  to  limit  as  much  as  possible  competition  distortions  and  to  maintain  the  functioning  of 
the  single  market.  In  addition,  the  Commission  has  particularly  emphasised  that  support 
measures must be designed considering the medium-to-long term perspective, in particular in 
the  effort  of  swiftly  returning  to  a  competitive  environment.  Finally,  the  Commission  will 
support restructuring processes in the context of State aid monitoring. 

For  example,  the  Irish  announcement  to  cover  only  six  Irish  banks  by  a  state  guarantee 
scheme  presented  a  serious  risk  of  a  large  outflow  of  capital  from  non-eligible  competitors 
operating  in  Ireland.  Upon  the  Commission's  insistence  the  Irish  Government  confirmed 
within  days  that  the  guarantee  scheme  would  be  available  to  all  banks  with  subsidiaries  or 
branches in Ireland with a significant presence in the domestic economy. 

Similarly, when France announced its planned aid to the automotive sector which originally 
raised concerns concerning State aid and single market rules, the Commission stated without 
ambiguity  that  any  aid  granted  under  additional  non  commercial  conditions  concerning  the 
location  of  investments  (and/  or  the  geographical  distribution  of  potential  restructuring 
measures)  could  not  be  regarded  as  compatible.  After  intensive  discussion  between  the 
Commission  and  the  French  authorities,  France  gave  undertakings  to  avoid  any  conditions 
contrary to the single market rules. 
In Bradford&Bingley92, the Commission ensured that the beneficiaries of the aid will be the 
retail depositors of the bank. The State intervention allowed continuing the retail business of 
the  bank  through  selling  of  the  retail  branch  whereas  the  distressed  part  of  the  bank  was 
allowed to discontinue.  

It is important that State aid rules are properly applied in order to ensure a level playing field 
between Member States and between banks which receive aid and those which do not and in 
order to restructure banks in a way to enable them to resume their function of lending to the 
real  economy.  Besides  ensuring  an  adequate  burden  sharing  and  minimising  distortion  of 
competition, when assessing restructuring plans the Commission aims to ensure that proposed 
divestments  do  not  negatively  affect  the  achieved  integration  of  the  financial  markets.  For 
example,  KBC  has  received  a  first  recapitalisation  amounting  to  € 3.5 billion,  a  second 
recapitalisation amounting to another € 3.5 billion and an asset relief measure, which covers 
the CDO portfolio of € 20 billion. The latter meas ures were subject to the submission of an in-
depth restructuring plan for KBC Group. The restructuring concept ensured KBC's return to 
viability even in difficult economic conditions and presented a convincing exit strategy of the 
state capital. The Commission found that KBC's restructuring plan also adequately addressed 
the 
distortion  of  competition 

issues.  The  Restructuring  Communication 

requires 

92  NN 41/2008 Rescue aid to Bradford & Bingley 

EN 

39 

   EN 

                                                 
implementation of measures which would facilitate effective competition in the core markets 
of the beneficiary. In this context, the Commission assessed positively that KBC committed to 
divest  two  subsidiaries  acting  in  Belgium.  In  the  case  of  Central  and  Eastern  European 
countries,  which  represent  a  significant  part  of  KBC's  core  business,  the  Commission  noted 
positively  that  the  bank  intended  to  limit  its  expansion  in  certain  countries,  whilst  on  the 
whole  maintaining  its  main  activities  in  the  region.  The  Commission  found  that  it  could  be 
potentially damaging to the financial stability in the CEE countries and to the lending to the 
real economy, as well as to the Internal Market, should KBC be forced to withdraw from the 
region completely. 

ING  has  received  € 10 billion  of  capital  injection  and  an  impaired  asset  measure  for  a 
portfolio  of  USD 39 billion.  In  addition  ING  has  received  about  € 12 billion  of  liability 
guarantees  and  foresees  another  € 10 billion  of 
liability  guarantees  under  its  restructuring 
plan. The presented restructuring plan foresees a pro forma balance sheet reduction of about 
45%  by  deleveraging  and  divesting  a  number  of  businesses,  such  as  the  whole  of  ING 
insurance. In addition, the plan foresees that ING will carve out a viable entity in the Dutch 
market  which  will  be  sold  to  an  investor  with  the  aim  of  creating  a  viable  additional 
competitor.  The  Commission  has  assessed  the  plan  and  found  that  the  proposed  measures 
foreseen in the plan, including also a temporary acquisition ban as regards other businesses, 
raise no objections as the plan demonstrates that ING is able to return to long term viability, 
includes  a  significant  contribution  to  the  restructuring  effort  and  addresses  competition 
distortions to a sufficient extent. 

The  effectiveness  of  bank  support  schemes  as  well  as  the  overall  situation  regarding  the 
stability  and  functioning  of  financial  markets  has  recently  been  assessed  by  the  Council93, 
concluding that public measures taken since the third quarter of 2008 have contributed to the 
stabilisation  of  the  extremely  tense  financial  market  conditions.  However,  the  operating 
environment for banks is likely to remain challenging, in particular in respect of credit losses 
linked to their loan portfolios. 

93  Annex to the Council (Ecofin) Report to the 18-19 June European Council on the effectiveness of financial 
support schemes: Report of the Task Force on reviewing the effectiveness of financial support measures. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

                                                 
3.3.  Measures approved, take-up and review 

Figure 1994:   Overview  on  the  type  of  measures,  decided  in  2008  and  2009,  which 
Member  States  made  use  in  crisis  cases  (approved  amounts  in  Euro 
billion)  

Member State 

Guarantee 
schemes 

Recapitalisation 
schemes 

Liquidity 
interventions 

Asset relief 
interventions 

Individual  
cases 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Slovenia 

Finland 

Sweden 

580 

400 

37695 

15 

200 

265 

n. a. 

3 

4.24 

4.99 

200 

70.6 

10 

20 

12 

50 

150 

United Kingdom 

376.75 

13.5 

80 

5 

21.5 

20 

1.0 

13.8 

4 

4 

4.8 

63 

Total96 EU-27 

2737.6 

230.6 

1.5 

X 

288.3 

6.3 

107.6 

12.5 

59.5 

3.2 

7.3 

40.5 

0.1 

0.5 

n. a. 

0.5 

61.2 

1.2 

1.2 

587.4 

8 

50 

4.4 

 X 

X 

11.3 

75.2 

94  Source: DG Competition. 
95  For approved amount of Irish guarantees: data source is Council Report of 9.06.2009 
96  Certain totals include estimates and approximations. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
                                                 
Maximum volume of approved crisis measures  

The total maximum volume of crisis measures so far approved by the Commission, schemes 
and ad hoc measures taken together, amounted to around € 3,632 billion. This corresponds to 
around  29%  of  the  EU  GDP97.  This  figure  represents  the  overall  maximum  amount  of 
guarantee umbrellas, rescue and restructuring packages and other measures set up by Member 
States.  This  figure  should,  however,  not  be  mistaken  as  being  the  State  aid  element  of  the 
measures  i.e.  the  amount  which  was  actually  handed-over  to  beneficiaries.  The  aid 
expenditure  of  these  measures  can  only  be  assessed  ex  post  in  future  Scoreboard  editions 
depending on the actual implementation of the measures. For 2008, a first estimate is made in 
section 3.4. 

In  regard  of  guarantee  schemes  authorised  by  the  Commission,  the  approximate  maximum 
volume  amounted  to  € 2,738 billion,  which  co rresponds  to  around  22%  of  the  EU  GDP. 
Recapitalisation  schemes  amounted  to  approximately  € 231 billion 98  which  corresponds  to 
around  2%  of  the  EU  GDP.  General  liquidity  measures  and  asset  relief  interventions 
amounted together to around € 76 billion and re present around 0.6% of the EU GDP. Figure 
19 above presents a general overview of aid measures by Member State99. 

to 

In  addition 
the  Banking  and  Recapitalisation 
Communications, the Commission took decisions in several ad hoc interventions in favour of 
individual financial institutions amounting to a total volume of around € 587 billion 100. 

the  schemes  approved  under 

Time line of the approved crisis measures 

Most  of  the  general  schemes  were  approved  by  the  Commission  during  the  first  months 
following the publication of the Banking and Recapitalisation Communications101 i.e. October 
2008 to March 2009. The total volume of these measures amounted to around € 3,457 billion. 

Since  April  2009,  Member  States  have  only  adopted  eight  new  general  schemes,  which 
amounted  to  roughly  € 86 billion:  six  sc hemes  based  on  the  Banking  Communication102  as 
well  as  one  scheme  based  on  the  Impaired  Assets  Communication103  and  one  specific 
scheme104. When looking at all additional measures, the overall maximum volume amounts to 
€ 175 billion. 

Take-up rate 

97  EU-27 GDP of 2008 
98  It  includes  recapitalisation  schemes  and  schemes  combining  recapitalisation  with  other  measures. 
Discrepancies with the amounts published in the spring 2009 Scoreboard are due to the different classification 
of the schemes. The present edition considers liquidity interventions as a separate category. 

99  Aid measures have been classified following the same criteria as in Ecofin's Report made for the 18-19 June 
European Council on the effectiveness of financial support schemes: Report of the Task Force on reviewing 
the  effectiveness  of  financial  support  measures.  It  explains  certain  discrepancies  with  the  classification 
published in the spring 2009 Scoreboard. 

100  

Data with respect to Sachsen LB and Northern Rock, both decided in 2007, were not or only partially 

(as to Northern Rock) included.  

101  The  spring  2009  Scoreboard  was  focused  on  State  aid  interventions  in  the  current  financial  and  economic 

crisis and an overview on measures reviewed by the Commission until 31 March 2009. 

102 The UK's Asset-Backed Securities Guarantee Scheme (N232/2009), the Portuguese recapitalization scheme 
(N556/2008),  the  Finish  recapitalisation  scheme  (N329/2009),  the  German  refinancing  scheme  for  export 
loans  (N456/2009)  and  the  Polish  bank  guarantee  scheme  (N208/2009)  and  the  Cypriot  scheme  to  support 
credit institutions (N511/2009). 

103 The German asset relief scheme (N314/2009). 
104 The Hungarian Mortgage Support Scheme (N358/2009) approved under Article 87(2)(a), social character. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

                                                 
The take-up rate by banks is defined as the actual use of the measure relative to the notified 
approved amounts. The take-up rate can only be a preliminary indicator for the functioning of 
the schemes. A high take-up rate in a given Member State is not necessarily an indication of 
whether the measure is adequate or not. Low guarantee take-up rates in certain Member States 
are partly due to the fact that the amounts announced under the schemes are higher than actual 
need.  Moreover,  in  some  Member  States  banks  were  able  to  access  the  funds  easily  on  the 
market, often at a lower price. 

The  maximum  total  aid  volume  as  indicated  above  has  not  been  actually  implemented. 
According  to  the  Commission's  report  of  August  2008105,  the  take-up  rate  on  the  crisis 
measures  amounts  to  roughly  33%  with  respect  to  guarantees  and  for  recapitalisation  it  is 
roughly 55%.  

Limitation on application of the crisis measures 

The  Commission  also  introduced  time  limitations  into  the  various  frameworks  in  order  to 
ensure that crisis measures are in force only as long as they are needed to support the financial 
sector and with respect to the Temporary Framework the real economy106. As for the Banking 
Communication, it foresees that Member States review guarantee schemes every six months. 
This  allows  the  Commission  to  verify  whether  a  continuation  of  a  particular  scheme  is  still 
justified. The same rule applies with respect to the prolongation of recapitalisation measures. 
In  other  words,  crisis  measures  are  subjected  to  close  monitoring  to  avoid  their  application 
beyond the time necessary. 

Six months after the adoption of the early crisis measures, Member States have carried out a 
review  of  the  approved  guarantee  and  recapitalisation  schemes  and  most  of  them  asked  the 
Commission  to  extend  the  schemes  validity  for  an  additional  six  month  period.  So  far, 
eighteen schemes from fourteen Member States (Denmark, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, 
Italy,  Latvia,  Hungary,  the  Netherlands,  Austria,  Slovenia,  Finland,  Sweden  and  the  United 
Kingdom) have been prolonged.107 

Review of the crisis measures 

In the context of the renewal process, the Directorate-General for Competition has also issued 
a review of the aid schemes introduced by Member States and approved by the Commission 
with respect to their objectives of ensuring financial stability and restoring lending to the real 
economy while safeguarding the internal market and minimising distortion of competition108.  

The  assessment  emphasises  the  important  role  of  rescue  measures  in  avoiding  a  financial 
market  meltdown  and  restoring  market  confidence.  However,  there  are  still  concerns  about 
the quality of assets on the balance sheets of financial institutions. Equally, rescue measures 
have contributed to support the flow of credit to the real economy although financial market 
tensions continue to have a negative impact on the lending capacity of banks. As to the impact 
on  the  functioning  of  the  internal  market,  the  review  concludes  that  the  Commission 

105 For more detail, see DG Competition's review of guarantee and recapitalisation schemes in the financial 

sector in the current crisis, 7 August 2009 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/review_of_schemes_en.pdf 

106 The Temporary Framework is valid until December 2010, so as the provisions outlined in the Communication 

on restructuring measures. 

107  For  more  detail,  see  http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/overview/tackling_economic_crisis.html  and 
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/09/499&format=HTML&aged=0&languag
e=EN&guiLanguage=en 

108  DG  Competition's  review  of  guarantee  and  recapitalisation  schemes  in  the  financial  sector  in  the  current 

crisis; 7 August 2009 

EN 

43 

   EN 

                                                 
framework helped to prevent major threats to the internal market notably in the early phase of 
the crisis and provided a co-ordination tool in order to ensure maximum of coherence across 
national interventions. 

As  a  result  and  in  order  to  ensure  consistency  and  effectiveness,  the  Commission  has 
consolidated the requirements common to all schemes and identified new additional elements 
which are been incorporated in the prolonged and new schemes109. 

3.4. 

State aid110 granted in 2008 

109 See paragraph 33 of the DG Competition's review of guarantee and recapitalisation schemes in the financial 
sector in the current crisis. "…The Commission has identified in its decisions five additional elements which 
should be present in prolonged and new schemes in order to ensure consistency and effectiveness; The first 
three elements (limitation of the amount of recapitalisation, reporting obligation and the lending to the real 
economy)  have  already  been  introduced  into  the  schemes  in  the  context  of  the  latest  approvals  and  the 
notification of the prolongation of recapitalisation schemes. The last two (limitation of coupon payments on 
hybrid capital and individual notification for the second recapitalisation) are relatively new elements that may 
call for adjustments already in the ongoing round of prolongations…"  

110 Data on aid volumes refer to the aid element and not to the nominal amount. While aid element and nominal 
value  normally  coincide  for  grants, the  actual  aid  element  may  significantly  differ  i.e.  be  lower  than  the 
nominal amount for other aid instruments like guarantees or subsidized loans. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

                                                 
Figure 20: State aid related to crisis measures (2008; figures in billion €) –  Source: DG Competition 

Total 
volume 
approved 
in 2008 

Total 
volume 
approve
d 1.1. - 
31.03.2
009 

Total 
volume 
approved 
from 2008 
to 
31.3.2009 

Total 
volume 
approved 
1.4. - 
11.11.2009 

Total 
volume 
approved 
from 2008 
to 
11.11.2009 

Grants 

Equity participation 

Soft loans 

Guarantees 

Total crisis aid 
reported for 2008  

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Slovenia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Total EU-27 

255.15 

585.44 

545.23 

376.00 

28.00 

250.00 

341.25 

20.00 

7.44 

7.00 

217.75 

90.00 

20.00 

12.00 

50.00 

150.52 

405.15 

3360.92 

7.80 

13.50 

20.00 

5.00 

4.70 

5.99 

22.79 

0.45 

4.80 

11.25 

96.28 

262.95 

598.94 

565.23 

381.00 

28.00 

250.00 

345.95 

20.00 

7.44 

7.00 

5.99 

240.54 

90.00 

20.45 

12.00 

50.00 

155.32 

416.40 

3457.20 

288.31 

599.75 

589.13 

388.50 

28.00 

250.00 

345.95 

20.00 

3.00 

7.44 

7.26 

6.03 

240.54 

90.10 

10.00 

24.45 

12.00 

54.00 

155.32 

512.17 

3631.94 

25.36 

0.82 

23.90 

7.50 

3.00 

0.26 

0.04 

0.10 

10.00 

4.00 

4.00 

95.77 

174.74 

45 

EN 

Nominal 
value 

16.40 

0.50 

11.20 

Aid 
granted 
11.70 

0.50 

11.20 

8.86 

- 

- 

11.50 

11.50 

Nominal 
value 

Aid 
granted 

Nominal 
value 

2.35 

23.78 

2.35 

3.17 

30.40 

0.00 

137.10 

355.76 

99.13 

31.40 

Aid 
granted 
6.08 

0.00 

27.90 

35.58 

0.93  

4.98 

Nominal 
value 

46.80 

2.85 

180.94 

355.76 

99.13 

42.90 

Aid 
granted 
17.78 

2.85 

51.14 

35.58 

0.93 

16.48 

2.50 

2.50 

1.50 

0.30 

0.96 

0.96 

0.96 

4.00 

0.96 

2.80 

10.75 

10.75 

3.00 

3.00 

3.34 

0.33 

17.09 

14.08 

2.37 

4.30 

0.43 

4.30 

0.43 

0.26 

5.02 

13.89 

0.25 

46.47 

99.57 

0.25 

46.47 

94.87 

0.00 

2.86 

32.95 

0.00 

0.43 

9.92 

0.12 

1.14 

146.93 

811.12 

0.00 

0.11 

16.83 

93.48 

0.12 

1.39 

0.00 

0.36 

201.28 

68.75 

957.52 

212.15 

0.11 

3.79 

1.70 

   EN 

Total 
crisis aid 
granted 
as % of 
GDP 

Share of 
banking 
sector as 
% of 
total 
economy 

% 

% 

5.17 

1.22 

2.05 

5.4 

5.4 

3.6 

19.16 

10.9 

0.09 

0.85 

4.17 

7.64 

4.0 

5.1 

4.7 

4.8 

7.8 

6.2 

29.1 

4.0 

5.6 

5.6 

5.1 

8.2 

4.3 

2.9 

3.6 

7.6 

- 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
This  section  analyses  measures  implemented  by  Member  States  in  the  current  crisis  during 
2008.  It covers both individual early cases111 during the first phase of the crisis in which the 
Commission  applied  Article 87 (3) (c)  of  the  EC  Treaty  and  the  Community  Guidelines  on 
State  aid  for  rescuing  and  restructuring  firms  in  difficulty  (‘R&R  Guidelines’)112  and 
measures approved under the Banking and Recapitalisation Communications adopted in 2008. 

Measures  related  to  the  real  economic  crisis  approved  under  the  Temporary  Framework  are 
not covered since those measures only started implementation in 2009 and will be reported in 
the  Scoreboard  of  next  autumn.  In  sectoral  terms,  this  means  that  all  State  aid  measures 
referred in this section are related to the financial services sector. 

As set out above, the maximum volume of Commission approved measures set up by Member 
States in 2008 to stabilise the financial markets amounted to € 3361 billion. According to the 
annual  reports  submitted  by  Member  States,  Member  States  implemented  measures 
amounting  to  a  nominal  value  of  € 958 billion.  This  corresponds  to  a  take-up  rate  of  29%. 
According to first estimates, the aid element of the support measures put in place in 2008 – as 
proxy for the benefits passed by the State to the benefitting financial institutions – amounted 
to  € 212.15 billion 113,  which  represents  1.7%  of  EU-27  GDP.  The  Commission  approved  in 
2008  crisis  measures  notified  by  seventeen  Member  States.  Only  thirteen  Member  States 
reported that these measures were already implemented in 2008. 

While  the  Commission  approved  in  2008  measures  in  seventeen  Member  States  (see 
figure 20) in 2008, only thirteen countries aid related to the crisis actually granted in that year. 
In the case of Greece, and Austria, the Commission made its decision regarding a number of 
general  schemes  at  the  end  of  2008  but  implementation  at  national  level  took  place  only 
during the first months of 2009. In other countries such as Italy, guarantee schemes have been 
implemented, but no bank had during 2008 availed itself of such instruments. This partially 
explains why certain Member States did not report any crisis-related aid volume for 2008 in 
relation to crisis cases. 

In  absolute  terms,  the  United  Kingdom  granted  the  most  aid  (€ 69 billion)  followed  by 
Germany  (€ 51 billion),  Belgium  (€ 18 billion), 
the  Netherlands  (€ 18 billion)  and  France 
(€ 16 billion). The amounts comprise aid grante d under general schemes and aid granted with 
ad-hoc measures outside schemes. 

In  relative  terms,  State  aid  crisis  measures  amounted  to  around  1.7%  of  EU  GDP  in  2008. 
This  average  hides  significant  disparities  between  Member  States:  for  Ireland,  it  represents 
around 19.2% of GDP, followed by Luxembourg 7.6%, Belgium with 5.2%, and Latvia 4.2% 
respectively. 

On  average,  aid  earmarked  for  crisis  measures,  accounted  for  around  80%  of  total  aid  for 
industry  and  services  in  2008.  In  Luxembourg,  Latvia,  the  United  Kingdom,  Belgium  and 
Ireland,  aid  for  crisis  measures  represented  more  than  90%  of  the  total  aid  for  industry  and 
services. 

Concerning the aid instruments used by Member States in the context of the financial crisis, 
aid granted in the form of state equity participation was the most used and represented around 

111 See Section 1 of the spring 2009 Scoreboard. 
112 OJ C 244, 1.10.2004, p. 2. 
113The figure reported for Spain includes an estimated aid element of € 934 million attributable to the Fondo para 
la Adquisición de Activos Financieros (FAAF). The FAAF, pursuant to a competitive reverse auction, buys 
(outright  and/or  repo)  high  quality  assets  from  eligible  credit  institutions  in  order  to  provide  them  with 
liquidity. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
                                                 
45%  of  the  total  crisis  aid.  This  instrument  corresponds  to  recapitalisation  measures 
implemented by Member States. 

The use of guarantees made up 44% of crisis aid. This figure is relatively small compared to 
the total guarantee volumes approved by the Commission. This is due, in part to the fact that 
the aid element is generally much lower than the nominal amounts guaranteed and to the fact 
that amounts announced under the schemes were higher than actual need. Moreover, concerns 
relating to the strict temporal scope of the liabilities covered by guarantees and the pricing of 
guarantees raised by some Member States might have contributed to the reduced use of this 
instrument114. 

Finally, grants and soft loans represented together around 11% of crisis related aid. 

In relative terms, aid granted in 2008 through ad-hoc measures was considerably higher than 
aid  granted  through  general  schemes.  In  countries  such  as  Belgium  and  Luxembourg  where 
no general scheme has been adopted, total State aid related to the crisis was awarded to ad-
hoc cases (Dexia, Fortis, KBC and Ethias). In the Netherlands, Denmark, Latvia, Sweden and 
Finland,  despite  the  approval  of  general  guarantee  schemes,  most  of  the  aid  (98%  of  aid 
granted in the Netherlands, 100% in Denmark, Latvia, Luxembourg, Belgium and Finland and 
69% in Sweden) was also granted to individual financial institutions out of schemes (Dexia, 
Fortis, Aegon and SNS Reaal/New in the Netherlands, Roskilde in Denmark, Parex in Latvia 
and  Carnegie  in  Sweden).  In  another  group  of  countries  including  Ireland,  Spain  and 
Portugal, aid related to the crisis was granted exclusively through general schemes. Finally, in 
the  United  Kingdom,  Germany  and  France,  although  ad-hoc  measures  were  significant 
(Bradford  &  Bingley,  Dexia,  Bayern,  IKB,  Sachsen,  Hypo  Real  Estate)  most  of  the  aid  was 
granted through general schemes. 

3.5.  Measures adopted under the Temporary Framework 

Since the adoption of the Temporary Framework115 in December 2008, Member States have 
made  much  use  of  the  new  facilities  offered  to  support  access  to  finance  in  the  current 
financial and economic crisis. As these measures have been implemented by Member States 
during 2009, the information on aid granted in application of these schemes will be reported 
and  analysed  in  coming  editions  of  the  State  aid  Scoreboard.    This  section  provides  an 
overview116  of  State  aid  measures  undertaken  by  EU  Member  States  in  the  context  of  the 
current crisis and reviewed by the Commission until 30 September 2009. 

Before the end of the year 2009, based on the information provided by the Member States, the 
Commission  will  have  to  evaluate  the  functioning  of  the  Temporary  framework  and  decide 
whether  adjustments  would  be  needed.  The  Commission  prepared  a  questionnaire  for  the 
purpose  of  providing  guidance  as  to  what  issues  should  be  addressed  in  the  report  from 
Member  States.  Interested  parties  were  also  offered  the  possibility  of  providing  comments 
until 15 September 2009. 

It is necessary to stress that measures taken under the Temporary Framework are not intended 
to  remedy  pre-existing  structural  problems  and  therefore  do  not  apply  to  companies  in 
difficulties before the crisis. In the present circumstances, it is also essential not to delay the 

114  See  Sections  3.2  and  3.3  of  the  DG  Competition's  review  of  guarantee  and  recapitalisation  schemes  in  the 

financial sector in the current crisis. 

115 OJ C 16, 22.1.2009 p. 1-9. The consolidated version, integrating the amendments adopted by the Commission 

on 25 February 2009, is published in OJ C 83, 7.4.2009, p. 1-15. 

116  See  also  chapter  5  "Real  economy  and  financial  crisis:  The  'Temporary  Framework'"  of  the  spring  2009 

Scoreboard . 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
                                                 
necessary restructuring of the economy, absence of which could exacerbate the recession and 
its long term effects. At the same time, it is important to continue to target aid measures on 
investments  which  contribute  to  a  sustainable  economy  in  line  with  the  post-Lisbon 
objectives. 

So far, the Commission has authorized 61 schemes under the Temporary Framework: 

•  21 schemes for aid up to € 500,000 per compa ny proposed by Czech Republic, Germany, 
Estonia,  Ireland,  Greece,  Spain,  France,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Luxembourg,  Hungary, 
Malta,  Netherland,  Austria,  Poland,  Portugal,  Slovenia,  Slovak,  Finland  and  the  United 
Kingdom; 

•  16  guarantee  measures  in  Belgium,  Czech  Republic,  Germany,  Greece,  France,  Italy, 
Latvia,  Luxembourg,  Hungary,  Romania,  Slovenia,  Finland,  Sweden  and  the  United 
Kingdom; 

•  7  schemes  for  subsidised  loan  interests  in  Germany,  Greece,  France,  Italy,  Hungary  and 

France; 

•  5  schemes  offering  reduced  interest  loans  to  businesses  investing  in  the  production  of 

green products in Germany, Spain, France, Italy and the United Kingdom; 

•  5 risk-capital schemes in Germany, France, Italy and Austria; 

•  7  export-credit  schemes 
Netherlands and Finland. 

in  Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany,  France,  Luxembourg, 

Of  the  27  Member  States,  so  far  only  Bulgaria  and  Cyprus  have  not  used  any  of  the 
possibilities offered under the Temporary Framework while Germany, at the other extreme, is 
the  Member  State  that  has  approved  the  highest  number  of  measures.  By  the  end  of 
September 2009, Germany had adopted 7 schemes covering all the instruments (two different 
schemes have been adopted for reduced-interest rate loans as well as two amendments to the 
scheme  for  aid  up  to  € 500,000 per  company).  Th e  Commission  has  also  authorised  several 
measures  for  France,  Italy  and  the  United  Kingdom.  Another  group  of  countries  which 
includes Belgium, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania, Malta, Netherland, Poland, Portugal, 
Romania,  Slovakia  and  Sweden  have  put  in  place  only  one  of  the  different  possibilities 
offered  in  the  Temporary  Framework  (8  of  the  12  measures  were  schemes  for  aid  up  to 
€ 500,000 per company proposed). For more detail, see table 3-1 in Annex. 

3.6. 

Special reference to the car sector 

Concerning  State  aid  to  the  car  industry,  the  Commission  has  continued  to  enforce  a  strict 
policy in order to ensure that any State aid granted to this industry complies fully with State 
aid and internal market rules. In this context, the Temporary Framework for the real economy 
constitutes  an  important  State  aid  instrument  also  for  the  car  sector.  Under  this  framework 
only  companies  that  were  not  in  difficulty  on  1  July  2008  can  benefit  from  State  support. 
Companies whose difficulties had started before the crisis can only receive aid on the basis of 
the  Rescue  and  Restructuring  Guidelines  and  subject  to  a  restructuring  plan  that  shows  the 
company's return to viability. By way of example, the Commission approved guarantees to be 
issued  by  the  Swedish  state  as  collateral  for  a  loan  from  the  European  Investment  Bank  to 
finance green projects by Volvo cars, after concluding that this company was not in difficulty 
on  1  July  2008  (N80/2009).  The  Commission,  following  a  notification  by  the  United 
Kingdom,  also  approved  rescue  aid  to  LDV  Group.  Since  that  company  had  been  in 
difficulties for some time, the measure was based on the R&R Guidelines (NN 41/2009). 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
In the context of a number of cases, including aid granted by France to its car industry earlier 
in  the  year,  the  Commission  has  clearly  indicated117  that  it  will  not  accept  that  State  aid 
granted  under  the  Temporary  Framework  is  subject  -  de  jure  or  de  facto  –  to  protectionist 
conditions,  such  as  conditions  concerning  the  geographic  location  of  investments.  The 
Commission carefully examines every case that raises this type of additional non commercial 
concerns, in order to ensure that the aid is not biased by non-commercial considerations and 
can contribute to the future viability of this industry. 

The schemes offering reduced interest loans to businesses investing in the production of green 
products have been used by Member States so far largely in favour of  the automotive sectors 
(manufacturers and suppliers) although this possibility is open to all sectors. 

3.7. 

Special reference to the air transport sector 

The  current  crisis  seriously  affected  the  air  transport  sector,  which  overall  is  registering 
substantial  losses:  several  air  carriers  have  gone  bankrupt  and  others  are  facing  severe 
financial trouble. 

Following its decision to approve rescue aid in the form of a State loan guarantee in favour of 
Austrian Airlines in January 2009 (NN72/2008), in August 2009 the Commission decided to 
close  the  formal  investigation  procedure  into  the  privatisation  and  restructuring  of  Austrian 
Airlines  concluding  that  the  restructuring  following  its  sale  to  Lufthansa  is  compatible  with 
Community  law  (C6/2009).  The  Commission  has  concluded  that  the  price  to  be  paid  by 
Lufthansa  involves  State  aid  but  that  such  aid  is  compatible  in  accordance  with  the 
Community framework for rescue and restructuring of firms in difficulty. 

As  regards  land  transport,  the  Commission  also  approved  in  August  a  measure  notified  by 
France  (N362/2009)  in  the  context  of  the  national  economic  recovery  plan.  This  measure, 
which was found compatible with the common market under Article 86(2) EC Treaty (service 
of  general  economic  interest),  foresees  an  extension  of  certain  motorway  concessions  for  a 
duration  of  one  year,  as  a  counterpart  of  the  funding  by  the  licensors  of  works  aimed  at 
improving the safety and reducing the environmental impact of their motorway network. 

4. 

SIMPLIFICATION OF THE STATE AID RULES 

4.1. 

A new architecture for State aid control 

The SAAP adopted in June 2005, announced the Commission's intention to improve a number 
of aspects of State aid policy, and thereby transform State aid into a more effective policy tool 
for  growth  and  jobs.  The  plan  launched  a  review  of  almost  all  the  State  aid  rules  and 
procedures. 

Four guiding principles underpinned the reform programme: 

•  less and better targeted State aid; 

•  a refined economic approach; 

•  more  effective  procedures,  better  enforcement,  higher  predictability  and  enhanced 

transparency; 

•  a shared responsibility between the Commission and Member States. 

117 See Commission statements IP/09/318, on Opel: MEMO/09/460, MEMO/09/411, MEMO/09/389 and about 

the French car aid: MEMO/09/90. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In order to make procedures and decision-making faster and more efficient, the Commission 
introduced substantial changes to the architecture of its State aid control. This was achieved 
by  subjecting  the  various  aid  measures  to  a  level  of  control  which  reflects  their  respective 
potential  effects  on  competition  and  trade.  The  new  architecture  is  based  on  a  "3–stream 
system": block exemption, standard assessment and detailed assessment. 

Following  the  Action  Plan's  proposals,  implementation  of  the  SAAP  has  introduced  besides 
the block exemption mechanism the individual assessment with two basic levels of scrutiny of 
State  aid  notified  to  the  Commission.  In  principle,  State  aid  measures  notified  to  the 
Commission  are  scrutinised  through  applying  a  standard  assessment.  It  allows  making  a 
judgement on whether aid measures can be considered to be compatible with the Treaty. Only 
in  instances  where  doubts  cannot  be  removed  is  a  detailed  assessment  carried  out.  Through 
adopting this two-way approach, the Commission focuses its analysis on the most distortive 
aid measures, while also ensuring effective State aid control through the standard assessment.    

By  applying  a  level  of  assessment  proportionate  to  the  impact  of  the  aid  measure,  the  new 
State aid architecture assures a strict and practical form of State aid control in an EU of 27, 
where  it  is  impossible  to  assess  every  notification  of  national  aid  measures  in  full  detail. 
Furthermore, the new architecture facilitates and considerably accelerates the implementation 
of  compatible  aid  and,  thus,  provides  an  incentive  for  Member  States  to  introduce  better 
targeted aid measures that contribute to growth and employment, notably through R&D&I aid 
and risk capital.  

Regarding  the  assessment  of  cases,  the  majority  of  aid  measures  were  scrutinised  under  a 
standard assessment rather than a detailed economic assessment. A detailed assessment was 
carried out in 14% of R&D&I cases118 and in 20%  of  risk capital cases between  2007 until 
mid  2009119,  most  noticeably  in  areas  of  particular  relevance  for  tackling  major  societal 
challenges. That was for the example the case of a €68 million aid for the development of fuel 
cell power modules and decentralised hydrogen production systems in an integrated hydrogen 
energy  chain  (programme  "H2E"120),  and  a  €90  million  aid  for  the  development  of 
personalised  medicine  for  infectious  diseases,  cancer  and  genetic  diseases  through  a 
combination  of  in  vitro  diagnosis,  gene-based  therapeutic  vaccines  and  immunotherapy 
products  for  some  types  of  cancer  and  orphan  diseases  (programme  "ADNA"121).  In  these 
cases, roughly two thirds concerned aid granted through schemes or the individual application 
of aid within a scheme as well as some ad hoc cases. In regard of environmental cases, they 
were all dealt with under the standard assessment. 

Simplified procedure 

An additional novelty was introduced in 2009 with the Notice on a Simplified Procedure122, 
which  is  part  of  the  Commission's  simplification  package  that  entered  into  force  on 
1 September 2009123. The Commission aims to ensure that clearly compatible aid is approved 

118 25 out of 177 R&D&I cases 
119 10 out of 49 risk capital cases 
120 N 1/2008 
121 N 709/2007 
122  Commission  Notice  on  a  Simplified  procedure  for  the  treatment  of  certain  types  of  State  aid;  OJ  C136, 

16.06.2009, p. 3-12 

123 On the same day, the Commission adopted a Best Practices Code on the conduct of State aid proceedings (OJ 
C 136, 16.06.2009, p. 13-20). Its objective is to improve the handling of State aid cases by encouraging the 
use of pre-notification contacts and streamlining the exchange of information between the Commission and 
Member States. As a result, the quality of Member State notifications should be improved and the treatment 
of cases accelerated. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
                                                 
within  an  accelerated  time  period  of  one  month,  based  on  a  complete  notification  from  the 
Member State. In order to ensure more transparency and predictability of the procedure, the 
following features have also been introduced: in principle mandatory pre-notification and the 
publication of a summary of the notification on the website of the Commission. 

4.2. 

Types of aid measures used by Member States 

An  increasing  number  of  aid  measures  are  exempted  from  ex  ante  Commission  scrutiny, 
either by the de minimis regulation124 or by the new GBER. The rationale behind this change 
is that such measures are unlikely to have a significant negative impact on competition at the 
Community  level  while  contributing  to  objectives  of  common  interest  and  may  thus  be 
granted  without  prior  notification  to  the  Commission  provided  they  fulfil  the  criteria  of  the 
respective  legal  instruments.  For  State  aid  measures  that  remain  subject  to  Commission 
scrutiny prior to their implementation, Member States can notify aid schemes. After a scheme 
has  been  approved,  a  Member  State  may  generally  grant  individual  awards  of  aid  without 
further  notice  to  the  Commission.  Only  large  individual  applications  of  aid  schemes 
exceeding certain thresholds and individual aid (also known as 'ad hoc' aid) awarded outside a 
scheme need to be notified individually. In this context, changes to the state aid architecture 
have been under way since the entry of force the various block exemption regulations. They 
have continued with a further increase in the share of block exempted aid measures observed 
in 2008. 
Figure 21125: Trend by type of aid measures (numbers); EU-27 

Number of measures by Type (EU 27) 
(crisis measures excluded)

92

248

648

103

243

636

268

317

202

198

294

249

76

269

291

125

238

275

s
e
r
u
s
a
e
m

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Block exempted aid

Schemes

Individual aid

124Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of 

the Treaty to de minimis aid, OJ L 379, 28.12.2006, p. 5 

125 Source: DG Competition. Data refer to industry and services only. Note: The "number of measures" is based 
on the number of decisions taken by the Commission in a given year whereas the number of block exempted 
aid  corresponds  to  the  measures  reported  by  Member  State.  Due  to  differences  in  the  nomenclature  of  aid 
measures,  data  for EU-12  are  not  included prior  to  accession.  However,  it  has no  significant  impact  on  the 
graph. Note: Individual aid comprises ad hoc aid and notified individual application within a scheme. Block 
exempted aid comprises measures notified under the BERs and the GBER.  

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 22126: Trend by type of aid measures (volume); EU-27 

Aid volumes by type: EU 27 
(crisis measures excluded)

)
 €
n
o

i
l
l
i

b

n
i
(

e
m
u

l

o
v

i

d
A

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Block exempted aid

Schemes

Individual aid

In order to obtain a true picture on the trend in terms of numbers and volume for the different 
types of measures (e.g. block exempted aid, schemes and individual applications and ad hoc 
aid)  the  distorting  effect  of  the  crisis  measures  will  be  put  aside  for  the  purpose  of  the 
analysis. 

Numbers of aid measures 

A sharp increase in the share of block exempted aid measures (66% compared with 40% in 
2002)  was  observed  in  2007  and  this  remained  similarly  high  in  2008  (again,  at  65%  of 
measure). 2008 also saw a significant rise in the share of expenditure awarded under the block 
exemption  regulations  which  stood  at  around  19%  in  2008  (see  below).  Notified  aid 
accounted for about 25% of all aid measures in 2008, of which the proportion of individual 
aid was rather lower i.e. accounting for approximately 9%. 

Over  long-term,  the  trend  shows  a  steady  increase  in  the  use  of  block  exempted  aid  by 
Member States. It steadily increased between  2003 and 2006 from 25% to 41%. In 2007, it 
sharply  increased  to  65%,  mainly  due  to  the  entry  into  force  of  the  new  regional  aid 
framework  from  2007-2013  which  triggered  block  exempted  aid  earmarked  for  regional 
investment aid. This level of block-exempted aid was roughly maintained in 2008. 

This  development  is  accompanied  by  a  significant  reduction  of  aid  measures  which  were 
under  individual  scrutiny  by  the  Commission.  With  respect  to  notified  schemes,  the  rate 
which they represent of all aid measures declined from 40% in 2003 to 25% in 2008. An even 
sharper decrease was seen for individual aid measures, whether individual applications within 
a  scheme  or  ad  hoc  measures,  both  of  which  dropped  from  34%  in  2003  to  around  9%  in 
2008. 

As  the  numbers  clearly  show,  more  aid  measures  are  exempted  from  ex-ante  Commission 
scrutiny, either by the de minimis Regulation or by block exemption. In this context, changes 
to the state aid architecture have already begun to show an impact. 

Volume of aid measures 

126 Source: DG Competition. Data refer to industry and services only.  Note: Individual aid comprises ad hoc aid 
and notified individual application within a scheme. Block exempted aid comprises measures notified under 
the BERs and the GBER. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Block  exempted  aid  represented  almost  one  fifth  of  total  aid  volume  to  industry  and 
services 

On  the  basis  of  2008  data,  about  19%  of  the  total  aid  volume  to  industry  and  services  was 
awarded  through  block  exemption,  which  corresponds  in  absolute  terms  to  around 
€ 10 billion.  Aid  granted  through  schemes  which  were  under  scrutiny,  represent  the  bulk  of 
measures in terms of volume, roughly 76% (around € 40 billion). Individual aid accounted for 
only 4.8% (around € 2.5 billion). 

The situation seen in 2008 is the result of a positive evolution over the period under review. 
As to block exempted aid, its share of the aid volume to industry and services rose steadily 
from  6%  in  2006  to  13%  in  2007  and  stood  at  19%  in  2008  (which  in  absolute  terms 
corresponds to € 3 billion, € 6 b
illion and € 10 billion respectivel y). The main reasons for the 
increase were the introduction of block exemption for regional aid in 2007 and the new GBER 
in  2008.  With  respect  to  the  latter,  a  high  take  up  rate  is  mainly  due  to  the  replacement  of 
previous BERs. With the exception of Malta, Sweden, Latvia, Portugal, Spain and the United 
Kingdom,  most  Member  States  granted  more  aid  under  block  exemption  than  in  previous 
years. In particular, Germany, Belgium, the Czech Republic and Poland granted substantially 
more aid under block exemption regulations.  

As already seen with the BERs and block exempted regional aid in particular, Member States 
positively  included  block  exemption  in  their  national  designs  of  aid  measures.  The  newly 
GBER  follows  this  development  whereby  it  is  now  largely  replacing  aid  measures  awarded 
under the BERs. Aid objectives which have been newly introduced with the GBER represent 
a potential of future growth in terms of numbers and volume of block exempted aid.      

During the same period, aid volumes granted under notified schemes and individual aid were 
on  a  downward  path.  With  respect  to  notified  schemes,  the  corresponding  aid  volume  fell 
from  86%  in  2003  to  76%  in  2008.  While  ten  Member  States  reduced  aid  volumes  granted 
through schemes, the majority granted more aid through this type of aid measure.   

Even more positive is the downward trend of aid volumes granted under individual aid (either 
the individual application of schemes or ad hoc aid which both are almost equal in terms of 
aid  volumes  involved),  which  stood  at  10%  in  2003  and  came  down  to  4.8%  in  2008. 
Expenditure on ad hoc aid is quite balanced among Member States. Since the increase of ad 
hoc  aid  is  rather  small  in  2008  (around  € 10 m illion),  individual  expenditure  gave  a  rather 
dispersed picture.   

This  overall  positive  development,  i.e.  increasing  numbers  and  volumes  in  block  exempted 
aid  combined  with  a  downward  trend  on  notified  aid,  allows  the  Commission  to  focus  on 
examination  of  individual  applications  of  a  scheme  and  ad-hoc  measures  since  both  may 
potentially  distort  competition  most  and  allow  to  focus  on  unlawful  aid.  However,  they 
represent only a small fraction of State aid in the EU (4.8% in relative terms and € 2.5 billion 
in  absolute  terms).  Due  to  the  low  numbers  of  notifications  representing  such  aid,  they  are 
under effective State aid control since the Commission is freed from examination of "routine" 
State aid cases. 

Numbers and volume of crisis measures 

Crisis measures comprise eighteen aid schemes and twenty-three individual applications and 
ad  hoc  aid  cases  in  2008127.  In  regard  of  their  aid  volume  granted,  it  amounted  in  2008  to 
€ 134.4 billion and € 77.7 billion for individual a pplications of schemes and ad hoc measures. 

127 Including those approved in 2009 but granted in 2008 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
As  argued  in  chapter  1  and  2,  the  crisis  measures  represent  aid  addressing  an  exceptional 
situation due to the financial and banking crisis which begun in 2007 and continued in 2008. 
They represent aid schemes and largely ad hoc aid. See chapter 3 for more detail.  

5. 

ENFORCEMENT THE STATE AID RULES 

5.1. 

Unlawful aid 

Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty obliges Member States to not only notify state aid measures to 
the  Commission  before  their  implementation  but  also  to  await  the  outcome  of  the 
Commission's  investigation  before  implementing  notified  measures.  When  either  of  these 
obligations is not respected, the state aid measure is considered to be unlawful. 

In  the  period  2000-2008,  the  Commission  took  811  decisions  on  unlawful  aid.  In  22.8%  of 
unlawful aid cases (187 cases) the Commission intervened by taking a negative decision on an 
incompatible  aid  measure.  This  negative  decision  normally  requests  the  Member  State 
concerned to recover the illegally awarded aid. In further 2% of unlawful aid cases (15 cases), 
the Commission took a conditional decision.  

In  addition,  there  are  roughly  140  pending  unlawful  aid  cases  which  are  still  under 
Commission  scrutiny.  These  cases  are  usually  taken  up  by  the  Commission  in  reaction  to  a 
complaint  or  ex  officio  (case  started  at  the  Commission's  own  initiative).  The  figures  also 
include  cases  notified  by  a  Member  State,  but  for  which  the  measure  was  fully  or  partially 
implemented  by  the  Member  State  before  the  Commission's  final  decision  (i.e.  cases  where 
the standstill clause was not respected). 

The need for the Commission to intervene with a negative or conditional decision for at least 
a part of the aid unlawfully implemented by the Member State concerned is around ten times 
higher than for notified aid decisions. The share of unlawful cases in where Commission has 
found it necessary to intervene varies considerably across the sectors: approximately 56% of 
all  unlawful  aid  cases  in  the  industry  and  services  sectors,  followed  by  agriculture  (around 
24%), transport and coal (11%) and fisheries (around 9%). 

5.2. 

Recovery of unlawful aid 

Recovery in industry and services 

The SAAP underlines that the effectiveness and credibility of state aid control presupposes a 
proper  enforcement  of  the  Commission’s  decisions.  The  Commission  therefore  announced 
that  it  will  seek  to  achieve  a  more  effective  and  immediate  execution  of  the  recovery 
decisions, which will ensure equality of treatment of all beneficiaries.  

State of play 

The  latest  figures  indicate  that  significant  progress  has  been  made  in  the  execution  of 
recovery  decisions  since  the  SAAP  in  2005.  By  the  end  of  June  2009,  there  were  only  43 
pending  recovery  decisions  compared  with  94  at  the  end  of  2004.  This  improvement  in  the 
Commission's  enforcement  record  of  its  decisions  should  contribute  to  a  higher  state  aid 
discipline by Member States. 

In  the  first  half  of  2009,  three  pending  recovery  cases  were  closed  and  three  new  recovery 
decisions were taken. As of 30 June 2009, Spain had the highest number of pending cases (14 
which represents 25 % of the EU total), although nine cases refer to Basque fiscal schemes for 
which  the  Commission  has  initiated  infringement  proceedings  against  Spain  for  failure  to 
implement  the  Decisions  and  the  ECJ  judgment.  Italy  had  13  pending  cases  followed  by 
Germany (9) and France (6). It is also worth noting that there were no pending cases in 14 of 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
 
 
the 27 Member States. Table 4-3 in Annex provides the complete list of outstanding recovery 
decisions. 

Recovery  of  illegal  incompatible  State  aid  is  still  a  lengthy  process:  Of  the  43  pending 
recovery cases, 22 were adopted more than four years ago, and 6 more than eight years ago. 
Significant efforts have and are being made to implement the oldest recovery decisions. 

Amounts from recovery  

Table  4-1  in  Annex  provides  data  on  the  amounts  of  aid  to  be  recovered  under  the  136 
recovery  decisions  adopted  since  2000.  For  130  of  these  decisions,  relatively  accurate 
information  exists  on  the  amount  of  aid  involved.  This  information  shows  that  the  total 
amount of aid to be recovered on the basis of decisions adopted between 1 January 2000 and 
30 June 2009 is more than € 10.3 billion. 

Of  the  € 10.348 billion  of  aid  to  be  recove red  under  decisions  adopted  since  2000,  some 
€ 8.130 billion of aid had been effectively re covered by 30/06/2006. A further € 1.277 billion 
of  illegal  and  incompatible  aid  was  “lost”  in  bankruptcy  proceedings.  This  means  that 
recovery  has  been  completed  in  relation  to  a  total  amount  of  € 9.407 billion  of  illegal  and 
incompatible  aid  (i.e.  € 8.130 billion  of  aid  ef fectively  recovered  and  € 1.277 billion  of  aid 
lost  in  bankruptcy  proceedings).  This  represents  90.9%  of  the  total  amount  of  illegal  and 
incompatible aid to be recovered under recovery decisions adopted since 1/1/2000 (compared 
to  90.7%  on  31/12/2008).  Taking  into  account  the  further  € 214 million  of  illegal  and 
incompatible aid that has been registered in ongoing bankruptcy proceedings (which represent 
1.7%  of  total  aid  to  be  recovered),  we  can  therefore  conclude  that,  in  money  terms,  the 
recovery decisions adopted since 1/1/2000 have been executed for close to 92.6%. 

Another important step towards better execution of recovery decisions in the future was the 
adoption  in  October  2007  of  the  Notice  on  the  Implementation  of  recovery  decisions.  The 
Notice  emphasises  that  improving  the  enforcement  of  State  aid  decisions  is  a  shared 
responsibility  between  the  Commission  and  the  Member  States.  It  recalls  the  principles 
applying to the recovery of State aid as confirmed by the Community Courts and defines the 
respective role of the Commission and the Member States in the recovery procedures. 

The Commission is monitoring the execution of recovery decisions by Member States more 
closely.  Where  Member  States  do  not  take  all  measures  available  to  implement  such 
decisions,  the  Commission  has  taken  the  line  to  systematically  initiate  infringement 
proceedings against the Member State concerned in accordance with Articles 88(2), 226 and 
228(2) of the EC Treaty. A complete list of these cases is available on the DG Competition 
website128 and in Table 4-4 in Annex. 

Recovery in the agricultural sector 

While the Commission has taken 14 recovery decisions since 1999, as of 30 June 2009, there 
were  10  pending  recovery  cases  with  around  € 1.3  billion  of  aid  yet  to  be  recovered.  One 
Italian  case  and  one  new  French  case  have  been  added  in  comparison  to  the  former 
scoreboard. No cases have been closed in the first semester of 2009. 

As  indicated  in  the  previous  editions  of  the  Scoreboard,  the  availability  of  information  on 
amounts to be recovered is limited in the case of aid schemes. The Commission continues its 
efforts to obtain information from the Member States on the aid amounts involved. 

128 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/recovery.html 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
So far, no infringement procedures have been brought before the ECJ on the basis of article 
88(2) EC Treaty. 

Recovery in the fisheries sector 

In the area of fisheries, there were 3 recovery decisions involving France (2 in 2004 and 1 in 
2008) and 3 recovery decisions involving the United Kingdom in 2007. The total amount was 
significantly less than € 1 million. More de tail can be found in Table 4-2 in Annex. 

Recovery in the transport sector 

As regards the air transport sector, the Commission has taken a number of recovery decisions 
involving  Italy  (Alitalia)  and  Greece  (Olympic  Airways,  Olympic  Airways  Services  and 
Olympic Airlines) since 2000. The exact amount to be recovered in each case is not known 
due to a lack of precise data from the national authorities but the total exceeds € 1.5 billion. 
Some  recovery  has  already  taken  place  and,  with  regard  to  the  outstanding  amounts,  the 
recovery claims are/will be included in the liquidation processes of the respective companies. 

In the case of Alitalia, the Italian authorities are required to recover EUR 300 million from the 
company  in  accordance  with  the  Commission  Decision  of  12  November  2008.  Italy  has 
informed  the  Commission  that  this  amount  has  been  registered  before  the  relevant  judicial 
authority responsible for the liquidation of Alitalia 

In the case of Olympic Airways, in December 2002 the Commission found that Greece had 
granted illegal restructuring aid to the company between 1998 and 2002. On 12th May 2005, 
the European Court of Justice confirmed that the Greek authorities had failed to recover EUR 
161 million of illegal aid from the airline. On 7th July 2009 the ECJ therefore imposed a lump 
sum penalty of EUR 2 million and a periodic penalty of EUR 16,000 per day on Greece for its 
partial  failure  to  comply  with  the  earlier  judgement  of  12  May  2005.  The  decision  of  the 
Court to impose both a lump sum payment and a periodic penalty payment was taken in view 
of the seriousness and duration of the infringement. 

5.3. 

Enforcement of State aid Law: Cooperation with national courts 

The  Commission  considers  that  State  aid  enforcement  by  national  courts  can  play  an 
important role in the overall system of State aid control. National courts are often well placed 
to protect individual rights affected by violations of the State aid rules and can offer quick and 
effective remedies to third parties. 

In  order  to  develop  the  potential  of  private  State  aid  enforcement,  the  Commission  has 
recently adopted a new Notice on the Enforcement of State Aid Law by National Courts129. 
This  new  Notice  replaces  the  existing  1995  Notice  on  Cooperation  with  National  Courts130 
and has two main objectives: 

•  The new Notice seeks to give clear guidance to national courts and to potential claimants 
on the different issues which can arise in the context of domestic State aid litigation. This 
guidance is based on the jurisprudence of the Community courts and covers issues such as 
the  remedies  available  to  third  parties,  procedural  matters  (such  as  legal  standing),  the 
circumstances in which a national court should issue interim measures and the conditions 
for claiming damages in the event of a breach of the State aid rules. 

129 Commission Notice on the enforcement of State aid law by national courts (OJ C 85, 9.4.2009, p. 1). 
130 Commission Notice on cooperation between national courts and the Commission in the State aid field (OJ C 

312, 23.11.1995, p. 8).  

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
•  In  addition,  the  Commission  seeks,  through  the  new  Notice,  to  intensify  its  co-operation 
with  national  courts  in  individual  cases.  This  appears  necessary  given  that  the  generic 
cooperation  mechanism  referred  to  in  the  1995  Cooperation  Notice  has  not  been  used 
extensively.  The  Commission  has  therefore  now  decided  to  introduce  more  practical  and 
user-friendly  co-operation  mechanisms  along  the  lines  of  those  already  available  in  the 
antitrust area131. 

Following  the  adoption  of  the  New  Notice  the  Commission  plans  to  intensify  its  advocacy 
efforts  in  the  area  of  private  State  aid  enforcement.  This  will  include,  amongst  other 
initiatives,  making  dedicated  State  aid  resources  available  to  national  judges  and  the 
publishing selected State aid materials. 

5.4. 

Ex-post monitoring 

With the entry into force, in August 2008, of the GBER an increasing number of aid measures 
are  no  longer  subject  to  the  notification  obligation.  By  August  2009,  about  2000  state  aid 
measures have been implemented on the basis of this Regulation. Article 10 of that regulation 
constitutes the basis for realising ex-post monitoring on a sample basis. The purpose of such 
exercises  is  to  ensure  a  continued  proper  enforcement  of  the  State  aid  instruments  allowing 
Member  States  to  grant  aid  without  prior  notification  and  subsequent  individual  prior 
approval of the Commission. 

In the light of the above, DG Competition has run in the years 2006, 2007 and 2008, a series 
of  sample-based  monitoring  exercises  covering  both  approved  aid  schemes  and  measures 
adopted  under  BERs.  As  already  indicated  in  the  Autumn  2008  Scoreboard  (point  3.4),  the 
Commission  has,  with  these  three  combined  exercises,  covered  significant  sections  of  the 
different  substantive  areas  of  aid.  Monitoring  exercises  currently  take  place  at  two  levels:  a 
first  check  takes  place  at  the  level  of  the  scheme,  with  a  view  to  examining  whether  the 
national  legislation  is  in  line  with  the  approval  decision/BER;  a  second  level  of  check 
concerns  important  individual  decisions  implementing  such  schemes.  DG  Competition  has 
now addressed aid measures adopted by almost all Member States. 

The  analysis  of  the  results  of  the  first  three  exercises  shows  that  overall,  existing  state  aid 
architecture  allowing  for  the  approval  of  aid  schemes  and  allowing  Member  States  to 
implement aid measures under BERs functions in a satisfactory manner. In a small minority 
of cases, substantive problems or procedural issues have been identified. The cases where no 
appropriate  solution  has  yet  been  found  with  the  Member  State  concerned  are  still  under 
investigation. 

131 Commission Notice on the cooperation between the Commission and the courts of the EU Member States in 

the application of Articles 81 and 82 EC (OJ C 101, 27.4.2004, p. 54). 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

132 

The Scoreboard covers State aid as defined under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty that Member 
States  granted  up  to  the  end  of  2008.  All  State  aid  data  refer  to  the  implementation  of 
Commission decisions  but  exclude cases which  are still under  examination. Figures may be 
different  from  those  published  in  previous  Scoreboards:  firstly,  finalised  data  may  now 
replace provisional figures or estimates; second, when the Commission takes a decision on a 
non-notified  aid  measure,  the  aid  in  question  is  attributed  to  the  year(s)  in  which  it  was 
awarded.  In  cases  resulting  in  expenditure  over  a  number  of  years,  the  total  amount  is 
generally  attributed  to  each  of  the  years  in  which  expenditure  took  place.  All  data  are 
provided in million (or billion where appropriate) Euro at constant 2000 prices but have been 
re-referenced  on  the  year  2008.  In  this  respect,  expenditure  figures  published  in  2007  may 
change  in  the  2008  edition  due  to  taking  into  account  inflation.  Community  funds  and 
instruments are excluded.  
It is important to bear in mind that some aid measures pose difficulty when quantifying133. In 
particular  tax  schemes  may  involve  substantial  amounts  of  aid  which  may,  if  corrected  at  a 
later stage, contribute to a small shift in the distribution of horizontal or sectoral aid.  

With respect to figures expressed in % of GDP, these are measured in reference to the year to 
which expenditure data relate. 

As comparable data on transport and agriculture are not available to the necessary degree, in 
particular from EU-12, observations on the underlying trend are based on data for total aid for 
industry and services (i.e. total aid less agriculture, fisheries and transport). 

Aid measures qualify as crisis measures if they were adopted under sector specific State aid 
rules  introduced  in  the  context  of  the  current  global  financial  crisis  (for  more  detail  on  the 
individual Communications, see chapter 3). Measures which respond to the financial crisis but 
were  approved  prior  the  State  aid  rules  aforementioned  do  also  count  as  crisis  measures.  In 
this respect, such aid measures classify as sectoral aid. For the purpose of the analysis above, 
the volumes on crisis measures may be excluded from the total of sectoral aid with a view to 
achieve  a  true  picture  on  State  aid  expenditure  without  the  distorting  effect  of  the  crisis 
measures.    

Where actual expenditure data were not available, Member States provided an estimate on the 
aid  element  for  measures  implemented  during  2008.  In  the  absence  of  these  estimates  and 
only  for  the  purpose  of  producing  the  Scoreboard,  the  Commission  services  have  used  the 
standard  method  of  assessing  the  aid  element.  With  respect  to  the  crisis  measures,  the 
standard method has been applied as follows: 

Guarantees: 

•  For  guarantee  schemes  the  aid  element  has  been  estimated  at  10%  of  the  guaranteed 

amount. 

132 More details on methodological remarks provide the online-version of the Scoreboard: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/conceptual_remarks.html 

133  For  instance,  the  aid  element  of  tax  exemptions  is  difficult  to  determine  since  the  exact  number  of 
beneficiaries  or  amounts  may  not  be  known  and  authorities  in  the  Member  States  appear  to  work  with 
estimates.    

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
•  For  ad  hoc  measures  for  sound  banks  the  aid  element  has  been  estimated  at  10%  of  the 

guaranteed amount. 

•  For banks in difficulty, usually notified as individual cases (rescue and restructuring cases) 

the aid element has been estimated at 20% of the guaranteed amount. 

•  The basis for the estimation has been the average outstanding guarantee volume for 2008. 

Recapitalisation and liquidity measures: 

•  The aid element estimated corresponds to the full recapitalisation amount for 2008. 

Presentation of data in tables 

Where data show in tables, they may use the symbols: 

n.a. 
- 
0 

not available 
real zero 
less than half the unit used 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX: STATISTICAL TABLES 
Table 1-1134: Key figures and trend on State aid as percentage of GDP and share of horizontal objectives 
as percentage of total aid for industry and services and their trend (all cases; 2008) 

FIGURES 
INCLUDE CRISIS 
MEASURES 

State aid in billion EUR 

State aid as % of GDP  

Total State 
Aid less 
railways 

Total State 
Aid for 
industry and 
services135  

Total State 
Aid less 
railways  

Total State 
Aid for 
industry 
and 
services  

Share of aid to 
horizontal 
objectives as % of 
total aid for 
industry and 
services 

Trend in the share 
of aid to horizontal 
objectives as a % 
of total aid, 2003 - 
2008 in % points 
(1) 

EU 27 

EU 15 

EU 12 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Norway 

Iceland (3) 

Liechtenstein (3) 

279.6 

268,3 

11.3 

19.4 

0.4 

1.4 

4.7 

66.8 

0.05 

37.5 

1.0 

6.2 

26.8 

5.5 

0.1 

1.2 

0.3 

2.9 

2.5 

0.1 

265.0 

256.9 

8.1 

19.0 

0.04 

1.2 

4.5 

65.3 

0.05 

36.3 

0.8 

5.3 

24.1 

4.5 

0.1 

1.0 

0.2 

2.9 

1.9 

0.1 

16.2 

15.6 

1.3 

3.7 

2.0 

0.9 

0.2 

0.4 

2.1 

3.4 

72.5 

2.3 

0.02 

0.001 

1.1 

2.9 

2.0 

0.3 

0.2 

0.3 

0.8 

3.1 

71.8 

1.7 

0.02 

0.001 

2.2 

2.3 

1.14 

5.63 

1.30 

0.97 

2.02 

2.68 

0.29 

2.1 

2.2 

0.8 

5.52 

0.12 

0.78 

1.93 

2.62 

0.09 

20.20 

19.53 

0.42 

0.56 

1.37 

0.35 

0.65 

5.05 

0.82 

7.83 

2.38 

2.00 

2.73 

0.46 

1.02 

1.19 

0.64 

0.66 

0.53 

1.13 

1.03 

4.00 

0.74 

0.21 

0.03 

0.33 

0.48 

1.23 

0.29 

0.47 

4.37 

0.53 

7.78 

1.81 

1.74 

2.62 

0.38 

0.80 

1.18 

0.18 

0.47 

0.42 

0.44 

0.94 

3.96 

0.56 

0.21 

0.03 

17 

16 

77 

6 

91 

94 

34 

19 

100 

2 

98 

65 

30 

85 

95 

5 

100 

2 

81 

2 

9 

99 

93 

13 

53 

89 

84 

98 

88 

4 

n.a. (2) 

n.a. 

n.a. 

-38.1 

-47.0 

43.5 

-84.5 

38.4 

65.3 

-34.5 

-37.7 

0.0 

-66.8 

1.5 

2.8 

-21.6 

-10.4 

61.1 

-78.0 

54.2 

-95.0 

19.0 

-2.1 

-69.9 

-20.7 

67.1 

-4.5 

15.6 

8.7 

21.1 

-0.3 

-4.3 

-84.3 

n.a. 
n.a. 
n.a. 

134Data cover all State aid measures as defined under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty that Member States awarded 
and the Commission examined. The Community rules on agricultural and fisheries policies are not covered by 
the  EEA  Agreement.  Hence,  aid  to  these  sectors  is  not  included  for  the  EFTA  countries.  (1)  Change  in 
percentage points between annual average of 2003-2005 and 2006-2008. Source: DGs Competition, Energy 
and  Transport,  Agriculture,  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries  and  EFTA  Surveillance  Authority.  (2)  Not 
available  (3)  The  EFTA  Surveillance  Authority  assesses  crisis  aid  granted  in  the  EFTA  countries.  Crisis 
measures are not yet included in this amount. 

135i.e. less agriculture, fisheries and transport 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 1-2: Key figures and trend on State aid as percentage of GDP and share of 

horizontal objectives as percentage of total aid for industry and services and 
their trend (excl. crisis measures) 

State aid in billion EUR, 
2008 

State aid as % of GDP, 
2008 

Trend in the share of aid to 
GDP, 2003 - 2008 in % 
points of GDP(1) 

FIGURES 
EXCLUDE 
CRISIS 
MEASURES 

Total State 
Aid less 
railways 

Total State 
Aid for 
industry 
and 
services 
(i.e. less 
agriculture, 
fisheries 
and 
transport) 

Total State 
Aid less 
railways  

Total State 
Aid for 
industry 
and 
services 
(i.e. less 
agriculture, 
fisheries 
and 
transport)  

Total aid 
less 
railways 

Total state 
aid for 
industry and 
services 

Share of 
aid to 
horizontal 
objectives 
as % of 
total aid 
for 
industry 
and 
services, 
2008 

Trend in 
the share 
of aid to 
horizontal 
objectives 
as a % of 
total aid, 
2003 - 
2008 in % 
points (1) 

EU 27 

EU 15 

EU 12 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

United Kingdom 

Norway 

Iceland 

Liechtenstein 

67.4 

57.1 

10.3 

1.6 

0.4 

1.4 

1.9 

15.7 

0.05 

1.9 

1.0 

5.2 

10.3 

5.5 

0.1 

0.2 

0.3 

0.1 

2.5 

0.1 

2.2 

1.3 

3.7 

1.6 

0.9 

0.2 

0.4 

2.1 

3.0 

3.8 

2.3 

52.9 

45.8 

7.1 

1.2 

0.04 

1.2 

1.7 

14.2 

0.01 

0.7 

0.8 

4.4 

7.6 

4.5 

0.1 

0.0 

0.2 

0.1 

1.9 

0.1 

1.5 

1.1 

2.9 

1.5 

0.3 

0.2 

0.3 

0.8 

2.7 

3.1 

1.7 

0.02 

0.001 

0.02 

0.001 

0.54 

0.50 

1.05 

0.46 

1.30 

0.97 

0.80 

0.63 

0.29 

1.05 

0.42 

0.48 

0.53 

0.35 

0.65 

0.88 

0.82 

0.20 

2.38 

2.00 

0.36 

0.46 

1.02 

0.93 

0.64 

0.66 

0.53 

1.13 

0.92 

0.21 

0.74 

0.21 

0.03 

0.42 

0.40 

0.72 

0.36 

0.12 

0.78 

0.71 

0.57 

0.09 

0.38 

0.33 

0.40 

0.39 

0.29 

0.47 

0.20 

0.53 

0.15 

1.81 

1.74 

0.25 

0.38 

0.80 

0.92 

0.18 

0.47 

0.42 

0.44 

0.82 

0.17 

0.56 

0.21 

0.03 

-0.05 

-0.03 

-0.46 

0.08 

0.60 

-0.47 

0.01 

-0.09 

0.00 

0.30 

-0.04 

-0.02 

-0.04 

-0.07 

-1.12 

0.32 

0.18 

-0.11 

-0.10 

-0.78 

-0.04 

0.06 

-0.84 

0.15 

-0.55 

-0.10 

-0.04 

-0.13 

0.15 

-0.04 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

-0.05 

-0.02 

-0.50 

0.09 

-0.20 

-0.51 

0.02 

-0.08 

-0.02 

0.06 

0.06 

-0.04 

-0.01 

-0.06 

-0.90 

0.03 

0.10 

-0.04 

0.21 

-0.86 

0.03 

0.07 

-0.82 

0.19 

-0.99 

-0.09 

-0.07 

0.02 

0.16 

-0.02 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

88 

88 

87 

99 

91 

94 

94 

87 

100 

85 

98 

79 

96 

85 

95 

100 

100 

100 

81 

2 

98 

99 

93 

16 

53 

89 

84 

98 

100 

91 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

10.8 

4.3 

48.1 

-1.0 

38.4 

65.3 

1.2 

7.5 

0.0 

11.4 

1.5 

8.1 

18.7 

-10.4 

61.1 

10.1 

54.2 

0.0 

19.0 

-2.1 

3.0 

-20.7 

67.1 

-3.5 

15.6 

8.7 

21.1 

-0.2 

-0.3 

-4.8 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 1-3136:  State aid for primary objectives and sectoral aid as % of total aid (crisis 

measures excluded); 2008 

s
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
l
a
t
n
o
z
i
r
o
h
f
o
l
a
t
o
T

87.6 

87.7 

87.2 

99.0 

91.3 

93.8 

93.7 

86.9 

100.0 

84.5 

97.6 

78.9 

95.6 

85.3 

95.0 

99.9 

EU-27 

EU-15 

EU-12 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 
Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

100.0 

Luxembourg 

100.0 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 
Portugal138 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 
United 
Kingdom 

81.2 

2.3 

97.8 

98.7 

93.3 

16.3 

52.9 

89.2 

83.9 

98.4 

99.6 

t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

t
n
e
m
p
o
l
e
v
e
d
l
a
n
o
i
g
e
R

t
n
e
m
p
o
l
e
v
e
d
d
n
a
h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R

24.1 

26.8 

6.4 

11.0 

25.8 

22.9 

44.4 

9.8 

0.0 

13.3 

16.3 

18.0 

5.6 

47.5 

14.5 

0.5 

68.2 

18.0 

15.5 

40.3 

15.4 

5.5 

2.3 

11.7 

2.2 

2.4 

6.2 

21.3 

12.6 

15.1 

4.7 

0.0 

65.1 

42.4 

8.4 

0.0 

6.0 

15.1 

12.8 

38.2 

85.9 

0.0 

22.8 

5.8 

16.9 

75.6 

39.9 

40.8 

18.3 

1.2 

46.7 

73.0 

10.2 

41.3 

0.0 

1.1 

7.8 

39.1 

6.5 

14.7 

46.8 

64.2 

6.3 

6.0 

E
M
S

g
n
i
n
i
a
r
T

9.1 

9.8 

4.5 

18.8 

61.5 

6.4 

0.3 

4.7 

13.1 

17.6 

16.4 

3.4 

19.3 

25.8 

15.4 

14.5 

1.2 

9.2 

16.6 

22.5 

14.8 

1.5 

18.8 

24.6 

19.3 

1.3 

1.5 

0.0 

35.9 

24.4 

3.9 

0.0 

18.5 

22.7 

0.7 

1.0 

25.7 

12.2 

1.3 

29.0 

3.7 

3.0 

0.7 

6.0 

20.0 

4.5 

4.6 

0.0 

1.3 

3.5 

7.2 

0.2 

1.7 

1.6 

2.8 

3.6 

1.9 

0.6 

0.3 

0.7 

5.0 

10.0 

0.1 

1.4 

0.4 

6.8 

9.8 

2.3 

9.7 

0.0 

2.9 

0.5 

0.0 

2.3 

3.6 

0.5 

0.1 

0.4 

0.8 

1.3 

0.0 

.
g
.
e
(

s
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
l
a
t
n
o
z
i
r
o
h
r
e
h
t
O

,
d
i
a

l
a
i
c
o
s

,
r
e
t
s
a
s
i
d
l
a
r
u
t
a
n
,
e
r
u
t
l
u
c

)
.
c
t
e

4.5 

4.6 

4.2 

4.3 

0.0 

0.0 

2.6 

1.9 

37.4 

15.6 

1.6 

3.0 

6.5 

5.2 

59.7 

12.9 

0.0 

14.3 

6.9 

1.1 

4.1 

2.4 

2.2 

0.1 

6.3 

12.2 

1.1 

10.1 

3.8 

d
i
a

t
n
e
m
y
o
l
p
m
E

6.1 

4.0 

19.3 

4.0 

0.0 

0.1 

65.7 

0.0 

0.7 

4.2 

0.0 

0.8 

1.8 

7.3 

1.4 

0.7 

3.5 

0.0 

18.4 

0.0 

3.0 

1.1 

34.7 

3.6 

0.1 

1.2 

0.2 

6.3 

0.1 

7
3
1
d
i
A

l
a
r
o
t
c
e
S
l
a
t
o
T

12.4 

12.3 

12.8 

1.0 

8.7 

6.2 

6.3 

l
a
o
C

5.2 

5.7 

2.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

13.1 

12.6 

0.0 

15.5 

2.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

21.1 

18.5 

4.4 

14.7 

5.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

18.8 

97.7 

2.2 

1.3 

6.7 

83.7 

47.1 

10.8 

16.1 

1.6 

0.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

2.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

36.5 

10.1 

1.3 

0.0 

0.0 

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S
l
a
i
c
n
a
n
i
F

2.4 

2.8 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

83.7 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

s
r
o
t
c
e
S
g
n
i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

1.7 

0.7 

8.7 

1.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.4 

0.3 

0.0 

7.5 

0.8 

2.0 

0.2 

0.8 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

16.8 

61.6 

0.7 

0.0 

6.7 

0.0 

1.9 

0.0 

14.7 

1.5 

0.0 

s
r
o
t
c
e
S
g
n
i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a

M
n
o
N

r
e
h
t
O

1.7 

1.8 

1.0 

0.0 

8.7 

6.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.9 

0.0 

0.0 

11.7 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.4 

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S
r
e
h
t
O

1.4 

1.4 

0.9 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

4.9 

0.1 

0.0 

8.1 

0.8 

0.7 

4.2 

2.2 

5.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

36.2 

1.3 

1.3 

0.0 

0.0 

8.7 

0.7 

0.0 

0.2 

0.0 

91.0 

40.8 

10.4 

18.6 

3.5 

2.1 

0.1 

15.5 

9.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

8.7 

0.3 

136Source: DG Competition, DG Energy and Transport 
137Aid for specific sectors awarded under measures for which there was no horizontal objective as well as aid for 

rescue and restructuring. 

138Aid  which  continues  to  be  paid  out  under  the  aid  scheme  E  19/94  Zona  Franca  da  Madeira  (OJ  C  290, 
3.10.1996,  p.  13),  as  reviewed  by  the  Commission,  is  classified  as  sectoral  aid.  Aid  granted  under  the  aid 
scheme  N  222/A/2002  Aid  scheme  for  Zona  Franca  da  Madeira  for  the  period  2003-2006  (OJ  C  65, 
19.3.2003, p.23 as corrected by OJ C134, 7.6. 2003, p. 10) is classified as regional aid. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 1-4139:  Trend in share of primary objectives in total aid between 2003-2005 and 

2006-2008 as percentage point difference (crisis measures excluded) 

s
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
l
a
t
n
o
z
i
r
o
h
f
o
l
a
t
o
T

t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

t
n
e
m
p
o
l
e
v
e
d
l
a
n
o
i
g
e
R

t
n
e
m
p
o
l
e
v
e
d
d
n
a
h
c
r
a
e
s
e
R

E
M
S

g
n
i
n
i
a
r
T

d
i
a

t
n
e
m
y
o
l
p
m
E

10.8 

4.3 

48.1 

-1.0 

38.4 

2.7 

1.6 

2.3 

3.7 

1.3 

22.5 

3.7 

3.1 

4.4 

-1.7 

-2.8 

4.4 

0.1 

-0.3 

1.5 

0.5 

2.6 

11.2 

12.1 

-10.5 

10.9 

-11.7 

-0.7 

-1.0 

15.3 

15.6 

22.0 

1.3 

-0.9 

-9.8 

.
g
.
e
(

s
e
v
i
t
c
e
j
b
o
l
a
t
n
o
z
i
r
o
h
r
e
h
t
O

,
d
i
a

l
a
i
c
o
s

,
r
e
t
s
a
s
i
d
l
a
r
u
t
a
n
,
e
r
u
t
l
u
c

)
.
c
t
e

0.8 

0.9 

0.8 

-0.1 

-5.0 

3.0 

1.9 

2.8 

-65.3 

65.3 

-3.1 

38.6 

14.9 

1.2 

7.5 

0.0 

11.4 

1.5 

8.1 

18.7 

-10.4 

61.1 

10.1 

54.2 

0.0 

19.0 

-2.1 

3.0 

-16.9 

1.6 

4.4 

1.1 

-1.7 

4.5 

0.0 

0.5 

1.9 

14.8 

15.5 

5.7 

2.3 

0.0 

6.5 

-20.7 

-11.2 

67.1 

-3.5 

15.6 

8.7 

21.1 

-0.2 

-0.3 

3.5 

0.0 

2.0 

-8.0 

9.5 

-2.0 

1.8 

-0.2 

0.7 

-6.9 

-4.3 

1.6 

7.3 

18.1 

4.4 

4.5 

2.5 

2.8 

-0.4 

6.2 

6.6 

-6.3 

-0.7 

2.7 

-16.6 

1.8 

0.9 

20.4 

-0.2 

-22.2 

15.6 

4.5 

0.0 

-1.4 

-4.5 

26.8 

0.8 

1.3 

1.5 

0.0 

-3.6 

-0.6 

0.8 

-1.2 

9.4 

22.9 

-5.0 

3.7 

-2.4 

1.0 

0.9 

0.7 

-0.5 

7.3 

0.2 

0.4 

-4.9 

10.3 

10.2 

-3.4 

-9.5 

-0.9 

14.9 

0.5 

2.7 

8.6 

-1.4 

-1.1 

-2.4 

-1.0 

5.8 

-3.1 

-0.4 

1.2 

5.2 

-0.4 

-0.5 

-0.8 

14.7 

0.2 

6.2 

3.9 

0.1 

-0.5 

0.1 

-0.3 

7.5 

2.8 

12.7 

0.0 

1.4 

0.7 

0.0 

-0.3 

1.6 

-8.6 

-6.4 

-0.3 

2.5 

-2.7 

1.0 

0.3 

3.6 

0.0 

11.5 

0.1 

3.1 

-2.1 

-1.0 

3.4 

24.5 

-0.8 

0.0 

-0.5 

0.8 

1.0 

0.0 

0.8 

-0.3 

-7.5 

0.7 

0.5 

0.0 

d
i
A

l
a
r
o
t
c
e
S
l
a
t
o
T

l
a
o
C

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S
l
a
i
c
n
a
n
i
F

s
r
o
t
c
e
S
g
n
i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a
M

s
r
o
t
c
e
S
g
n
i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a

M
n
o
N

r
e
h
t
O

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
S
r
e
h
t
O

-10.8 

-4.3 

-6.9 

-4.7 

-0.1 

1.2 

-48.1 

-20.2 

-9.1 

1.0 

-38.4 

0.0 

-2.3 

-0.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 
-
61.5 

0.0 

-5.3 

-0.4 

-0.2 

0.4 

-2.9 

-1.2 

-7.5 

0.0 

6.2 

-11.4 

-1.8 

-5.3 

0.9 

0.0 

-1.5 

-8.1 

-18.7 

10.4 

31.2 

-61.1 

7.4 

-10.1 

-54.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

-10.7 

-9.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

-0.5 

-7.7 

-0.8 

-1.7 

0.8 

-0.4 

2.1 

0.0 

3.7 

5.7 

0.1 

2.1 

-1.7 

-19.0 

-2.5 

2.1 

-3.0 

20.7 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

-67.1 

-49.5 

3.5 

0.0 

-15.6 

21.7 

-8.7 

-21.1 

0.2 

0.3 

0.6 

0.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

-6.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

21.1 

0.0 

4.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

-3.8 

-2.6 

-7.8 

1.0 

1.2 

1.4 

-1.2 

0.4 

-0.3 

-10.8 

0.0 

0.0 

-15.3 

-8.0 

-12.9 

-5.7 

-1.0 

-1.1 

0.0 

-7.7 

-2.2 

0.1 

-12.3 

2.6 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.4 

0.0 

0.0 

-0.8 

10.2 

-0.3 

-0.2 

-0.6 

0.0 

2.5 

0.3 

2.5 

2.6 

0.0 

-1.4 

0.0 

-8.7 

-33.1 

-10.6 

-10.6 

0.0 

-16.0 

-12.8 

-2.6 

0.0 

-4.6 

-0.6 

-23.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

-0.5 

14.9 

-0.6 

-0.3 

-0.3 

-12.7 

0.0 

4.0 

-0.3 

-18.0 

-7.9 

-0.9 

-21.4 

1.3 

0.0 

-0.5 

0.0 

-1.1 

0.1 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

5.6 

-0.6 

-25.0 

-11.1 

-24.4 

-4.8 

4.4 

-12.8 

-0.6 

-8.4 

-2.0 

0.2 

14.3 

4.8 

-0.9 

0.0 

-0.1 

EU-27 

EU-15 

EU-12 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 
Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Luxembourg 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 
United 
Kingdom 

139 Source: DG Competition, DG Energy and Transport 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 2: Main set of rules adopted since the launch of the SAAP in 2005 

As outlined in the SAAP roadmap in 2005, the Commission has revised a large number of its 
guidelines, frameworks and communications. The following table shows the main legislative 
acts adopted to date. 

Legislative act 

Validity 

Full title and official text 

2009 

Communication 
on public 
service 
broadcasting 

Guidelines on 
broadband 
networks 

Communication 
on aid for large 
regional 
investment 
projects 

From 
28.10.2009* 

Communication from the Commission on the application of State aid rules 
to public service broadcasting.  OJ C 257 of 27.10.2009, p. 1; press release: 
IP/09/1072  

From 
01.10.2009*  
Review  no later 
than 2012 

From 
16.09.2009* 

Community  Guidelines  for  the  application of  State  aid rules  in  relation to 
rapid  deployment  of  broadband  networks.  OJ  C  235  of  30.09.2009,  p.  7; 
press release: IP/09/1332, MEMO/09/396 

Communication  from  the  Commission  concerning  the  criteria  for  an  in-
depth assessment of regional aid to large investment projects. OJ C 223 of 
16.09.2009, p. 3; press release: IP/09/993,  MEMO/09/292  

Best Practice 
code 

From 
01.09.2009* 

Code of Best Practice for the conduct of State aid control procedures. OJ C 
136 of 16.06.2009, p. 13; press release: IP/09/659, MEMO/09/208  

Notice on 
simplified 
procedure 

Communication 
on employment 
aid for 
disadvantaged 
and disabled 
workers 

From 
01.09.2009*  
Review in 2013  

From 
11.08.2009* 

Notice  from  the  Commission  on  a  simplified  procedure  for  treatment  of 
certain  types  of  State  Aid.    OJ  C  136  of  16.06.2009,  p.  3;  press  release: 
IP/09/659, MEMO/09/208 

Communication  from  the  Commission  —  Criteria  for  the  analysis  of  the 
compatibility  of  State  aid  for  the  employment  of  disadvantaged  and 
disabled  workers  subject  to  individual  notification.  OJ  C  188  of 
11.08.2009, p. 6; press release: IP/09/863, MEMO/09/260 

Communication 
on training aid 

From 
11.08.2009* 

Communication  from  the  Commission  —  Criteria  for  the  analysis  of  the 
compatibility of State aid for training subject to individual notification. OJ 
C 188 of 11.08.2009, p. 1; press release: IP/09/863; MEMO/09/260 

Prolongation of 
rescue and 
restructuring aid 
guidelines 

Notice on 
enforcement by 
national courts 

Cinema 
Communication 

09.07.2009 
09.10.2012  

-  

Commission  Communication  concerning 
the 
Community Guidelines on State aid for Rescuing and Restructuring Firms 
in Difficulty. OJ C 156, 9.7.2009, p. 3 

the  prolongation  of 

From 
09.04.2009*  
Review in 2014 

– 

07.02.2009 
31.12.2012 
Extension of 
applying the 
current criteria 
until 31.12.2012 

Commission notice on the enforcement of State aid law by national courts. 
OJ C 85 of 09.04.2009, p. 1; press release: IP/09/316, Memo/09/82 

Communication from the Commission concerning the State aid assessment 
criteria of the Commission Communication on certain legal aspects relating 
to cinematographic and other audiovisual works (Cinema Communication) 
of  26  September  2001.  OJ  C  31  of  07.02.2009,  p.  1;  press  release: 
IP/09/138, Memo/09/33 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2008 

General block 
exemption 
regulation 

29.08.2008 
31.12.2013 

– 

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  800/2008  of  6  August  2008  on  the 
application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty declaring certain categories 
of  aid  compatible  with  the  common  market.  OJ  L  214,  09.08.2008,  p.  3; 
press release IP/08/1110 

Guarantee notice  From 

20.06.2008* 

Commission  Notice  on  the  application  of  Articles  87  and  88  of  the  EC 
Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees. OJ C 155, 20.06.2008, p. 10; 
press release IP/08/764 

Amendment of 
procedural 
regulation 

From 
14.04.2008* 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 271/2008 of 30 January 2008 amending 
Regulation (EC)  No 794/2004  implementing  Council  Regulation (EC) No 
659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the 
EC Treaty. OJ L 82, 25.03.2008, p.1 

Environmental 
guidelines 

02.04.2008 
31.12.2014 

– 

Community guidelines on state aid for environmental protection. OJ C 82, 
01.04.2008, p. 1; press release IP/08/80 

2007 

Communication 
on interest rates 

From 
01.07.2008* 

Recovery Notice  From 

15.11.2007* 

2006 

De minimis 
regulation 

01.01.2007 
31.12.2013 

01.01.2007 
31.12.2013 

21.11.2006 
31.12.2013 

18.08.2006 
31.12.2013 

RDI Framework 

Block 
exemption 
regulation for 
regional aid 

Risk capital 
guidelines 

2005 

Regional aid 
guidelines 

Short-term 
export-credit 
insurance 

SGEI Package 

Communication  from  the  Commission  on  the  revision  of  the  method  for 
setting  the  reference  and  discount  rates.  OJ  C  14,  19.01.2008,  p.  6;  press 
release IP/07/1912 

Notice  from  the  Commission  –  Towards  an  effective  implementation  of 
Commission  decisions  ordering  Member  States  to  recover  unlawful  and 
incompatible  State  aid.  OJ  C  272,  15.11.2007,  p.  4;  press  release 
IP/07/1609 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006 on the 
application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid. OJ L 379, 
28.12.2006, p. 5, press release IP/06/1765 

Community  Framework  for  State  aid  for  Research  and  Development  and 
Innovation. OJ C 323, 30.12.2006, p. 1; press release IP/06/1600 

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1628/2006  of  24  October  2006  on  the 
application  of  Articles  87  and  88  of  the  Treaty  to  national  regional 
investment aid. OJ L 302, 01.11.2006, p. 29; press release IP/06/1453 

Community  guidelines  on  state  aid  to  promote  risk  capital  investments  in 
small  and  medium-sized  enterprises.  OJ  C  194,  18.08.2006,  p.  2;  press 
release IP/06/1015 

From 
01.01.2007* 

Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013. OJ C 54, 4.03.2006, p. 
13; press release IP/05/1653 

01.01.2006 
31.12.2010 

– 

Communication  of  the  Commission  to  Member  States  amending  the 
communication  pursuant  to  Article  93(1)  of  the  EC  Treaty  applying 
Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty to short-term export-credit insurance. OJ C 
325, 22.12.2005, p. 22  

From 
19.12.2005 
(points (c), (d) 
and (e) of 
Article 4 and 
Article 6 from 
29.11.2006)* 

Commission Decision of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 
86(2)  of  the  EC  Treaty  to  State  aid  in  the  form  of  public  service 
compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation 
of services of general economic interest. OJ L 312, 29.11.2005, p. 67; press 
release IP/05/937 

29.11.2005 

–  Community  framework  for  State  aid  in  the  form  of  public  service 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
29.11.2011 

From 
19.12.2005* 

compensation 
OJ C 297, 29.11.2005, p. 4; press release IP/05/937 

Commission  Directive  No  2005/81  of  28  November  2005  amending 
Directive  80/723/EEC  on  the  transparency  of  financial  relations  between 
Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency 
within  certain  undertakings.  OJ  L  312,  29.11.2005,  p.  47;  press  release 
IP/05/937;  cf.  codified  version  of  16  November  2006,  OJ  L  318, 
17.11.2006, p. 17 

* No end of validity is specified in the text 

In addition to the legislative changes foreseen in the SAAP, the Commission adopted also a 
set  of  temporary  rules  being  a  response  to  the  crisis  in  the  financial  sector  and  the  real 
economy, the table below presents their overview.  

Legislative act 

Validity 

Full title and official text 

Financial sector 

Communication on 
restructuring aid in 
the financial sector 

19.08.2009 
31.12.2010 

Communication on 
impaired assets 

From 25.02.2009* 

From 15.01.2009* 

From 25.10.2008* 

Communication on 
the recapitalization 
of financial 
institutions 

Communication on 
application state aid 
rules to the financial 
sector 

Real economy 

Temporary 
Framework 

– 

Commission  communication  on  the  return  to  viability  and  the 
assessment of restructuring measures in the financial sector in the 
current crisis under the State aid rules. OJ C 195 of 19.08.2009, 
p. 9; press release: IP/09/1180, MEMO/09/350 

Communication  from  the  Commission  on  the  treatment  of 
impaired  assets  in  the  Community  banking  sector.  OJ  C  72  of 
26.03.2009, p. 1; press release: IP/09/322, MEMO/09/85 

Communication from the Commission — The recapitalisation of 
financial  institutions  in  the  current  financial  crisis:  limitation  of 
aid  to  the  minimum  necessary  and  safeguards  against  undue 
distortions  of  competition.  OJ  C  10  of  15.01.2009,  p.  2;  press 
release: IP/08/1901 

Communication  from  the  Commission  —  The  application  of 
State  aid  rules  to  measures  taken  in  relation  to  financial 
institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis. OJ 
C 270 of 25.10.2008, p. 8; press release: IP/08/1495 

28.10.2009 
31.12.2010 

25.02.2009 
31.12.2010 

17.12.2008 
31.12.2010 

– 

– 

– 

Communication from the Commission amending the Temporary 
Community Framework for State aid measures to support access 
to  finance  in  the  current  financial  and  economic  crisis  (limited 
amounts of aid for farmers) OJ C 261 of 31.10.2009, p. 2 

Communication from the Commission amending the Temporary 
Community Framework for State aid measures to support access 
to finance in the current financial and economic crisis ).  OJ C 83 
of  07.04.2009,  p.  1  (consolidated  version  of  the  Temporary 
Framework  adopted  on  17  December  2008,  as  amended  on  25 
February 2009). 

Communication  from  the  commission  -  Temporary  Community 
framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in 
the  current  financial  and  economic  crisis.    OJ  C  16  of 
22.01.2009, p. 1; press release: IP/08/1993, MEMO/08/795;  

* No end of validity is specified in the text 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3-1: Overview of measures reviewed by the Commission under the Temporary 

Framework until 9 November 2009  

Member State 

Germany 

France 

Italy 

Guarantee 

Reduced-
interest rate 
loans 

Reduced-
interest rate 
loans for green 
products 

Risk capital 
aid 

Simplification of 
requirements of 
the Export Credit 
Communication 

N661/2008 

N27/2009 

30/12/2008 

N426/2009 

27/02/2009 

N38/2009 

04.08.2009 

N39/2009 

3/02/2009 

19/02/2009 

N384/2009 

05.08.2009 

EUR 
500.000 per 
under-
taking 

N668/2008 

30/12/2008  

N299/2009
140 

04/06/2009 

N411/2009
141  

17.07.2009 

N7/2009 

N23/2009 

N15/2009 

N11/2009 

16/03/2009 

 05/10/2009 

19/01/2009 

27/02/2009 

04/02/2009 

03/02/2009 

N36/2009  

N119/2009 

N 449/2009 

30/06/2009 

N248/2009  

N266/2009 

N268/2009 

N 542/2009 

N279/2009 

28/052009 

28/05/2009 

29/052009 

 26/10/2009 

20/052009 

United 
Kingdom 

N43/2009 

N71/2009 

15/05/2009 

N72/2009 

04/02/2009 

27/02/2009 

N460/2009142 

27/02/2009 

N257/2009 

14.08.2009 

N114/2009 

10/03/2009 

Hungary 

N77/2009 

N203/2009 

N78/2009 

24/02/2009 

24/04/2009 

24/02/2009 

N341/2009  

01.07.2009 

Greece 

N304/2009  

N308/2009 

N309/2009  

15.07.2009 

03/06/2009 

03/06/2009 

Luxembourg 

N99/2009 

N128/2009 

27/02/2009 

11/03/2009 

Finland 

Czech 
Republic 

N224/2009 

N82b/2009 

03/06/2009 

09/06/2009 

N236/2009  

N237/2009  

07/05/2009 

06/05/2009 

140 Amendment to the scheme N 668/2008 
141 Second amendment to the scheme N 668/2008 
142 Amendment to the scheme N 257/2009 

N50/2009 

20/04/2009 

N258/2009 

22/062009 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Spain 

Latvia 

Austria 

Slovenia 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Lithuania 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovakia 

EUR 
500.000 per 
under-
taking 

N307/2009 

08/06/2009 

Guarantee 

Reduced-
interest rate 
loans 

Reduced-
interest rate 
loans for green 
products 

Risk capital 
aid 

Simplification of 
requirements of 
the Export Credit 
Communication 

N140/2009 

30/03/2009 

N47d/2009 

26/03/2009 

N 532/2009 
06/11/2009  

N198/2009 

06/05/2009 

   N 554/2009 144 
29/10/2009 

N 409/2009  

02/10/2009 

N124/2009 

N139/2009 

19/03/2009 

22/04/2009 

N47a/2009 

20/03/2009 

N317/2009
143 

18/06/2009 

N228/2009 

NN34/2009 

12/06/2009 

12/06/2009 

N117/2009 

20/03/2009 

N387/2009 

13.07.2009 

N186/2009 

15/04/2009 

N272/2009 

08/06/2009 

N118/2009  

18/05/2009 

N156/2009  

01/04/2009 

N408/2009 

17.08.2009 

N13/2009 

19/01/2009 

N222/2009  

30/04/2009 

N286/2009 

05/06/2009 

143 Amendment to the scheme N47a/2009 
144 Amendment to the scheme N198/2009 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

EUR 
500.000 per 
under-
taking 

Sweden 

Guarantee 

N80/2009 

05/06/2009 

Reduced-
interest rate 
loans 

Reduced-
interest rate 
loans for green 
products 

Risk capital 
aid 

Simplification of 
requirements of 
the Export Credit 
Communication 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 4-1: Trend in the number of recovery decisions and amounts to be recovered (1) 

2000- 2009 (by 30 June 2009) 

Date of Decision

Number of decisions adopted

Total aid known to be recovered 
(in mio €)

Amounts recovered: (in mio €)   
Of which:

(a) Principal reimbursed/or 
in blocked account

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009      
(as of 30 
June)

Total

16

239

20

23

10

24

12

6

9

13

3

136

1268

1272.8

1027.95

5040.89

54.35

255.42

275.81

912.77

1.4

10348.39

217.7

1274.8

1561.6

1258.67

6388.96

28.98

295.1

64.8

691.29

16.7

1069.2

1094.7

902.31

4160.57

20.46

199.41

49.19

618.38

(b) Aid lost in bankruptcy

201

76.3

63.3

21.25

871.09

0

45

0

0

(c) Interest

129.3

403.6

335.11

1357.3

8.52

50.69

15.61

72.91

0

0

0

0

0

11781.9

8130.92

1277.94

2373.04

175.94

Aid registered in bankruptcy

Amount outstanding (2)

15.6

21.3

16.9

0

127.82

0

7.5

0

8.12

0

122.5

114.8

104.39

9.23

33.89

11.01

226.62

294.39

1.4

939.53

% still pending to be 
recovered (2)
Source: DG Competition.
Notes: (1) Only for decisions for which the aid amount is known.
             (2) Total aid known to be recovered less principal reimbursed and aid lost in bankruptcy.  Amount excluding interest.

10.2%

62.4%

0.2%

9.0%

8.9%

9.7%

4.3%

82.2%

32.3%

100%

9.1%

Table 4-2: Recovery in the fisheries sector 

Cases in France 
2 in 2004 - amounts unknown not recovered yet (C 76/2001 et C 91/2001) 
1 in 2008 - € 87 millions to be  recovered in 2009 (C 9/2006) 

Cases in the United Kingdom 
- £ 132 000 to be recovered in 2009 (C 39/2006)  
- £ 29 000 covered by de minimis aids (C 37/2006) 
- £ 100 000 recovered in 2008 (C 38/2006) 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 4-3: Pending recovery decisions (by 30 June 2009) 

Case 
number 

Working title of the case 

Member 
State 

Date  of  the 
decision 

Number  of 
the decision 

Official  Journal  of 
European Union 

the 

CR 47/2005 

to  ELVO  (Hellenic  Vehicle 

Aid 
Industry, S.A.) 

Greece 

24/03/2009 

Not yet published 

CR 5/2000 

Alleged aid for SNIACE  

Spain 

10/03/2009 

Not yet published 

CR 55/2007 

BT Group plc 

UK 

11/02/2009 

Not yet published 

CR 19/2005 

CR 17/2005 

Restructuring 
Shipyard  

Restructuring 
shipyard  

aid 

for  Szczecin 

Poland 

06/11/2008 

Not yet published 

aid 

for  Gdynia 

Poland 

06/11/2008 

Not yet published 

CR 48/2006 

DHL Leipzig Halle 

Germany 

23/07/2008 

2008/948/EC 

OJ L 346 of 23.12.2008, p. 1 

CR 1/2004 

Regional law nr 9/98 

Italy 

02/07/2008 

2008/854/EC 

OJ L 302 of 13.11.2008, p. 9 

CR 16/2004 

Hellenic Shipyard 

Greece 

02/07/2008 

Not yet published 

CR 41/2005 

Hungarian Stranded Cost 

Hungary 

04/06/2008 

Not yet published 

CR 56/2006 

Bank Burgenland 

Austria 

30/04/2008 

2008/719/EC 

OJ L 239 of 06.09.2008, p. 32 

CR 13/2007 

Rescue aid to New Interline 

Italy 

16/04/2008 

Not yet published 

CR 38/2007 

Alleged aid to Arbel Fauvet Rail SA 

France 

02/04/2008 

2008/716/EC 

OJ L 238 of 05.09.2008, p. 27 

CR 36a / 
2006 

Terni Companies 

Italy 

20/11/2007 

2008/408/EC  OJ L 144 of 4.6.2008, p. 37 

CR 23/2006 

Technologie Buczek 

Poland 

24/10/2007 

2008/344/EC  OJ L 116 of 30.4.2008, p. 26  

CR 37/2005 

Tax-exempt  reserve  fund  for  certain 
companies 

CR 16/2006 

Restructuring aid to Nuova Mineraria 
Silius  

CR 79/2001 

Exemption  from  excise  duty  for  the 
production of alumina in Gardanne 

CR 78/2001 

Exemption  from  excise  duty  for  the 
production of alumina in Shannon 

CR 80/2001 

Exemption  from  excise  duty  for  the 
production of alumina in Sardinia 

Greece 

18/07/2007 

2008/723/EC  OJ L 244 of 12/09/2008, p. 11 

Italy 

21/02/2007 

2007/499/EC  OJ L 185 of 17/07/2007, p. 18 

France 

07/02/2007 

2007/375/EC  OJ L 147 of 8/06/2007, p. 29 

Ireland 

07/02/2007 

2007/375/EC  OJ L 147 of 8/06/2007, p. 29 

Italy 

07/02/2007 

2007/375/EC  OJ L 147 of 8/06/2007, p. 29 

CR 38/2005 

Biria Gruppe 

Germany 

24/01/2007 

2007/492/EC  OJ L 183 of 13/07/2007, p. 27 

CR 52/2005 

Digital Decoders - Italy  

Italy 

24/01/2007 

2007/374/EC  OJ L 147 of 8/06/2007, p. 1 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 
number 

Working title of the case 

Member 
State 

Date  of  the 
decision 

Number  of 
the decision 

Official  Journal  of 
European Union 

the 

CR 30/2005 

Restructuring aid to Kliq NV 

Netherland
s 

19/07/2006 

2006/939/EC  OJ L 366 of 21/12/2006, p. 40 

CR 2/2004 

Ad  hoc  financing  of  Dutch  public 
broadcasters 

Netherland
s 

22/06/2006 

2008/136/EC  OJ L 49 of 22/272008, p.1 

CR 25/2005  Measures 

in 

favour  of  Frucona 

Slovakia 

07/06/2006 

2007/254/EC  OJ L 112 of 30/04/2007, p. 14 

Kosice 

CR 37/2004 

Aid to Componenta Corporation  

Finland 

20/10/2005 

2006/900/EC  OJ L 353 of 13/12/2006, p. 36 

CR 8/2004 

Fiscal  incentives  for  newly  listed 
companies 

CR 43/2001 

Aid  to  Chemische  Werke  Piesteritz 
GmbH 

Italy 

16/03/2005 

2006/261/EC  OJ L 094 of 1/04/2006, p. 42 

Germany 

02/03/2005 

2005/786/EC  OJ L 296 of 12/11/2005, p. 19 

CR 12/2004 

Fiscal incentives for outward FDI 

Italy 

14/12/2004 

2005/919/EC  OJ L 335 of 21/12/2005, p. 39 

CR 57/2003 

Tremonti bis 

Italy 

20/10/2004 

2005/315/EC  OJ L 100 of 20/04/2005, p. 46 

CR 13b/2003  France 

Telecom 

- 

Taxe 

France 

02/08/2004 

2005/709/EC  OJ L 269 of 14/10/2005, p. 30 

professionnelle 

CR 95/2001 

Aid to Siderurgica Anon 

Spain 

16/06/2004 

2005/827/EC  OJ L 311 of 26/11/2005, p. 22 

CR 62/2003 

Urgent  measures 
employment 

in  support  of 

Italy 

30/03/2004 

2004/800/EC  OJ L 352 of 27/11/2004, p. 10 

CR 57/2002 

Article 44 septies CGI 

France 

16/12/2003 

2004/343/EC  OJ L 108 of 16/04/2004, p. 38 

CR 39/2001 

Aid to Minas Rio Tinto sal 

Spain 

27/05/2003 

2004/300/EC  OJ L 098 of 2/04/2004, p. 49 

CR 62/2000 

Aid to Kahla (Porzellan GmbH) 

Germany 

13/05/2003 

2003/643/EC  OJ L 227 of 11/09/2003, p. 12 

CR 94/2001 

Export  aid  scheme  Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern 

CR 70/2001 

Aid  to  Hilados  y  Tejidos  Puigneró 
S.A. 

Germany 

05/03/2003 

2003/595/EC  OJ L 202 of 9/08/2003, p. 15 

Spain 

19/02/2003 

2003/876/EC  OJ L 337 of 23/12/2003, p. 14 

CR 35/2002 

Fiscal aid scheme – Açores 

Portugal 

11/12/2002 

2003/442/EC  OJ L 150 of 18/06/2003, p. 52 

CR 27/1999 

Aid to Municipalizzate 

Italy 

05/06/2002 

2003/193/EC  OJ L 077 of 24/03/2003, p. 21 

CR 44/2000 

to 

Aid 
Systemtechnik GmbH 

SKL  Motoren- 

und 

Germany 

09/04/2002 

2002/898/EC  OJ L 314 of 18/11/2002, p. 75 

CR 60/2000 

Fiscal aid - Province of Vizcaya (III) 

Spain 

20/12/2001 

2003/86/EC 

OJ L 040 of 14/02/2003, p. 11 

CR 58/2000 

Fiscal aid - Province of Alava (III) 

Spain 

20/12/2001 

2003/28/EC 

OJ L 017 of 22/01/2003, p. 20 

CR 59/2000 

Fiscal  aid  -  Province  of  Guipuzcoa 
(III) 

CR 53/1999 

Fiscal  aid  -  Province  of  Guizpuzcoa 
(II) 

Spain 

20/12/2001 

2003/192/EC  OJ L 077 of 24/03/2003, p. 1 

Spain 

11/07/2001 

2002/894/EC  OJ L 314 of 18/11/2002, p. 26 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
Case 
number 

Working title of the case 

Member 
State 

Date  of  the 
decision 

Number  of 
the decision 

Official  Journal  of 
European Union 

the 

CR 54/1999 

Fiscal aid - Province of Vizcaya (II) 

Spain 

11/07/2001 

2003/27/EC 

OJ L 017 of 22/01/2003, p. 1 

CR 52/1999 

Fiscal aid - Province of Vizcaya (I) 

Spain 

11/07/2001 

2002/806/EC  OJ L 279 of 17/10/2002, p. 35 

C 50/1999 

Fiscal  aid  -  Province  of  Guipuzcoa 
(I) 

Spain 

11/07/2001 

2002/540/EC  OJ L 174 of 4/07/2002, p. 31 

CR 48/1999 

Fiscal aid - Province of Alava (I) 

Spain 

11/07/2001 

2002/820/EC  OJ L 296 of 30/10/2002, p. 1 

CR 49/1999 

Fiscal aid - Province of Alava (II) 

Spain 

11/07/2001 

2002/892/EC  OJ L 314 of 18/11/2002, p. 1 

CR 41/1999 

to  Lintra  beteiligungsholding 

Aid 
Gmbh 

Germany 

28/03/2001 

2001/673/EC  OJ L 236 of 5/09/2001, p. 3 

CR 38/1998 

Aid for Kimberly Clark/Scott Group 

France 

12/07/2000 

2002/14/EC 

OJ L 012 of 15/01/2002, p. 1 

CR 10/1999 

Salzgitter Ag 

Germany 

28/06/2000 

2000/797/EC
SC 

OJ L 323 of 20/12/2000, p.5 

CR 81/1997 

Social  security  reductions  -  Venezia 
et Chioggia 

CR 49/1998 

Employment  aid  measures  (Loi  Nr 
196/97) 

Italy 

25/11/1999 

2000/394/EC  OJ L 150 of 23/06/2000, p. 50 

Italy 

11/05/1999 

2000/128/EC  OJ L 042 of 15/02/2000, p. 1 

CR 44/1997 

Aid for Magefesa 

Spain 

14/10/1998 

1999/509/EC  OJ L 198 of 30/07/1999, p. 15 

CR 18/1996 

Borotra aid scheme 

France 

09/04/1997 

1997/811/EC  OJ L 334 of 5/12/1997, p. 25 

CR 28/1994 

for  Hamburger  Stahlwerke 

Aid 
GmbH 

Germany 

31/10/1995 

1996/236/EC  OJ L 078 of 28/03/1996, p. 31 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 4-4: Pending recovery cases where the Commission has decided to bring the case 
before the Court of Justice and where illegal and incompatible aid has not yet 
been recovered (30 June 2009) 

Case 
number 

Working title 

Member 
State 

Court case 

State of play and recent developments 

CR 38/1998   Aid for Kimberly Clark/Scott Group 

France 

C-232/05 

05/10/06: art. 88.2 action - Judgment ECJ - ECJ 

CR 13b/2003  France  Telecom  –  Business  Tax 

France 

C-441/06 

Scheme 

rules that France has failed to fulfill its Treaty 

obligation 

29/03/07:  art.  225  ECT  -  Judgment  CFI  - 
Annulment  of  COM  decision  for  the  part  of  the 
aid 

related to the sale of land 

11/12/08:  art.  225  ECT  -  Judgment  ECJ  –  ECJ 
annuls  the  CFI  judgment  of  29/03/2007  and 
sends  the  case  back  to  the  CFI. One  appeal  still 
pending. 

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

18/10/07: ECJ judgment condemning France for 
failing to execute CEC decision  

Press release: IP/06/1014 

30/06/08:  aid  amount+  interest  have  been  paid 
into a blocked account. 

CR 57/2002 

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

France 

 C-214/07 

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

CR 62/2000 

Thuringen Porzellan (Kahla) 

Germany 

C-39/06  

Press release: IP/06/1471 

13/11/08:  art.  88.2  action  -  Judgment  ECJ  - 
France  condemned  for  non  implementation  of 
the decision 

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

24/01/06:  Application 
pursuant to Art. 88(2) 

Press release: IP/05/189 

lodged  at 

the  ECJ 

19/06/2008:  ECJ  judgment  condemning  DE  for 
failing to implement CEC decision 

CR 49/1998  

Employment  aid  measures  (Loi  Nr 
196/97) 

Italy 

C-99/02 

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

19/07/07:  Commission  sent  letter  of  formal 
notice to Italy 

21/01/08:Commission  decision 
Reasoned Opinion to Italy 

to 

send  a 

25/06/2009:  Commission  decision  to  initiate 
228.2 Action against Italy 

Press release: IP/09/1028 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
 
Case 
number 

Working title 

Member 
State 

Court case 

State of play and recent developments 

CR 27/1999   Aid to Municipalizzate 

Italy 

C-207/05 

CR 62/2003 

Urgent employment measures 

Italy 

C-280/05  

CR 57/2003 

Tremonti Bis 

Italy 

 C-303/09 

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

19/07/07:  Commission  sent  a  letter  of  formal 
notice to Italy 

21/01/08:  Commission  decision 
Reasoned Opinion to Italy 

to  send  a 

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

11/07/05:  Application 
pursuant to Article 88(2) 

lodged  at 

the  ECJ 

06/12/07:  ECJ  judgment  condemning  Italy  for 
failing to execute CEC decision 

Press release: IP/05/395 

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

Press release: IP/06/77 

11/03/08:  Commission  decision  to  initiate  Art. 
88(2) action against Italy 

CR 8/2004 

Fiscal  incentives  for  newly  listed 
companies 

Italy 

 C-304/09 

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

Press release: IP/06/1040 

11/03/08:  Commission  decision  to  initiate  Art. 
88(2) action against Italy 

Press release: IP/08/435  

CR 81/1997 

Social security reductions – Venezia 
e Chioggia 

Italy 

C-302/09 

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

Press release: IP/07/648 

11/03/08:  Commission  decision  to  initiate  Art. 
88(2) action against Italy 

CR 16/2006 

Restructuring 
Mineraria Silius 

aid 

to  Nuova 

Italy 

13/02/08:  Commission  decision  to  initiate  art. 
88.2 proceedings against Italy 

CR 12/2004 

Fiscal incentives for outward FDI 

Italy 

C-305/09 

CR 23/2006 

Technologie Buczek 

Poland 

11/03/08:  Commission  decision  to  initiate  Art. 
88(2) action against Italy 

Press release: IP/08/435  

11/03/08:  Commission  decision  to  initiate  Art. 
88(2) action against Poland 

Press release: IP/09/777 

CR 25/2005 

Measures 
Kosice 

in  favour  of  Frucona 

Slovakia 

C-507/08 

17/06/08:  Commission  decision  to  initiate  art. 
88.2 proceedings against Slovalia 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 
number 

Working title 

Member 
State 

Court case 

State of play and recent developments 

CR 44/1997 

Aid to Magefesa 

Spain 

C-499/99 

CR 48/1999 

Fiscal aid – Province of Alava (I)  

Spain 

C-485/03, 

CR 49/1999 

Fiscal aid - Province of Alava (II) 

CR 50/1999 

CR 52/1999 

CR 53/1999 

CR 54/1999 

Fiscal  aid  –  Province  of  Guipuzcoa 
(I) 

Fiscal aid – Province of Vizcaya (I) 

Fiscal aid - Province of Guizpuzcoa 
(II) 

Fiscal aid - Province of Vizcaya (II)  

(Basque fiscal aid schemes) 

C-486/03, 

C 487/03, 

C-488/03, 

C-489/03, 

C-490/03 

Press release: IP/08/952 

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

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

11/07/07:  Commission  sent  letter  of  formal 
notice to Spain 

26/06/08:  Commission  decision 
Reasoned Opinion to Spain 

to  send  a 

CR 58/2000 

Fiscal aid - Province of Alava (III) 

Spain 

 C-177/06 

CR 59/2000 

CR 60/2000 

Fiscal  aid  -  Province  of  Guipuzcao 
(III) 

Fiscal aid - Province of Vizcaya (III) 

(Basque fiscal aid schemes) 

21/12/05:  Commission  decision  to  initiate  Art. 
88(2) action against Spain 

04/04/06:  Application 
pursuant to Article 88(2) 

lodged  at 

the  ECJ 

20/09/07:  ECJ  judgment  condemning  Spain  for 
failing to execute CEC decision 

Press release: IP/05/1655 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 5: Summary of rules for the transport sector 

Land transport (road, rail, inland waterways)  

-  Article  73  of  the  EC  Treaty  contains  rules  for  the  compatibility  of  State  aid  in  the  area  of  coordination  of 
transport and public service obligation in transport.  The Commission considers in its constant practice that 
Article 73 constitutes lex specialis with respect to Article 87(2) and Article 87(3), as it contains special rules 
for the compatibility of State aid. In addition, Article 73 of the EC Treaty constitutes a lex specialis also with 
respect to Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty, and therefore, Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty cannot be applied in 
the area of coordination of transport and public service obligation in the inland transport sector145. 

-  Until 2 December 2009, Article 73 is in practice implemented by means of three Council Regulations which 
have  been  adopted  under  it  -  Council  Regulations  1191/69146,  1107/70147  and  1192/69148.  Regulation 
1370/07149 will replace Regulations 1191/69 and 1107/70 as from 3 December 2009. 

-  In addition, the Commission adopted on 30 April 2008 the Community guidelines on State aid for railway 

undertakings150. 

Aviation  

-  Communication  on  the  Application  of  Articles  92  and  93  of  the  EC  Treaty  and  Article  61  of  the  EEA 

agreement to State aids in the aviation sector151.  

-  Community guidelines on financing of airports and start-up aid to airlines departing from regional airports152. 

Maritime transport  
-  Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport153.  

-  Communication  from  the  Commission  providing  guidance  on  State  aid  complementary  to  Community 

funding for the launching of the motorways of the sea154. 

-  Communication from the Commission providing guidance on State aid to ship management companies155. 

145 See recital 17 of the Commission decision of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC 
Treaty to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with 
the operation of services of general economic interest (OJ L 312, 29.11.2005, pages 67 - 73). 

146 Regulation (EEC) No. 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning the 
obligations  inherent  in  the  concept  of  a  public  service  in  transport  by  rail,  road  and  inland  waterway,  as 
amended 

147 Regulation (EEC) No. 1107/70 of the Council of 4 June 1970 on the granting of aid for transport by rail, road 

and inland waterway, as amended. 

148 Regulation (EEC) No. 1192/69 on common rules for the normalisation of accounts of railway undertakings is 
particularly important from a State aid monitoring perspective as it exempts from the notification procedure a 
number of different compensations from public authorities to railway undertakings, as amended. 

149 Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public 
passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 
1107/70 (OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 1–13). 

150 OJ C 184, 22.7.2008, p.13 
151 OJ C 350, 10.12.1994, p.5 
152 OJ C 312, 9.12.2005, p.1 
153 OJ C 13, 17.1.2004, p.3 
154 OJ C 317, 12.12.2008, p.10 
155 OJ C 132, 11.6.2009, p.6 

EN 

77 

   EN