Corrigendum:  Report from the Commission - State Aid Scoreboard – Report on recent developments on crisis aid to the financial sector - Spring 2010 Update
Date: 2010-05-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, European Commission, State aid, control of State aid, economic analysis, economic recession, report

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 4.6.2010 
COM(2010)255 final/2 

CORRIGENDUM 
Annule et remplace le document COM(2010)255 final du 27.5.2010 
Concerne uniquement les versions EN et FR 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

State Aid Scoreboard 

Report on recent developments on crisis aid to the financial sector 

- Spring 2010 Update -

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CONTENTS 

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3 

1.1. 

1.2. 

The Commission’s policy response to the financial crisis ........................................... 3 

Total volumes of measures approved........................................................................... 5 

2. Guarantees on bank debt ........................................................................................................ 5 

2.1 Take-up rate by banks .......................................................................................................... 6 

2.2 Evolution over time and signs of exit................................................................................... 6 

3. Recapitalisation measures ...................................................................................................... 8 

4. Impaired assets ....................................................................................................................... 9 

5. Restructuring .......................................................................................................................... 9 

6. Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 10 

ANNEX 1 – Timeline of implementation of guarantee and recapitalization measures........... 12 

ANNEX 2 – Dynamics of approved guarantee and recapitalization measures........................ 13 

ANNEX 3 - Financial crisis measures by instrument .............................................................. 14 

ANNEX 4 – Additional information........................................................................................ 15 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
1. INTRODUCTION 

This spring 2010 State aid scoreboard provides a factual update on crisis aid to the financial 
services  sector.  The  report  covers  the  volumes  of  aid  authorised  by  the  Commission  from 
October 2008 until 31 March 2010. It also provides an overview on the use of guarantee and 
recapitalisation measures and the state of play with regard to impaired asset and restructuring 
cases. 

1.1. 

The Commission’s policy response to the financial crisis 

In order to assist Member States in taking urgent measures to preserve financial stability and 
to provide legal certainty, the Commission adopted several communications between October 
2008 and July 2009, setting out how it would apply State aid rules to government measures 
aimed  at  supporting  the  banking  sector  in  the  context  of  the  economic  crisis.  The  primary 
rationale  of  this  guidance  was  to  ensure  that  emergency  measures  taken  for  reasons  of 
financial stability maintain a level playing field between financial institutions which receive 
public  support  and  those  which  do  not,  as  well  as  between  institutions  located  in  different 
Member  States.  The  Banking  Communication1  of  13  October  2008  was  the  Commission’s 
first  response  to  the  aggravating  financial  crisis.  Based  on  the  principles  of  the  existing 
guidelines  on  rescue  and  restructuring  aid,2  the  Banking  Communication  provides  guidance 
on  the  criteria  for  determining  the  compatibility  of  State  support  measures  for  the  financial 
sector  with  the  requirements  of  Article 107(3)(b) TFEU  within  the  special  circumstances  of 
the crisis. It covers areas such as aid in the form of guarantees, recapitalisation and controlled 
winding-up  of  the  financial  institutions  as  well  as  the  provision  of  other  forms  of  liquidity 
assistance.  In  particular,  the  Banking  Communication  provided  detailed  guidance  on 
government guarantees for bank liabilities, which were the most widespread response to the 
crisis in the first phase, when it was necessary to re-start the interbank lending markets. 

However, the advancing recession added to the financial turmoil; the next immediate problem 
was to ensure lending to the real economy as banks started the process of deleveraging, i.e. 
reducing  the  level  of  lending  in  relation  to  the  size  of  their  capital.  This  resulted  in  the 
increasing need of many banks to strengthen their capital base, also in order to maintain their 
role of supplier of credit to the economy. State recapitalisations thus became an important tool 
used  by  Member  States  to  stabilise  the  markets.  In  order  to  give  detailed  guidance  on  how 
bank  recapitalisation  measures  would  be  assessed  under  prevailing  crisis  conditions,  the 
Commission adopted the Recapitalisation Communication3 in 8 December 2008.  

These communications have provided crucial guidance on how to take effective measures to 
stabilise  the  financial  markets  and  aim  at  ensuring  sustained  lending  to  the  real  economy 
without  creating  undue  distortions  of  competition.  Indeed,  the  rescue  packages  adopted  by 
Member  States  since  October  2008  averted  the  meltdown  of  the  financial  system,  with  the 

1 

2 

3 

The application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of 
the current global financial crisis, OJ C 270, 25.10.2008, pp. 8-14. 
Community  guidelines  on  State  aid  for  rescuing  and  restructuring  firms  in  difficulty,  OJ  C  244, 
1.10.2004, pp. 2-17, as extended by OJ C 156, 9.7.2009, p. 3. 
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, 15.1.2009, pp. 2-10. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Commission  ensuring  coordination  between  Member  States  and  the  necessary  coherence  of 
the terms and conditions under which banks can receive State support.  

However,  despite  the  State  guarantees  and  recapitalisations,  investor  confidence  remained 
fragile and deleveraging continued. There was growing consensus that the root causes of the 
crisis needed to be tackled — the impaired assets on banks’ balance sheets. By tackling this 
issue, the focus of attention shifted away from the rescue operations of the first months of the 
crisis  to  the  necessary  steps  for  a  return  to  financial  viability  of  the  sector  as  a  whole.  This 
implies  the  need  for  restructuring  for  many  institutions,  which  includes  the  cleaning  of 
balance sheets.  

In  its  Communication  on  impaired  assets4  of  25  February  2009  the  Commission  provides 
guidance  on  the  treatment  of  asset  relief  measures  by  the  Member  States.  This  guidance  is 
based on the principles of transparency and disclosure, adequate burden-sharing between the 
State and the beneficiary and prudent valuation of assets based on their real economic value.  

Finally, many of the institutions which have benefited from State aid need to reconsider their 
business  models  in  order  to  return  to  long-term  viability  without  State  support.  The 
Commission  Communications  focusing  on  guarantees,  recapitalisation  and  impaired  assets 
already set out in detail when an institution would need to present a restructuring plan. The 
Commission’s  Restructuring  Communication5  of  22  July  clarifies  some  aspects  of 
restructuring  in  the  context  of  the  present  financial  crisis.  In  particular,  it  gives  detailed 
guidance  on  how  restructuring  plans  need  to  address  long-term  viability,  burden-sharing 
between the bank, its shareholders and the State and distortions of competition created by the 
aid.  

Although  the  situation  still  remains  fragile,  market  conditions  have  stabilised  considerably 
now,  almost  two  years  since  the  crisis  materialised.  Given  the  signs  of  recovery  in  the 
financial  markets  and  in  Member  States’  economies  at  large,  the  focus  is  now  on 
progressively  reducing  banks’  reliance  on  State  support.  Such  phasing-out  of  support 
measures  needs  to  be  gradual,  transparent  and  coordinated  across  Member  States,  so  as  to 
avoid negative spillover effects. At the same time, specific situations in the different Member 
States have to be taken into account. Thus, on 2 December 2009, the Ecofin Council6 agreed 
on  the  need  to  design  a  strategy  for  phasing  out  support  measures  that,  in  principle,  should 
start  with  the  unwinding  of  the  State  guarantee  schemes  in  order  to  encourage  the  exit  of 
sound  banks  from  State  support  and  induce  other  banks  to  address  their  weaknesses.  On 
18 May  2010,  the  Ecofin Council  welcomed  the preliminary analysis by  the  Commission services  on 
the actual use of guarantee schemes and welcomed the Commission's intention to introduce specific 
pre-requisites  in  view  of  the  renewed  provision  of  guarantees  after 30  June,  such  as an  adequate 
increase  of  the  guarantee  fees based  on  banks'  creditworthiness to  bring  gradually  funding  costs 
closer to market conditions and the requirement for a viability review for banks still heavily relying on 
government guarantees 7 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Communication from the Commission on the treatment of impaired assets in the Community banking 
sector, OJ C 72, 26.3.2009, pp. 1-22. 
Communication from the Commission on the return to viability and the assessment of the restructuring 
measures in the financial sector in the current crisis under the State aid rules, OJ C 195, 19.8.2009, pp. 
9-20. 
See  2981st  Council  meeting,  Economic  and  Financial  Affairs,  Brussels,  2  December  2009,  16838/09 
(Press 352): http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/111706.pdf. 
See  3015th  Council  meeting,  Economic  and  Financial  Affairs,  Brussels,  18  May  2010, 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/114495.pdf, 
DG 
Competition  staff  working  document  –  The  application  of  State  aid  rules  to  government  guarantee 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.2. 

Total volumes of measures approved 

In the period between October 2008 and 31 March 2010, the Commission took 161 decisions 
for  the  financial  sector  based  on  Article 107(3)(b) TFEU.  Out  of  these,  78  decisions  were 
taken  in  relation  to  some  40  financial  institutions  and  83  decisions  in  relation  to  almost  40 
schemes. 

The  maximum  volume  of  Commission-approved  measures  including  schemes  and  ad  hoc 
interventions  set  up  by  Member  States  in  the  wake  of  the  financial  crisis  amount  to 
 4 131.1 bn. The breakdown into schemes and ad hoc cases is summarised in the table below. 

Schemes approved by the Commission 

of which guarantee schemes 

of which recapitalisation measures 

of which asset relief interventions 

of which liquidity measures other than the guarantee 
schemes 

Amount 

% of EU-27 GDP8 

 3 181 billion 

 2 747 billion 

 338.2 billion 

 54 billion 

 41.9 billion 

25 % 

22 % 

2.7 % 

0.4 % 

0.3 % 

Ad hoc interventions in favour of individual financial 
institutions 

 950.1 billion 

7.6 % 

2. GUARANTEES ON BANK DEBT 

The  Banking  Communication  highlighted  the  danger  of  the  distortive  effects  of  State 
guarantees  on  competition  and  underlined  the  temporary  nature  of  the  admissibility  of  such 
aid measures. 

Guarantee  schemes  have  proven  to  be  an  appropriate  and  effective  tool  to  address  liquidity 
problems  of  banks  faced  with  the  consequences  of  a  systemic  crisis.  They  have  played  a 
significant  role  in  preventing  the  financial  system  from  collapsing.  While  the  use  of 
guarantees  was  still  very  important  during  the  first  half  of  2009,  it  decreased  significantly 
thereafter. Already the mere availability of such guarantee schemes was in itself a reassuring 
signal to the market even without them being much used after summer 2009. 

In general, schemes have been approved for periods of 6 months with the possibility of being 
extended.  In  total,  since  autumn  2008,  the  Commission  has  approved  and  subsequently 
renewed 19 guarantee schemes. Italy, France and the UK decided to terminate their guarantee 
scheme in late 2009 and early 2010 respectively. The Netherlands amended as of 1 January 
the pricing of its guarantee scheme to encourage financial institutions to look for alternative 
ways of funding. The 16 schemes currently in place have been approved by the Commission 
until  30  June  2010  at  the  latest.  The  Commission  is  currently  considering,  in  coordination 

8 

EN 

covering  bank  debt 

schemes 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/phase_out_bank_guarantees.pdf 
GDP by Member State, in € million, 1992-2008.  

after  30 

to  be 

issued 

June  2010,  30  April  2010 

5 

   EN 

 
€
 
€
€
€
€
€
€
                                                                                                                                                         
with the Member States, the conditions under which those schemes could be extended beyond 
that date.  

The  approximate  volume  of  guarantees  authorised  by  the  Commission  under  schemes  from 
autumn 2008 until 31 March 2010 amounts to €
 2 747 billion. In addition to schemes approved 
by  the  Commission,  some  Member  States  have  also  granted  guarantees  to  individual 
institutions  as  rescue  measures  in  order  to  preserve  financial  stability  in  their  countries.  By 
31 March  2010,  ad  hoc  guarantees  authorised  by  the  Commission  amounted  to  a  total  of 
 54.8 billion), the 
 402.8 billion, of which €
UK  (€
 47.8 billion).  Analysis  of  recent  issuances  of  State-
guaranteed bonds by rating categories of bond issuers provides evidence that since the end of 
2009, guarantee schemes have continued to be used almost exclusively by lower rated banks 
(i.e. rated A- or below) or unrated banks. 

 240.8 billion for Belgium,9 followed by France (€

 53.8 billion)  and  Germany  (€

2.1 Take-up rate by banks 

The  take-up  rate  for  guarantees,  i.e.  the  actual  use  of  the  measure  relative  to  the  approved 
budget, amounts to 32 %, including individual measures outside of schemes. This represents 
 993.6 billion for a total of €

 3 150 billion of authorised guarantees.  

The take-up rate differs greatly among Member States. It is at over 50 % in Portugal (51 %), 
Luxembourg (51 %) and Cyprus (73 %). It is below 20 % in Slovenia (17 %), Sweden (16 %), 
Belgium (13 % — ad hoc measure only), Latvia (12 %) or Greece (7 %).10 

The  take-up  rate  can,  however,  not  be  taken  as  a  valid  indicator  for  the  functioning  of  the 
schemes. A high take-up in a given Member State is not necessarily an indication of whether 
the measure is adequate. Low guarantee take-up rates in certain Member States are partly due 
to the  fact that  the  amounts  announced under some  schemes are higher  than the subsequent 
real needs, while individual guarantees are in general more ‘tailor-made’ to the actual needs 
of the beneficiaries. 

Finally, a scheme may be effective in restoring financial stability even without take-up, as it is 
often  part  of  a  more  general  strategy  by  Member  States  to  reassure  financial  markets  by 
announcing their commitment to support banks.  For example, Finland, Poland and Slovakia 
have guarantee schemes which have not been used yet.  

2.2 Evolution over time and signs of exit 

As  mentioned  above,  France,  Italy  and  the  UK  have  already  chosen  not  to  extend  their 
schemes, and the Netherlands has tightened the pricing conditions of its scheme. 

In any event, the use of government guarantees by the banks has been declining since summer 
2009, both in terms of numbers of issues and volume of issuances. The observation of euro-
denominated  bonds benefiting from State guarantees issued by banks in the EU in Figure 1 
below shows that the bulk of State-guaranteed bonds was issued in the first quarter of 2009, 
where guaranteed bond issuances reached a monthly average of 30 % of banks’ total funding. 

9 
10 

Belgium decided not to put any scheme in place, but to intervene on the basis of individual decisions. 
Take-up  rates  mentioned  focus  exclusively  on  guarantees  granted  on  banks’  newly  issued  debt  and 
ignore blanket guarantees given to bank liabilities in some Member States. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
€
€
                                                 
The  total  amount  of  guaranteed  bonds  newly  issued  then  decreased  progressively  until 
December 2009, to reach 4 % of banks’ total funding, on average. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
Figure 1: Evolution of euro-denominated guaranteed bonds in the total amount of euro-denominated 
banks’ funding (Oct. 2008–Dec. 2009) 

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Oct No v Dec

Jan Feb M ar A pr M ay Jun

Jul A ug Sep Oct No v Dec

2008

2009

Guaranteed Sr Unsec Others

Source: Commission Services 

Sr Unsec : senior unsecured 

3. RECAPITALISATION MEASURES 

Member States reacted quickly to the threats regarding the level of capitalisation of financial 
institutions  by  putting  in  place  recapitalisation  schemes  or  granting  State  aid  on  an  ad  hoc 
basis.  The  total  volume  of  approved  recapitalisation  measures  (both  schemes  and  ad  hoc 
 503.1 billion, which corresponds to around 4 % of 
cases) by the end of March 2010 stood at €
EU  GDP,  whereas  the  amount  effectively  used  was  €
 241.6 billion  or  2 %  of  EU-27  GDP. 
Therefore, the average overall take-up rate for recapitalisation measures is around 48 %. 

 338.2 billion, whereas by the end of 2009 the amount was €

By 31 March 2010, the total volume of approved recapitalisation schemes since autumn 2008 
amounted to €
 229 billion. Of this 
 92.3 billion was effectively used. 
 338.2 billion, representing 2.7 % of EU-27 GDP, around €
 164.9 billion,  with 
At  the  same  time,  authorised  ad  hoc  measures  amounted  to 
 149.2 billion being used. As the figures suggest, ad hoc measures have a significantly higher 
take-up rate (27 % for schemes and 90 % for ad hoc cases). This significantly higher take-up 
rate  is  mainly  due  to  the  fact  that  ad  hoc  measures  were  designed  for  a  specific  financial 
institution and mostly had to be implemented immediately and in full. 

As regards the schemes, since late 2008, 14 Member States have introduced recapitalisation 
schemes.  Eight  of  these  Member  States  adopted  pure  recapitalisation  schemes,  whereas  the 
remaining opted for holistic schemes covering also guarantees or liquidity measures. Five out 
of these 14 schemes have by now expired. 

Like the guarantee schemes, most of the recapitalisation schemes were set up between the end 
of 2008 and the middle of 2009. From mid-July 2009 until 31 March 2010, relatively few new 
schemes  were  notified  to  the  Commission:  in  this  period  the  Commission  approved  3 
recapitalisation  schemes  and  one  scheme  providing for  both  guarantees and recapitalisation. 
However, in the same period, 9 existing schemes were extended. In the first quarter of 2010, 
only one new recapitalisation scheme and a few ad hoc interventions were approved. So far, 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
€
€
€
13  Member  States  have  not  put  recapitalisation  schemes  in  place.  Eight  Member  States  did 
not adopt any recapitalisation measures at all (schemes or ad hoc interventions). 

4. IMPAIRED ASSETS 

Many  banks  have  had  to  deal  with  their  impaired  assets,  often  in  combination  with  other 
restructuring  measures.  By  31  March  2010,  seven  Member  States  had  introduced  impaired 
assets measures (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK). 
The  nominal  amount  of  total  assets  covered  by  these  asset  relief  interventions  reached 
 376 billion11. The approved asset relief interventions encompass schemes as well as ad hoc 
interventions. 

In relative terms, by 31 March 2010 the approved asset relief measures amounted on average 
to 3 % of EU GDP (compared to 0.8 % in July 2009). The substantial increase in this ratio can 
be  explained  by  the  approval  of  a  major  asset  relief  scheme  in  Ireland  and  an  individual 
restructuring case in the United Kingdom. These two measures account for around 80 % of the 
overall amount of approved impaired assets measures.  

Since  autumn  2008,  only  Germany  and  Ireland  have  introduced  asset  relief  schemes.  No 
specific  amount  was  allocated  to  the  German  scheme,  which  expired  at  the  end  of  January 
2010 without having been used. The total volume of asset relief interventions approved under 
the Irish scheme amounts to €

 54 billion or 29 % of its GDP. 

Since  the  beginning  of  the  financial  crisis,  six  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium,  France, 
Germany,  the  Netherlands  and  the  United  Kingdom)  have  asked  for  approval  in  individual 
asset relief cases, not falling under a scheme. Overall, the total volume of approved individual 
 322  billion  by  31  March  2010,  of  which  77 %  were 
asset  relief  interventions  amounted  to  €
granted  by  the  UK  and  10 %  by  Germany.  In  relative  terms,  the  approved  individual  asset 
relief  measures  represent  14 %  of  GDP  in  the  UK,  whereas  the  average  between  Member 
States adopting ad hoc measures is 2.6 %. 

5. RESTRUCTURING 

In general, temporary measures have proven to be an important tool in coping with the crisis. 
In  a  number  of  instances,  however,  individual  banks  will  need  to  undergo  much  more 
significant  structural  reforms.  This  is  necessary  for  the  return  to  viability  of  the  individual 
banks as well as the financial sector in the EU as a whole, for re-establishing a sound level 
playing field across institutions and for the smooth functioning of the internal market. 

11 

Nominal assets covered reduced by the first loss tranche retained by the bank. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
€
                                                 
Criteria and circumstances triggering the obligation to present a restructuring plan 

The  criteria  and  specific  circumstances  which  trigger  the  obligation  to  present  a  restructuring  plan 
have  been  explained  in  the  Banking  Communication,  the  Recapitalisation  Communication  and  the 
Impaired Assets Communication.  

They  refer  in  particular,  but  not  exclusively,  to  situations  where  a  distressed  bank  has  been 
recapitalised by the State, or where a bank benefiting from asset relief has already received State aid in 
whatever form that contributes to coverage or avoidance of losses (except participation in a guarantee 
scheme)  which  altogether  exceeds  2 %  of  the  total  bank’s  risk-weighted  assets.  The  degree  of 
restructuring will depend on the seriousness of the problems of each bank.  

By  contrast,  in  line  with  those  Communications  (in  particular  point  40  of  the  Recapitalisation 
Communication and Annex V to the Impaired Assets Communication), where a limited amount of aid 
has  been  given  to  banks  which  are  fundamentally  sound,  Member  States  are  required  to  submit  a 
report  to  the  Commission  on  the  use  of  State  funds  comprising  all  the  information  necessary  to 
evaluate the bank’s viability, the use of the capital received and the path towards exit from reliance on 
State  support.  The  viability  review  should  demonstrate  the  risk  profile  and  prospective  capital 
adequacy of these banks and evaluate their business plans. 

Up to 31 March 2010, the Commission has been dealing with close to 40 restructuring cases 
in 13 Member States. Two of these cases involve two different Member States, another case 
even  three.  Out  of  these  restructuring  cases,  13  cases  have  been  finalised  by  a  Commission 
decision.  

The  Commission  does  not  impose  any  specific  restructuring  measure  from  the  outset  and 
there  is  no  specific  business  model  that  is  rejected  in  principle.  The  starting-point  of  the 
analysis is always the restructuring plan submitted by a Member State. In that respect, the first 
priority when dealing with the restructuring of banks is to ensure that they can operate in a 
profitable  way  without  State  support.  The  benchmark  of  long-term  viability  may  call  for 
different solutions across banks, ranging from limited restructuring with no divestments to an 
orderly winding-down of unviable entities. 

Any restructuring plan has to adequately address measures to limit distortions of competition. 
Taking account of the market circumstances of each case and the scale of State intervention, 
measures  to  limit  competition  distortion  may  include  divestments,  temporary  restrictions  on 
acquisitions by beneficiaries and other behavioural safeguards.  

If, in all restructuring cases that have been dealt with by the Commission, the principles of the 
Restructuring Communication have been carefully applied, account has also been taken of the 
specificities of each individual case. Reaching the right balance between the multiple aspects 
of  a  restructuring  case  requires  thorough  knowledge  of  the  facts  and  specificities  of  each 
bank. However, the principles guiding the Commission’s approach are clear and consistently 
applied across cases. 

6. CONCLUSION 

Competition  policy  and  in  particular  the  coherent  and  predictable  enforcement  of  State  aid 
rules  has  played  an  important  role  in  the  response  to  the  crisis.  The  extraordinary  rescue 
measures  at  the  beginning  of  the  crisis  have  proven  successful  as  they  were  capable  of 
restoring financial stability and of supporting the economic recovery. As this recovery, albeit 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
still fragile, seems to assert itself, it is important to continue the necessary restructuring of the 
banking sector, including the cleaning of balance sheets and the strengthening of banks’ risk-
bearing capacity, in order for the banks to be able to perform their function of lenders to the 
real  economy  without  State  support.  Likewise,  as  the  economic  environment  continues  to 
stabilise,  it  is  appropriate  to  steer  towards  transparent  and  coordinated  phasing-out  of  the 
different support schemes, starting with government guarantees, in order to create conditions 
for a progressive return to normal market functioning.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 1 – Timeline of implementation of guarantee and recapitalization measures 

Table 1 - Guarantee schemes approved by the Commission since October 2008

1

2

3

4

5

2008
6
7

8

9

10 11 12

1

2

3

4

5

2009
6
7

8

9

10 11 12

1

2

3

4

5

2010
6
7

8

9

10 11 12

France
Italy
United Kingdom
Sweden
Cyprus
Ireland
Germany
Netherlands
Portugal
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Austria
Slovenia
Latvia
Spain
Hungary
Poland
Slovakia

Table 2 - Recapitalisation schemes approved by the Commission since October 2008

1

2

3

4

5

2008
6
7

8

9

10 11 12

1

2

3

4

5

2009
6
7

8

9

10 11 12

1

2

3

4

5

2010
6
7

8

9

10 11 12

France
Italy
Denmark
United Kingdom
Sweden
Germany
Greece
Austria
Hungary
Portugal
Slovakia
Poland
Spain
Finland

EN 

12 

EN 

 
  
ANNEX 2 – Dynamics of approved guarantee and recapitalization measures 

Guarantee schemes and individual cases approved by the Commission from 
October 2008 until March 2010 (approved amounts) 

Recapitalisation schemes and individual measures approved by the 
Commission from October 2008 until March 2010 (approved amounts)

2500

2000

1500

1000

n
o

i
l
l
i

b

€ 

500

0

n
o

i
l
l
i

b

180

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

8
0
-
t
c
O

8
0
-
v
o
N

8
0
-
c
e
D

9
0
-
n
a
J

9
0
-
b
e
F

9
0
-
r
a
M

9
0
-
r
p
A

9
0
-
y
a
M

9
0
-
n
u
J

9
0
-
l
u
J

9
0
-
g
u
A

9
0
-
p
e
S

9
0
-
t
c
O

9
0
-
v
o
N

9
0
-
c
e
D

0
1
-
n
a
J

0
1
-
b
e
F

0
1
-
r
a
M

Decision m onth

8
0
-
t
c
O

8
0
-
v
o
N

8
0
-
c
e
D

9
0
-
n
a
J

9
0
-
b
e
F

9
0
-
r
a
M

9
0
-
r
p
A

9
0
-
y
a
M

9
0
-
n
u
J

9
0
-
l
u
J

9
0
-
g
u
A

9
0
-
p
e
S

9
0
-
t
c
O

9
0
-
v
o
N

9
0
-
c
e
D

0
1
-
n
a
J

0
1
-
b
e
F

0
1
-
r
a
M

Decision m onth

EN 

13 

EN 

 
  
€
 
 
ANNEX 3 - Financial crisis measures by instrument 

Financial crisis measures approved until 31 March 2010 (approved amounts in € billion) 

Member State

Guarantee 
schemes

Recapitalisation 
schemes

Liquidity 
intervention 
schemes

Asset relief 
intervention 
schemes

Individual 
cases

Belgium
Denmark
Germany
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Luxembourg
Hungary
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom

Total EU27**

580*
400
376
15
200
265
n.a
3
4.27

5.35
200
75
4.62
16
2.8
12
50
156
381.87
2746.9

13.4
80

5
99
23.95
20

1.07

15
4.62
4
0.66

4
4.71
62.79
338.2

x
54

0.04

x

8
30

3.87

x

41.9

54.0

274.5
6.3
107.6
25.6

62.2

3.3
7.32

56.2
0.5

0.5

n.a
0.5
405.6
950.1 

Source: DG Competition. 
* High figures of approved guarantees in Denmark and Ireland are due to blanket guarantees given to bank liabilities. For approved amount of Irish guarantee scheme: data source Council Report of 9.6.2009. 
** Certain totals include estimates and approximations. 

EN 

14 

EN 

 
  
ANNEX 4 – Additional information 

Additional  data,  statistics  and  indicators,  previous  State  aid  Scoreboards  available 
online 

For  more  detailed  information  on  State  aid  policy  developments,  facts  and  figures,  see  DG 
Competition's State aid Scoreboard, published twice a year in spring and autumn on 

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/studies_reports.cfm 

State aid cases (State aid Register) 

The  Commission’s  State  aid  Register  provides  detailed  information  on  all  State  aid  cases 
which have been the object of a final Commission decision since 1st January 2000 as well as 
block exemption measures submitted by Member States. It is updated daily and thus ensures 
that 
recent  State  aid  decisions. 
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/state_aid/register/ 

the  public  has 

timely  access 

the  most 

to 

Annual Report on Competition Policy 

The Commission publishes an Annual Report on Competition Policy which summarises the 
most 
latest  case-law. 
http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/annual_reports/ 

legal  developments  as  well  as 

important  policy  and 

the 

Competition Policy Newsletter 

The  Competition  Policy  Newsletter,  which  is  published  three  times  a  year  by  DG 
Competition,  includes  a  series  of  articles  on  specific  legislative  developments  as  well  as 
interesting case-law. http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/publications/cpn/ 

State aid Weekly e-News 

The  State  aid  Weekly  e-News,  launched  in  2006,  is  distributed  free  of  charge  to  more  than 
3500  subscribers.  It  sets  out  the  activities  of  the  Commission  in  the  area  of  State  aid, 
including the latest legislative developments, Commission decisions, news, upcoming events, 
reports and studies. http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/newsletter/index.html 

EFTA State aid Scoreboard 

The  EFTA  Surveillance  Authority  (ESA)  publishes  an  annual  scoreboard  on  the  volume  of 
state 
Norway. 
Iceland, 
http://www.eftasurv.int/information/pressreleases/2008pr/dbaFile14074.html 

Liechtenstein 

granted 

and 

aid 

in 

EN 

15 

   EN