COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT   Facts and figures on State aid in the Member States   Accompanying the  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION State Aid Scoreboard  - Autumn 2010 Update -    {COM(2010) 701 final}
Date: 2010-12-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, State aid, control of State aid, economic analysis, economic recession, report

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 1.12.2010 
SEC(2010) 1462 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Facts and figures on State aid in the Member States 

Accompanying the 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

State Aid Scoreboard 

- Autumn 2010 Update - 

{COM(2010) 701 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table of contents 

INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 5 

State aid in the context of the economic crisis ........................................................................... 5 

Scope and content....................................................................................................................... 6 

State aid as defined under Article 107 TFEU ............................................................................ 7 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

State aid in 2009 in absolute and relative terms........................................................... 8 

Total State aid and State aid per sector as % of GDP .................................................. 8 

Impact of crisis measures on total State aid ................................................................. 9 

Total State aid and State aid per sector as % of GDP (crisis measures excluded)..... 10 

Broad sectoral distribution of aid (with and without crisis measures)....................... 13 

Trends and patterns of state aid expenditure in the Member States........................... 14 

Levels of State aid to industry and services ............................................................... 14 

State aid for horizontal objectives of common interest.............................................. 18 

2.2.1.  Horizontal versus sectoral aid in 2009 ....................................................................... 19 

2.2.2.  State aid to horizontal objectives ............................................................................... 20 

2.2.3.  Trend in State aid for horizontal objectives and sectoral objectives.......................... 25 

2.2.4.  State aid for research and development and innovation............................................. 27 

2.2.5.  State aid for SMEs including risk capital................................................................... 29 

2.2.6.  State aid for environmental protection....................................................................... 30 

2.2.7.  State aid supporting regional development and cohesion .......................................... 31 

2.3. 

State aid earmarked for specific sectors..................................................................... 32 

2.3.1.  State aid for rescue and restructuring firms in difficulty ........................................... 32 

2.3.2.  State aid to the shipbuilding sector ............................................................................ 33 

2.3.3.  State aid to the steel sector ......................................................................................... 33 

2.3.4.  State aid to the coal sector.......................................................................................... 33 

2.3.5.  State aid to the transport sector .................................................................................. 34 

2.3.6.  State aid to the agricultural sector.............................................................................. 37 

2.3.7.  State aid to the fisheries sector................................................................................... 38 

2.4. 

State aid instruments .................................................................................................. 38 

2.4.1.  State aid instruments and aid volumes in 2009.......................................................... 39 

2.4.2.  Trend in the use of aid instruments (crisis measures excluded)................................. 40 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

State aid in the context of the financial and economic crisis ..................................... 42 

General background ................................................................................................... 42 

Commission's response to the financial crisis in the field of State aid ...................... 43 

3.2.1.  Trends in the financial sector 2009 - 2010................................................................. 44 

EN 

2 

   EN 

3.2.2.  The main highlights 2010........................................................................................... 45 

3.3. 

General trends in State aid granted to the financial sector in 2009............................ 47 

3.3.1.  Guarantees on bank debt ............................................................................................ 50 

3.3.2.  Recapitalisation measures .......................................................................................... 52 

3.3.3. 

Impaired assets ........................................................................................................... 53 

3.3.4.  Liquidity interventions other than guarantees............................................................ 54 

3.3.5.  Restructuring .............................................................................................................. 55 

3.4. 

Aid granted under the Temporary Framework........................................................... 55 

3.4.1.  Context and purpose of the Temporary Framework .................................................. 55 

3.4.2.  Measures approved under the Temporary Framework .............................................. 56 

3.4.3.  Aid granted in 2009.................................................................................................... 57 

3.4.4.  Special reference to the car sector.............................................................................. 58 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

5.3. 

5.4. 

Simplification of the State aid rules ........................................................................... 59 

A new architecture for State aid control .................................................................... 59 

Types of aid measures used by Member States ......................................................... 60 

Enforcement the state aid rules .................................................................................. 63 

Unlawful aid............................................................................................................... 63 

Recovery of unlawful aid ........................................................................................... 64 

Enforcement of State aid Law: Cooperation with national courts ............................. 66 

Ex-post monitoring..................................................................................................... 67 

Methodological Notes .............................................................................................................. 68 

Annex: Statistical tables ........................................................................................................... 71 

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; 2009)................................................................................................................ 71 

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; 2009) ................................................................................................ 72 

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

excluded); 2009.......................................................................................................... 73 

Table 1-4: Trend in share of primary objectives in total aid between 2004 - 2006 and 2007 - 

2009 as percentage point difference (crisis measures excluded) ............................... 74 

Table 2: Main set of rules adopted since the launch of the SAAP in 2005.............................. 75 

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

Framework (until 1 October 2010) ............................................................................ 79 

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

2010 (by 30 June 2010).............................................................................................. 83 

Table 4-2: Recovery in the fisheries sector.............................................................................. 83 

EN 

3 

   EN 

Table 4-3: Pending recovery decisions (by 30 June 2010) ...................................................... 84 

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 2010) ........................................................................................... 88 

Table 5: Summary of rules for the transport sector.................................................................. 92 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
INTRODUCTION 

State aid in the context of the economic crisis  

Until  the  financial  crisis,  the  EU  was  experiencing  steady  economic  growth  and  GDP 
increased on average by roughly 1.5% per annum. Between 2002 and 2007, the level of State 
aid  to  industry  and  services,  expressed  as  a  percentage  of  GDP,  decreased  on  average  by 
around 2% per year and stood at slightly below 0.5% in 2007. Member States continued their 
effort to reduce budget deficits reaching lower levels than at the beginning of the millennium. 
The  rate  of  unemployment  fell  in  line  with  the  positive  economic  trend  and  stood  at 
approximately 7% EU-wide in 2008. 

The financial crisis brought GDP growth, low levels of State aid expenditure and decreasing 
budget  deficits  to  an  abrupt  end.  Economic  activity  contracted  in  the  second  half  of  2008 
leading to a fall in GDP of approximately 1.4% in 2008. It declined further by almost 4% in 
2009. It only began to stabilise in the third quarter of 2009, mainly due to the reaction of the 
Commission and Member States to the financial crisis through exceptional stimulus packages. 
Budget  deficits  have  increased  substantially  albeit  with  significant  variations  between 
Member States. As can be expected, State aid expenditure has also risen since most Member 
States have given support to their economies to stabilise the financial sector. 

After  the  break-down  of  the  inter-bank  lending  in  September  2008,  Member  States  injected 
substantial amounts of aid into the banking sector in order to prevent the collapse of banks in 
the  EU  and  with  the  aim  of  countering  the  systemic  risk  which  many  banks  posed  to  the 
functioning of the financial markets. It is this kind of aid which still contributed mostly to the 
significant amount of State aid expenditure in 2009. 

A  stable  banking  system  is  key  to  provide  the  economy  with  liquidity,  mainly  in  form  of 
credit.  This  is  essential  for  business  operations  but  is  particularly  important  for  Small  and 
Medium-sized  Enterprises  ("SME")  with  a  view  to  ensuring  new  investments,  especially  in 
the technologies needed to achieve European objectives. Improving the business environment 
notably  for  SMEs  and  the  development  of  a  strong  and  sustainable  industrial  base  able  to 
compete  globally  is  indeed  one  of  the  flagship  initiatives  under  the  Commission's  Europe 
2020 Strategy1  to achieve smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.  Support measures to the 
financial  sector  and  aid  to  the  real  economy  were  put  in  place  by  Member  States  to  ease 
business's financing constraints. The massive injections of aid which contributed to stabilising 
the  banking  sector  should  eventually  reap  future  dividends  in  the  form  of  maintaining  jobs 
and creating new ones and ensuring that many enterprises are able to stay in business because 
of  continued  access  to  finance  (though  this  is  admittedly  more  difficult  than  in  previous 
years).  

Needless to say, State aid expenditure has to return to pre-crisis levels over the coming years 
and budget deficits will also have to decrease. A real challenge for Member States will be the 
sharp rise in unemployment over the next few years. Only by returning to economic growth, 
can  public  spending  be  reduced  over  time.  Current  State  aid  contributes  to  stabilising  the 
economy in order to boost return to growth. By gradually ending crisis-induced state support 
over the coming years, the path of economic growth will not be jeopardised by a sudden lack 

1    

Communication from the Commission "Europe 2020 – A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive 
growth" of 3 March 2010; COM (2010) 2020.  

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
of  resources  and  a  smooth  transition  towards  sustainable  growth  will  be  ensured.  Read 
Chapter 3 for more detail. 

 Scope and content 

This  autumn  2010  update  of  the  State  aid  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  ("the 
Scoreboard")2 focuses on the State aid situation in the 27 Member States for the year 2009. 
The Staff Working Document (available in English only) is an annex to the Report adopted by 
the  College  of  Commissioners  on  the  State  Aid  Scoreboard.  While  the  Commission  Report 
outlines  the  principal  developments  as  regards  State  aid  expenditure,  this  staff  working 
document gives detail on the underlying facts and trends. 

The Scoreboard is the European Commission's instrument to monitor State aid expenditure in 
the  Member  States.  In  recent  years,  the  Scoreboard  also  made  reference  to  the  Lisbon 
objectives by which to assess Member States' progress towards meeting successive European 
Councils'  call  for  “less  and  better  targeted  aid”.  In  future,  the  Scoreboard  will  continue 
monitoring aid expenditure with reference to the main goals of the recently introduced Europe 
2020 strategy3.  

When starting to analyse State aid expenditure in 2009, a high aid volume was still expected 
due to aid in response to the financial and economic crisis. Many Member States continued to 
grant substantial aid to the financial sector, be it in the form of rescue and restructuring aid or 
aid directed to remedy a serious disturbance of the economy, but they also made use of the 
Temporary  framework  for  State  aid  measures  to  support  access  to  finance  in  the  current 
financial and economic crisis4
 ("Temporary Framework"). By presenting State aid expenditure 
including the aid volumes granted to crisis-related measures, i.e. financial crisis and aid to the 
real  economy  ("crisis  measures")5,  the  report  would  probably  draw  the  wrong  conclusions 
since  high  aid  volumes  related  to  crisis  measures  distort  the  overall  picture  on  State  aid. 
Where  appropriate  the  report  henceforth  identifies  State  aid  volumes  excluding  crisis 
measures, thereby being able to focus on the essential developments, as if there were no crisis 
measures.  Crisis  measures  will  be  reported  on  separately  and  will  use  a  different  reference 
period in order to provide a full picture of crisis-induced aid. 

This  update  of  the  Scoreboard  also  reports  on  progress  towards  delivering  a  comprehensive 
and  coherent  reform  package  for  State  aid  that  began  with  the  State  Aid  Action  Plan6 
("SAAP") in 2005. 

The Scoreboard comprises five chapters. Key statistical information on State aid awarded by 
each  Member  State  in  2009  is  included  in  Chapters  1  and  2,  where  detailed  data  show  the 
trend of State aid expenditure. Chapter 3 provides an update of the spring 2010 Scoreboard7 

2  

3  

4  

5  

6 
7    

Any  reference  to  the  Scoreboard  in  this  text  refers  to  this  document  (the  Commission's  staff  working 
document).  
Europe 2020 – A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth; 
http://ec.europa.eu/eu2020/index_en.htm.    
Communication from the Commission – Temporary Framework, OJ C 83, 7.4.2009, p. 1; Modification 
of  the  Temporary  Framework  –  to  allow  separate  limited  amount  of  aid  to  farmers,  OJ  C  261, 
31.10.2009,  p.  1;  2nd  Modification  of  the  Temporary  Framework  –  technical  modification  to  further 
facilitate access to finance and encourage long-term investment, OJ C 303, 15.12.2009, p. 6.   
Aid  measures  qualify  as  crisis  measures  if  they  were  adopted  under  sector  specific  State  aid  rules 
introduced  in  the  context  of  the  current  global  financial  crisis  or  adopted  under  the  Temporary 
Framework. Measures responding to the financial crisis but which were approved prior to the adoption 
of these specific State aid rules also count as crisis measures. For more details see chapter 3. 
COM(2005) 107 final, 7.6.2005. 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52010DC0255:EN:NOT.   

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
with respect to State aid cases dealing with the financial crisis. It also provides, to the extent 
possible,  an  outlook  for  the  future,  based  on  the  latest  developments.  Furthermore,  this 
chapter 3 contains for the first time the aid expenditure which Member States granted under 
Temporary Framework. Chapter 4 provides an overview on the simplification of State aid rules 
that have been put into place since the SAAP in 2005. In particular, it provides for an update on 
the  use  of  block  exempted  aid  by  Member  States.  Chapter  5  reports  on  ongoing  efforts  to 
enforce  the  State  aid  rules  and  to  recover  unlawful  aid.  Finally,  tables  in  the  annexes  show 
key  figures  concerning  State  aid  expenditure,  the  follow-up  on  the  SAAP  and  the  case  lists 
relating to the financial and economic crisis and on recovery. 
The  Directorate-General  for  Competition  publishes  this  Scoreboard  on  its  website8,  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 scoreboard9 on the volume of 
State aid granted in Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. 

State aid as defined under Article 107 TFEU10 

The  Scoreboard  covers  State  aid  as  defined  under  Article 107(1)  TFEU  (ex  Article 87(1)  of 
the EC Treaty) that Member States granted up to the end of 2009. All State aid data refer to 
the  implementation  of  Commission  decisions  but  exclude  cases  which  are  still  under 
examination. General measures implemented by Member States do not constitute State aid as 
defined by Article 107(1) TFEU.  

The  economic  advantage  passed  onto  undertakings  through  State  aid  measures  can  be 
measured in different ways: for grants, the advantage passed on to 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 within the meaning of Article 107(1) 
TFEU. 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.  

8  
9  
10    

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/studies_reports.html . 
http://www.eftasurv.int/information/sascoreboard/.   
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.  

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1. 

STATE AID IN 2009 IN ABSOLUTE AND RELATIVE TERMS 

2009's State aid expenditure in the EU covers total State aid, aid to industry and services and 
aid granted through crisis measures. The indicator of 'State aid as percentage of GDP' takes 
into account the general economic situation in the 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 111: Total State aid as % of GDP (all sectors; crisis measures included); 2009 

Total State aid as % of GDP; 2009

Estonia

Slovakia
Italy

Romania
Czech Republic

Lithuania
Poland

Portugal
EU-12

Finland
Spain

Slovenia
Hungary

Malta
Netherlands

Bulgaria
France

Cyprus
Luxembourg

EU-27
Sw eden

EU-15
Austria

Denmark
Germany

Latvia
Greece

Ireland
United Kingdom

Belgium

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Industry and services as % of GDP
Agriculture, fisheries and transport as % of GDP

11  

Source:  DG  Competition,  DG  Agriculture  and  DG  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries.  Note:  Member 
States are ranked in ascending order according to the total amount of aid expressed as % of GDP. Data 
cover  all  State  aid  measures  as  defined  under  Article  107(1)  TFEU  (ex  Article  87(1)  TEC)  that  have 
been  awarded  by  Member  States  and  examined  by  the  Commission.  All  sectors  are  included  except 
railways and Services of General Economic Interest. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Total State aid12 granted by the Member States amounted to approximately € 427.2 billion in 
200913. In absolute terms, the United Kingdom recorded the highest aid level (€ 124 billion), 
followed  by  Germany  (€ 116.8 billion),  France  (€
 42.3 billion),  Belgium  (€ 34.3 billion)  and 
Greece (€ 14.3 billion). 
In relative terms, State aid amounted to 3.6% of EU-2714 GDP in 2009. This average masks 
significant disparities between Member States: the share of total aid to GDP amounts to less 
than 1% (of GDP) in 7 countries and exceeds the average in 9 countries. The sharp increase in 
State aid in some of these countries was due to crisis measures. 

1.2. 

Impact of crisis measures on total State aid 

Crisis  measures  implemented  and  reported  by  Member  States  in  2009  amounted  to 
approximately € 353.9 billion or around 3% of GDP.  
Figure 215: Total State aid to industry and services as % of GDP (all cases versus crisis 
measures excluded); EU-27; 2009 

4.0

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

Total State aid to industry and services as % of GDP (all cases 
versus crisis cases excluded); EU-27; 2009

3.5

0.5

0.13

0.13

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  shows  the  impact  the  crisis  measures  had  on  total  State  aid  granted  by  Member 
States to industry and services. 

Aid granted by 22 Member States to financial institutions in response to the crisis contributed 
most to the big increase in State aid to industry and services at EU-27 level. Many of the EU-
1216 countries  saw  no  need to support their banking sector. Hence their aid levels remained 
unaffected by crisis measures. Chapter 3 provides more detail on crisis measures. 

12 

13  
14  
15  
16  

The  total  covers  aid  to  manufacturing,  services,  coal,  agriculture,  fisheries  and  part  of  the  transport 
sector but excludes aid to the railway sector and aid for compensation for services of general economic 
interest due to the lack of comparable data. 
Crisis measures included. 
EU-27 means all Member States of the EU.  
Source: DG Competition, DG Agriculture and DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries. 
EU-12 includes Member States which acceded to the EU in 2004 or later. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
1.3. 

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

Figure 317: Total State aid (crisis measures excluded) as % of GDP (all sectors); 2009 

Total State aid as % of GDP; 2009
(crisis measures excluded)

United Kingdom

Luxem bourg
Es tonia

Italy

Netherlands

Slovakia
Spain

Belgium
EU-15

EU-27
Aus tria

Rom ania
Czech Republic

Germ any

France

Lithuania
Greece

Sweden
Slovenia

EU-12

Ireland

Poland
Denm ark

Portugal

Cyprus

Latvia
Finland

Hungary
Malta

Bulgaria

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Indus try and s ervices  as  % of GDP
Agriculture, fis heries  and trans port as  % of GDP

17  

Source:  DG  Competition,  DG  Agriculture  and  DG  Maritime  Affairs  and  Fisheries.  Note:  Member 
States are ranked in ascending order according to the total amount of aid expressed as % of GDP. Data 
cover  all  State  aid  measures  as  defined  under  Article  107(1)  TFEU  (ex  Article  87(1)  TEC)  that  have 
been  awarded  by  Member  States  and  examined  by  the  Commission.  All  sectors  are  included  except 
railways. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Figure 418: Total State aid to industry and services as % of GDP (crisis measures 

excluded); 2009 

Total State aid as % of GDP; 2009 
(crisis measures excluded)

Estonia

Bulgaria

Latvia

Romania

United Kingdom

Luxembourg

Lithuania

Netherlands

Italy

Slovakia

Austria

Cyprus

Ireland

Finland

Spain

Belgium

EU-15

EU-27

Czech Republic

EU-12

France

Germany

Slovenia

Poland

Greece

Sweden

Denmark

Portugal

Hungary

Malta

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

Industry and services as % of GDP

Excluding  crisis  measures,  total  State  aid  amounted  to  around  € 73.2 billion  in  2009.  In 
absolute  terms,  Germany  granted  most  aid  (around  € 16.7 billion),  followed  by  France 
ain  (€  5.7  billion)  a nd  the  United  Kingdom 
(€ 14.7 billion),  Italy  (€ 5.7 billion),  Sp
(€ 4.1 billion). 

18  

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 
107(1) TFEU (ex Article 87(1) TEC) that have been awarded by Member States and examined by the 
Commission.  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In  relative  terms,  total  State  aid  amounted  to  0.62%  of  EU-27  GDP  in  2009.  This  average 
masks significant disparities between Member States: the share of total aid to GDP amounts 
to less than the average in 16 Member States.  

In  sectoral  terms,  around  € 46.9 billion  of  ai d  was  earmarked  for  the  manufacturing  and 
services sectors, roughly € 2.5 billion  for the other non manufacturing sectors19, € 2.7 billion 
for  coal,  € 11.8  billion  for  agriculture  and  fish eries  and  approximately  € 3.3 billion  for  the 
transport sector (excluding railways)20.  

Significant differences were found between Member States regarding the sectors to which aid 
was  directed.  In  2009,  aid  directed  at  manufacturing  and  services,  other  non  manufacturing 
sectors  and  coal  represented  75%  or  more  of  total  aid  inter  alia  in  Denmark,  Germany, 
Luxembourg,  Poland,  Portugal  and  Sweden.  In  a  few  Member  States,  aid  to  agriculture, 
fisheries  and  transport  still  accounts  for  more  than  50%  of  the  total,  namely  in  Bulgaria, 
Estonia,  Ireland,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Romania  and  Finland.  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 services 

Total  aid  to  industry  and  services  amounted  to  approximately  € 412.1 billion 21  in  2009.  In 
absolute terms, the United Kingdom granted most aid (€ 123.2 billion) followed by Germany 
€ 115.4 billion), France (€ 39.3 billion), Belgiu m (€ 33.9 billion), and Greece (€ 14.1 billion). 

In  relative  terms,  State  aid  to  industry  and  services  amounted  to  3.49%  of  EU-27  GDP  in 
2009. This second indicator produces a rather different ranking of Member States. 18 Member 
States granted aid representing less than the EU-27 average expressed in GDP.  

Excluding crisis measures, aid awarded to industry and services amounted to € 58.1 billion in 
2009. Germany granted most aid (around € 15.3 bill ion) followed by France (€ 11.7 billion), 
Spain (€ 4.9 billion), Italy (€ 4.6 billion)
In  relative  terms,  State  aid  to industry  and  services  amounted  to  0.49%22  of  EU-27  GDP  in 
2009. This average masks significant disparities between Member States: the ratio of total aid 
to GDP is less than the average in 16 countries. 

 and the United Kingdom (€ 3.3 billion). 

Aid to industry and services represents 79.3% of total State aid. Coal, as part of sectoral aid, 
amounted  to  € 2.7 billion  or  3.7%  of  total  aid.  The  remainder  of  aid  is  spread  between 
agriculture  (15.9%  of  total  aid),  fisheries  (0.3%  of  total  aid),  and  transport23  (4.5%  of  total 
aid). 

16  Member  States  lie  below  the  EU-27  average  (0.49%  of  GDP)  for  aid  to  industry  and 
services. Aid expenditure in 2009 was expected to rise in view of the continuing fragility of 
the economic situation throughout that year. 

19 

20  

21  
22  
23  

It includes aid for mining and quarrying, oil and gas extraction, aid for electricity, gas and water supply 
and aid for construction. 
DG Agriculture is responsible for aid to the agricultural sector, DG Maritime and Fishery Affaires for 
aid  to  fisheries;  aid  to  railways  is  monitored  by  DG  Mobility  and  Transport  while  since  2010  DG 
Competition  is  in  charge  of  aid  granted  to  the  remainder  of  the  transport  sector  (previously  this  task 
belonged to DG Transport and Energy).  
Crisis measures included. 
Crisis measures excluded. 
Excluding railways. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

                                                 
1.4. 
Figure 524 

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

: Total State aid (all cases); EU-27; 2009 

Total State Aid by sector; EU-27; 2009

Agriculture+ Fisheries
2.8%

Transport 
(Excl.Railways)
0.8%

Industry+ services
96.4%

Figure 625 

: Total State aid (crisis measures excluded); EU-27; 2009 

Total State Aid by sector; EU-27; 2009
(crisis measures excluded)

Agriculture+ 
Fisheries
16.2%

Industry+ services
79.3%

Transport 
(Excl.Railways)
4.5%

24  
25  

Source: DG Competition, DG Agriculture, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, DG Energy. 
Source: DG Competition, DG Agriculture, DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, DG Energy. 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figures  5  and  6  present  the  distribution  of  State  aid  per  sector.  Due  to  the  high  volumes  of 
crisis aid, Member States channelled most aid to industry and services (96.4%) in 2009. The 
other sectors represent only a small aggregated share of 3.6%.  

Excluding  crisis  measures,  Member  States  awarded  roughly  79.3%  of  aid  to  industry  and 
services.  The  remainder  of  the  aid  is  spread  between  agriculture  and  fisheries  (16.2%)  and 
transport (4.5%)26.  

2. 

TRENDS AND PATTERNS OF STATE AID EXPENDITURE IN THE MEMBER STATES 

In contrast to the static view given above, trends and patterns of State aid expenditure in the 
Member States will now be examined. The degree to which Member States have (or have not) 
reduced  the  level  of  State  aid  can  be  measured  by  looking  not  only  at  State  aid  relative  to 
GDP in particular years but also by looking at the aid granted over a number of years in order 
to eliminate annual fluctuations and delayed reporting27. The periods into which expenditure 
data were grouped are 2004 - 2006 and 2007 - 2009. 

2.1. 

Levels of State aid to industry and services 

Since data on aid to agriculture, fisheries and transport contain particularities28 which prevent 
the production of aggregate information across all sectors, all observations will exclude these 
sectors. 

Total  State  aid  to  industry  and  services  obviously  includes  crisis  measures  (€ 353.9 billion) 
which is the main cause of the higher level of total State aid to industry and services in 2009 
compared with 2008. This would influence most key data and undermine the comparability of 
data  between  individual  years.  Furthermore,  crisis  measures  represent  aid  granted  under 
exceptional circumstances and most of it is attributed to the financial sector (only a small part 
represents  "crisis"  aid  to  the  real  economy).  Where  appropriate,  State  aid  expenditure  for 
crisis measures is therefore not taken into account when analysing trends and patterns. Read 
more about crisis measures in Chapter 3.   

26  
27  

28  

Excluding railways. 
In spite of the Member States’ obligation (Annex III of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 
21 April 2004) to report State aid expenditure for the year t-1, a few Member States are able to report 
only  estimates  for  some  measures  and  the  actual  expenditure  follows  the  year  after.  In  addition, 
unlawfully  granted  State  aid  is  included  in  the  Scoreboard  data  only  if  the  Commission  has  issued  a 
negative decision and hence expenditure is retroactively attributed to the year(s) in which the aid was 
granted. For this reason, overall aid levels might be underestimated for the most recent year. 
For instance, aid to the agricultural sector is earmarked through a set of particular objectives which are 
different from those for industry and services.     

EN 

14 

   EN 

                                                 
Figure 729: State aid to industry and services since 1992 

State aid to industry and services as % GDP as of 1992; EU-27

P
D
G

f
o
%

4

3.5

3

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

2009

EU-27

EU-27 (excluding crisis measures)

Figure 7 shows the long-term trend for State aid expenditure for industry and services in the 
EU. During the 1990s, the overall level of aid was around 0.7% of GDP30 on average and 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 control was strengthened in the 1990s mainly as a result of preparation for Economic and 
Monetary Union. 

New impetus from the Lisbon Strategy launched by the European Council in 2000 and then 
the  SAAP  in  2005  resulted  in  a  further  decline  in  aid  to  industry  and  services,  which 
fluctuated between 0.4% and 0.6% of GDP between 2000 and 200731.  

Three  main  factors  contributed  to  this  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 Rock32 and Sachsen LB33. Both 
cases  are  now  treated  as  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.  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 of EU State 
aid law and policy.   

This  positive  downward  trend  was  brought  to  an  abrupt  end  due  to  the  financial  crisis.  The 
strong  upward  curve  in  2008  can  be  almost  exclusively  attributed  to  crisis  measures,  which 
was roughly two-thirds higher than in 200734. Aid granted in 2009 was higher still again due 
to the focus which Member States put on the financial sector. 

29  
30  
31   
32  
33  
34  

Source: DG Competition. 
1997 had a peak due to the Credit Lyonnais aid.   
The aid to BGB in 2002 contributed to another peak in the long-term trend.  
NN 70/2007 Northern Rock.  
C 9/2008 Restructuring aid to Sachsen LB.  
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 radar, e.g. rescue and restructuring of Northern Rock and 
Sachsen LB. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
In  order  to  examine  expenditure  developments  without  the  distorting  effect  of  the  crisis 
measures, they will be excluded from total aid to industry and services in following analysis. 
On  this  basis,  the  trend  shows  a  small  upward  move  in  2009.  Compared  with  2008,  aid  for 
industry and services increased by approximately 0.03% of GDP. For instance, France granted 
more aid to regional development as well as for research and development, Germany more on 
regional aid and aid to SMEs. Aid earmarked for these horizontal objectives contributed the 
most to the increase. That said, the increase in aid volumes witnessed in 2008 and 2009 do not 
yet  allow  a  conclusion  to  be  drawn  as  to  whether  the  long-term  downward  trend  in  EU-27 
State aid expenditure has been reversed; the data is for just two years and remains within the 
average for the period 2000 - 2007.  

EN 

16 

   EN 

Figure 835:  

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

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

Slovenia

Malta

Romania

Cyprus

EU-12

Germany

Bulgaria

Italy

Austria

Sweden

Estonia

EU-27

Poland

EU-15

Latvia

United Kingdom

Netherlands

Luxembourg

Spain

Finland

Ireland

Denmark

France

Slovakia

Belgium

Lithuania

Hungary

Czech Republic

Portugal

Greece

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

% of GDP

2004-2006

2007-2009

35  

Source: DG Competition. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The trend in State aid expenditure to industry and services, as shown in figure 8, indicates that 
some Member States were able to reduce aid expenditure despite the impact of the financial 
and  economic  crisis,  i.e.  11  Member  States reduced  aid  levels  in  the  period  2007  -  2009  as 
compared  with  2004  -  2006.  While  many  of  the  EU-12  Member  States  were  able  to  reduce 
their aid levels, Cyprus, Romania and Slovenia achieved a more significant reduction of 0.5% 
of  GDP  or  more.  As  a  result,  the  average  EU-12  expenditure  reduced  by  0.13%  of  GDP  in 
2007 - 2009 as compared to 2004 - 2006. Some EU-15 countries e.g. Germany, Italy, Austria 
and Sweden were also able to slightly reduce aid levels in terms of percentage of GDP during 
the period 2007 - 2009 when compared with 2004 - 2006. The EU-27 aid level in the period 
2007  -  2009  decreased  slightly  by  0.003%  of  GDP  while  it  increased  by  0.006%  of  GDP 
when  looking  at  EU-1536.  Greece,  the  Czech  Republic,  Portugal  and  Belgium  contributed 
most  to  the  increase,  each  increasing  expenditure  by  0.1%  of  GDP  or  more.  The  slight 
increase  in  aid  to  industry  and  services  in  2009,  and  more  in  2008,  is  also  reflected  in  the 
trend  –  see  above.  Again,  it  would  be  too  early  to  identify  a  reversal  of  the  long-term 
downward  trend  in  EU-27  State  aid  expenditure;  the  data  is  just  for  two  years  and  remains 
within the average for the period 2000 - 2007.  

Some Member States increased aid expenditure in 2007 - 2009 compared to 2004 - 2006. For 
instance, the Czech Republic granted more aid to regional development, as did Greece, France 
and  Latvia.  Sweden  again  granted  substantial  aid  earmarked  for  protection  of  the 
environment,  mainly  through  fiscal  aid.  Belgium  also  granted  more  aid  for  environmental 
protection. The United Kingdom increased aid for research and development.     

2.2. 

State aid for horizontal objectives of common interest 

The Treaty sets out a general prohibition on State aid but the original drafters were not blind 
to  the  fact  that,  in  some  circumstances,  government  interventions  are  necessary  for  a  well-
functioning and equitable economy. Therefore, the Treaty leaves room for a number of policy 
objectives  according  to  which  State  aid  can  be  found  to  be  compatible  with  the  internal 
market. State aid measures can be effective tools for a number of policy objectives. The most 
prominent  horizontal  objectives  pursued  using  State  aid  include  support  to  Research  and 
Development and Innovation (hereinafter "R&D&I"), safeguarding the environment including 
energy saving and renewable energies, support to SMEs, employment creation, the promotion 
of training and regional economic development. 

State  aid  for  horizontal  objectives,  i.e.  aid  that  is  not  granted  to  specific  sectors,  is  usually 
considered  as  being  better  suited  to  address  market  failures  and  thus  less  distortive  than 
sectoral37 or ad hoc aid.  

Following the call at various European Councils Member States have, in recent years, shifted 
their  efforts  from  supporting  individual  companies  or  sectors  towards  tackling  horizontal 
objectives of common interest, including cohesion objectives. This section provides detailed 
information on horizontal and sectoral aid and relevant trends. 

36   
37  

EU-15 comprises Member States that joined the EU before 2004.  
Including rescue and restructuring aid. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

                                                 
2.2.1.  Horizontal versus sectoral aid in 2009 
Figure 938: Total State aid, aid to industry and services as % of GDP, share of horizontal  

Figures in (…) 
include crisis 
measures 

Total State 
Aid less 
railways in 
billion EUR 

Total State 
Aid for 
industry and 
services in 
billion EUR 

Total State 
Aid less 
railways as % 
of GDP 

Total State 
Aid for 
industry and 
services as % 
of GDP 

Horizontal 
objectives as 
% of total aid 
for industry 
and services 

EU 27 

EU 15 

EU 12 

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

73.2 (427.2) 

58.1 (412.1) 

0.6 (3.6) 

0.5 (3.5) 

84 (12) 

65.1 (417.3) 

53.4 (405.6) 

0.6 (3.8) 

0.5 (3.7) 

85 (11) 

8.1 (9.9) 

4.7 (6.5) 

0.9 (1.1) 

0.5 (0.8) 

76 (55) 

2.0 (34.3) 

1.6 (33.9) 

0.6 (10.2) 

0.5 (10.1) 

100 (5) 

0.7 (0.7) 

0.03 (0.0) 

2.1 (2.1) 

0.1 (0.1) 

100 (100) 

Czech Republic 

0.9 (0.9) 

0.7 (0.7) 

0.7 (0.7) 

0.5 (0.5) 

88 (88) 

Denmark 

2.1 (10.2) 

1.9 (10.0) 

1.0 (4.6) 

0.9 (4.5) 

97 (19) 

Germany 

16.7 (116.8) 

15.2 (115.4) 

0.7 (4.8) 

0.6 (4.8) 

86 (11) 

Estonia 

0.04 (0.04) 

0.01 (0.01) 

0.3 (0.3) 

0.1 (0.1) 

100 (100) 

Ireland 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Cyprus 

Latvia 

1.5 (12.6) 

0.7 (11.8) 

0.9 (7.7) 

0.5 (7.2) 

89 (6) 

2.0 (14.3) 

1.8 (14.1) 

0.8 (6.0) 

0.7 (5.9) 

87 (11) 

5.7 (13.2) 

4.9 (12.4) 

0.5 (1.3) 

0.5 (1.2) 

80 (32) 

14.7 (42.3) 

11.7 (39.3) 

0.8 (2.2) 

0.6 (2.1) 

79 (23) 

5.7 (10.2) 

4.6 (9.2) 

0.4 (0.6) 

0.3 (0.6) 

84 (45) 

0.2 (0.4) 

0.1 (0.3) 

1.0 (2.4) 

0.4 (1.7) 

95 (21) 

0.2 (1.1) 

0.0 (0.9) 

1.0 (5.8) 

0.1 (4.9) 

100 (2) 

Lithuania 

0.2 (0.2) 

0.1 (0.1) 

0.8 (0.8) 

0.3 (0.3) 

100 (100) 

Luxembourg 

0.1 (1.0) 

0.1 (1.0) 

0.3 (2.8) 

0.2 (2.7) 

100 (9) 

Hungary 

1.4 (1.9) 

0.9 (1.5) 

1.5 (2.0) 

1.0 (1.5) 

76 (50) 

Malta 

0.1 (0.1) 

0.1 (0.1) 

2.0 (2.0) 

1.7 (1.7) 

23 (23) 

Netherlands 

2.4 (12.1) 

1.7 (11.4) 

0.4 (2.1) 

0.3 (2.0) 

99 (15) 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

1.7 (11.2) 

1.0 (10.5) 

0.6 (4.1) 

0.4 (3.8) 

99 (10) 

2.9 (2.9) 

2.2 (2.2) 

0.9 (0.9) 

0.7 (0.7) 

71 (71) 

1.6 (1.7) 

1.6 (1.6) 

1.0 (1.0) 

0.9 (1.0) 

19 (18) 

0.8 (0.8) 

0.2 (0.2) 

0.7 (0.7) 

0.1 (0.1) 

50 (50) 

38   

Source: DG Competition, DG Agriculture, DG Maritime and Fisheries Affairs. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

0.3 (0.5) 

0.2 (0.4) 

0.9 (1.5) 

0.7 (1.3) 

91 (47) 

0.3 (0.3) 

0.2 (0.2) 

0.5 (0.5) 

0.4 (0.4) 

90 (89) 

2.1 (2.1) 

0.8 (0.8) 

1.2 (1.2) 

0.5 (0.5) 

99 (98) 

2.6 (11.1) 

2.4 (10.9) 

0.9 (3.8) 

0.8 (3.7) 

100 (22) 

United Kingdom 

4.0 (124.2) 

3.2 (123.2) 

0.3 (7.9) 

0.2 (7.9) 

91 (2) 

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

As chapter 3 shows, most of the aid granted to "remedy a serious disturbance in the economy" 
(crisis measures) is aid granted to the financial sector and hence classified as sectoral aid. The 
Temporary  Framework,  which  allowed  Member  States  to  address  the  effects  of  the  credit 
squeeze on the real economy, is however a horizontal instrument to support all sectors of the 
economy.  Given  the  high  volumes  of  crisis  aid  granted  to  financial  institutions  the  relative 
share of horizontal aid as part of total aid to industry and services decreased significantly in 
2009. If the corresponding aid volumes were included in the total of the sectoral aid for 2009, 
the  share  of  horizontal  objectives  in  relation  to  total  aid  to  industry  and  services  would 
amount  to  approximately  12%.  Around  88%  would  be  sectoral  aid,  of  which  the  financial 
crisis measures represent the largest part (more than 96%).  

However,  the  analysis  of  horizontal  aid  is  more  informative  when  looking  at  State  aid  to 
industry  and  services  excluding  crisis  measures.  It  then  appears  that  horizontal  objectives 
represent  a  share  of  around  84%  of  aid  granted  in  2009  while  sectoral  aid  stands  at  around 
16%. These shares have been relatively stable for the last four years (between 82% and 84%) 
in EU-27. It should be stressed that in EU-12, the share of horizontal objectives has increased 
in recent years from 28% in 2004 to achieve in 2009 a share of 76% of aid to industry and 
services, approaching the 84% EU-27 average.  

In absolute terms, aid earmarked for horizontal objectives amounted to roughly € 48.7 billion 
in 2009 and sectoral aid to about € 9.4 billion. It is worth noting  with respect to sectoral aid 
that the trend shows a slight decrease in sectoral aid between the period 2004-2006 and 2007-
2009, mainly due to lower aid granted to the coal sector.  

2.2.2. 

State aid to horizontal objectives  

In  23  Member  States,  at  least  three-quarters  of  all  the  aid  awarded  in  2009  was  for 
horizontal objectives of common interest 

Aid  earmarked  for  horizontal  objectives  accounted  for  84%  of  total  aid  to  industry  and 
services in 2009. It comprises notified aid and aid granted under block  exempted  measures. 
The remaining 16% was aid directed at specific sectors39: financial services other than crisis 
measures  (2%),  coal  (5%),  other  services  (1%),  manufacturing  sectors  (6%)  and  other  non-
manufacturing sectors (2%).  

In  15  Member  States,  90%  or  more  of  all  the  aid  awarded  in  2009  was  earmarked  for 
horizontal objectives. In Spain, France, Italy, Hungary and Poland, the share of horizontal aid 
was between 70% and 85% while the share was significantly lower in Malta (23%), Portugal 

39 

These percentages exclude those measures with a horizontal objective that are nevertheless earmarked 
for the manufacturing and services sectors. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(19%) and Romania (50%). 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  Maltese  Business 
Promotion  Act40,  (most  of  the  sectoral  aid  is  granted  to  the  manufacturing  sector).  The  low 
share of horizontal aid in Portugal is due to a large regional aid tax scheme (which is being 
phased out) in Madeira which benefits a limited number of sectors. In Romania, a significant 
proportion of aid continues to be awarded to the coal sector.  

In  absolute  terms,  aid  to  horizontal  objectives  amounted  to  around  € 48.7 billion  in  2009. 
Compared  with  2008,  it  increased  by  roughly  € 1.2  billion  (less  th an  3%  of  aid  granted  in 
2008).  Regardless  of  the  individual  horizontal  objective  to  which  aid  was  earmarked, 
individual Member States contributed differently to this increase. 15 of the 27 Member States 
augmented aid to horizontal objectives. France, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Greece, Germany, 
Poland  and  the  Netherlands  were  the  countries  with  the  greatest  increases  in  comparison  to 
the  previous  year  (France  increased  by  around  € 990  million,  Belgium  by  €  426  million, 
Denmark by € 321 million and the other countrie s by between € 309 million and € 228 million 
each).  The  remainder  of  the  extra  aid  for  horizontal  objectives  in  2009  is  spread  between  a 
few other countries such as Bulgaria, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Slovenia, Finland and the 
United Kingdom. 

In  12  Member  States  aid  levels  for  horizontal  objectives  decreased.  The  countries  with  the 
biggest  decrease  were  the  Czech  Republic  (€   457  million  less  in  2009  compared  to  2008), 
Hungary (€ 443 million less), Slovakia (€ 418 m illion less) and Austria (€ 394 million less).  

Looking  at  the  share  for  horizontal  objectives  of  total  aid  to  industry  and  services,  in  2009 
five countries showed a reduction in comparison to the year before. Greece sharply reduced 
its share from 98% in 2008 to 87% in 2009, followed by the Czech Republic (from 93% in 
2008  to  88%  in  2009)  and  Romania  (from  54%  in  2008  to  50%  in  2009).  In  Greece,  the 
reduction 
the  Hellenic 
Telecommunication  Operator's  (OTE)  voluntary  early  retirement  scheme  (VRS)41  which  is 
classified as sectotal aid. 

significant  government  contribution 

is  due 

the 

to 

to 

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 aid42. The largest proportion of aid was earmarked for 
regional  development  (around  €  14  billion,  roughly  24%  of   total  State  aid  for  industry  and 
services),  which  was  used  in  particular  in  the  EU-12  countries  (around  30%),  but  also  in 
Greece (76%), Ireland (39%) and France (35%). 

The  second  largest  proportion  of  aid  concerning  horizontal  objectives  was  allocated  to  the 
environment and energy savings (€ 13 billion, roughly 23% of total State aid for industry and 
services).  Sweden  (82%),  the  Netherlands  (62%),  Latvia  (51%),  Finland  (41%),  Germany 
(37%),  the  United  Kingdom  (36%),  and  Austria  (35%)  devoted  a  substantial  part  of  aid  to 
these  objectives.  In  contrast,  the  average  for  the  EU-12  countries  was  11%,  therefore  much 
lower than the average for the whole of the EU. 

40 
41  
42 

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. 
Case C 2/2006, OTE- Early retirement scheme. 
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 calculate the total aid 
earmarked for horizontal objectives. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

                                                 
In third position was aid earmarked to R&D&I activities (around € 10.6  billion, 19% of total 
State aid for industry and services). Luxembourg (63%), Belgium (46%), Bulgaria (40%) and 
the Czech Republic (36%) devoted the highest shares of aid to these objectives. In EU-12, the 
average was around 11%, again lower than in EU- 27. 

Together, these three objectives (regional development, environment and energy savings and 
R&D&I) represent around 66% of total aid to industry and services in EU-27 and hence are 
the most widely used horizontal objectives of common interest.  

All  other  objectives  taken  together  account  for  roughly  18%  of  total  aid  to  industry  and 
services:  SMEs  (7%  of  total  aid)43,  social  support  for  individual  consumers  (2%)44, 
employment  (4%),  culture  and  heritage  conservation  (3%),  training  (2%),  risk  capital  and 
other  horizontal  objectives    including  objectives  such  as  commerce  and  internationalisation 
and natural disasters (roughly 1%). 

The  relative  share  of  objectives  is  considerably  different  in  the  EU-12  countries  where  the 
predominant  objective  is  aid  for  regional  development  (30%),  followed  by  employment  aid 
(14%),  R&D&I  (11%),  environmental  aid  and  energy  savings  (11%)  and  training  and 
culture (3% each). The relatively high share of employment aid in EU-12 is due mainly to a 
Polish block exempted scheme for disabled people45. 

Block exempted measures 

Block  exempted  aid  can  be  granted  through  measures  adopted  under  the  Block  Exemption 
Regulations  (hereinafter  "BERs")  and  also  under  the  new  General  Block  Exemption 
Regulation (hereinafter "GBER"46). The GBER entered into force in 2008, but it was only in 
2009  that  the  implementation  of  most  of  the  measures  fulfilling  the  conditions  of  the  new 
regulation  took  effect.  The  GBER  consolidates  into  one  text  and  harmonises  the  rules 
previously  existing  in  the  BERs  and  enlarges  the  categories  of  state  aid  covered  by  the 
exemption. Since 2001 the Commission had adopted individual block exemption regulations 
for  aid  to  SMEs,  aid  for  research  and  development,  aid  in  favour  of  SMEs,  aid  for 
employment,  training  aid  and  regional  aid.  To  those  existing  aid  measures  the  GBER  adds 
five  new  categories  of  block  exempted  aid:  environmental  aid,  innovation  aid,  research  and 
development  aid  for  large  companies,  aid  in  the  form  of  risk  capital  and  aid  for  enterprises 
newly  created  by  female  entrepreneurs.  In  2009,  more  than  51%  of  total  aid  granted  under 
block exempted measures fell under the new GBER. 

In  absolute  terms,  Member  States  awarded  in  2009  a  total  of  roughly  € 10.8  billion  of  aid 
under  block  exemptions  for  industry  and  services.  In  relative  terms,  block  exempted  aid 
represented a share of approximately 22% of total horizontal aid to industry and services in 
2009.  

43 

44 

45 
46 

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. 
Most of the aid granted was in France under C43/2006, Réforme du mode de financement des retraites 
des fonctionnaires de l’Etat rattachés à La Poste. 
X 306/2009 Miesieczne dofinansowanie do wynagrodzen pracowników niepelnosprawnych. 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  800/2008  of  6  August  2008  declaring  certain  categories  of  aid 
compatible  with  the  common  market  in  application  of  Article  87  and  88  of  the  Treaty  (OJ  L  214, 
9.8.2008, p. 3).  

EN 

22 

   EN 

                                                 
In the period 2004 - 2006, the share was stable at between 6% and 7% of total aid. However, 
since 2007, Member States have made more use of this simplified and quicker instrument and 
the share of total aid granted under the GBER has increased progressively to more than 22% 
in 2009. Looking at the most relevant categories, in 2009 € 4.9 b illion of aid was awarded for 
regional investment aid. The main contributing factor here was a regional investment scheme 
of around € 863 million in Germany. 47 Compared with 2008, the figure represents an increase 
of  around  € 660 million.  Although  only  introduced  in  2007,  block  exempted  aid  earmarked 
for  regional  investment  aid  reached  a  share  of  almost  31%  of  total  aid  awarded  under  the 
same objective only one year later. In 2009, the share increased to 35%.  

The  second  largest  category  was  block  exempted  aid  for  SMEs  and  risk  capital  (addressed 
only to SMEs) which amounted to € 2.4 billion  in 2009, a decrease of € 147 million compared 
to the amount granted in 2008. In relative terms, this represents 53% of total aid granted to 
similar  objectives.  Risk  capital  accounted  for  only  with  € 39  million.  Aid  for  enterprises 
newly  created  by  female  entrepreneurs  is  also  included  in  this  category  and  amounted  to 
around  € 0.3  million.  Germany  and  Italy  are  the  largest  contributors  to  the  SMEs  objective, 
granting € 0.8 billion and € 0.5 billion respectively. 

In third position was employment aid which amounted to € 1 billion in 2009. Aid granted for 
this  objective  decreased  by  €  215  million  compar ed  to  2008,  mostly  due  to  an  important 
reduction in Hungary (from € 367 million in 2 008 to € 13 million in 2009). Block exempted 
employment aid represents a share of 42% of total aid awarded to the same objective. More 
than  half  of  the  aid  granted  relates  to  a  Polish  scheme  for  disabled  workers48.  Italy  is  the 
second largest contributor. Both countries concentrated more than 82% of total employment 
aid granted in 2009 under block exempted measures. 

The main reason for the comparatively low percentage of block exempted aid for employment 
and SMEs in total aid for the same objective can be explained by ongoing high expenditure 
under  a  few  large  schemes  authorised  prior  to  the  entry  into  force  of  the  block  exemption 
regulations49. In  addition, large French SME  schemes that  do  not  meet  all  criteria  for  block 
exempted aid account for almost half of all other aid to SMEs50.  

Member  States  earmarked  roughly  € 0.8 billion  as  training  aid  under  block  exempted 
measures  which  represents  almost  88%  of  total  training  aid  in  2009.  When  looking  at  the 
trend, training aid had been granted at a high rate through block exemption since 2004 (see 
figure 11 below). Italy (€ 166 million), German y (€ 148 million), and Spain (€ 110 million) 
were the main contributors to this objective.  

Block exempted aid earmarked as research, development and innovation aid amounted around 
€ 1 billion in 2009. This represents 9% of total  aid granted to the same objective. Spain (€ 282 
million),  Italy  (€  267  million)  and  Belgium  (almo st  €  130  million)  were  the  countries  that 
made most use of this instrument. 

Finally,  Member  States  granted  € 732  million  of  environmental  protection  aid  under  block 
exempted  measures  corresponding  to  around  6%  of  total  aid  for  environmental  objectives. 

47 

48 
49 

50 

XR  31/2007  Gemeinschaftsaufgabe  „Verbesserung  der  regionalen  Wirtschaftsstruktur“  (GA);  36. 
Rahmenplan: Teil II A – Gewerbliche Wirtschaft. 
X 306/2009 Miesieczne dofinansowanie do wynagrodzen pracowników niepełnosprawnych. 
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). 
N  119/2009  (approved  on  13.03.2009),  N  596a/2007  (approved  on  11.03.2008),  N  70a/2006 
(22.06.2006), N 211/2003 (16.12.2003). 

EN 

23 

   EN 

                                                 
The low share of environmental aid granted under block exempted measures can be explained 
by  the  existence  of  some  ongoing  tax  measures approved  before  the  adoption  of  the  GBER 
which account for most of the environmental aid in EU51. 

Almost  half  of  the  environmental  aid  under  block  exempted  measures  was  granted  by 
Germany. This country together with Spain and Belgium contributed to around 91% of total 
environmental aid granted using block exempted measures in 2009.  

51 

See section 2.2.6 of the State aid Scoreboard on State aid for environmental protection. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

                                                 
Table  1052:  Block  exempted  measures  as  %  of  total  horizontal  aid  to  industry  and 
services  

Trend in the share of exempted aid in total aid directed at the 
same horizontal objective, industry and services, EU-27,
 2004-2009

%

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Employment

Environmental protection

Regional development

R&D&I

SMS( including risk capital

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Training

Year

Figure 1153: Trend in the share of block exempted aid in total aid directed at the same 

horizontal objective, industry and services (EU-27; 2004-2009)  

Year

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Horizontal objectives in € billion
Share of exempted aid in %
Aid for SME (incl. risk capital for SMEs)
Share of exempted aid in aid for SME (incl. R&D for SMEs)(in %)
Employment
Share of exempted aid in employment aid (in%) 
Training
Share of exempted aid in training aid (in %)
Regional development
Share of exempted aid in regional development (in %)
R&D&I
Share of exempted aid in R&D&I aid (in %)
Environmental protection
Share of exempted aid in environmental protection aid (in %)
Total horizontal aid
Share of exempted aid in total horizontal aid (in%)

6.1
24
2.2
9
0.9
82
9.3
0.004
5.9
0.1
12.4
0
38.1
6.2

5.9
28
3.4
13
0.6
81
9.5
0.001
6.3
0.3
13.5
0
41.3
6.4

5.5
33
3.7
17
0.9
78
10.6
0.004
7.2
1
14.6
0
44.4
7.1

5.4
43
2.9
27
0.7
87
10.2
23
7.8
1
12.3
0.005
42.1
14.6

5.7
45
2.9
43
0.8
93
13.4
31
8.8
1
13.1
0.05
47.5
18.7

4.6
53
2.4
42
0.9
88
13.9
35
10.6
9
13.2
6
48.7
22.2  

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

When looking at the trend with respect to aid earmarked for horizontal objectives it has been 
broadly  stable  since  2006  (between  82%  and  84%),  it  represents  around  84%  of  aid  to 
industry and services. Compared with previous periods, 72% in 2004 and around 50% in the 
mid-1990s,  it  shows  a  clear  upward  move.  The  underlying  trend  also  confirms  the  upward 
move  on  aid  designed  to  achieve  horizontal  objectives.  During  the  period  2004-2006  on 

52 
53 

Source: DG Competition. 
Source: DG Competition. 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
  
                                                 
average  78%  of  aid  was  earmarked  for  horizontal  objectives  while  during  2007-2009  it 
increased to 84%. This trend was accompanied by a parallel decrease54in sectoral aid.  

While the long-term trend still shows that Member States direct a relatively high level of aid 
towards  sectoral  objectives,  a  clear  positive  trend  can  be  observed,  to  varying  degrees,  in 
many Member States. In particular, all EU-12 Member States are progressively redirecting aid 
towards  horizontal  objectives.  During  the  period  2004-2006,  aid  to  horizontal  objectives 
represented in new Member States only 45% of total aid while the share increased to 75% for 
the period of 2007-2009. 

Looking  at  individual  objectives,  the  orientation  of  aid  at  EU-27  level  shifted  in  favour  of 
regional  development  and  research  and  development.  Environmental  aid,  aid  to  SMEs  and 
employment aid has fallen in recent years.  

Figure 12: Trend in share of primary objectives as % of total aid (2007-2009 compared 
with 2004-2006)55 

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
2004-2006
Aid objectives EU-27
2007-2009

Employment 

Environment/
energy saving

Other horizontal
objectives

Total
sectoral aid (including rescue and
restructuring aid)

54 
55 

Crisis measures excluded. 
Source: DG Competition. Note: Data cover industry and services only. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 13: Trend in level of aid by primary objective, EU-27, 2004-200956 

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

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 and
enegy saving

Regional
development

SME & risk capital

Employment &
training

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2.2.4. 

State aid for research and development and innovation 

Overall Research and Development spending 

Investment in research, development and innovation (hereinafter "R&D&I") is a crucial factor 
to  strengthen  the  competitiveness  of  the  EU  economy  and  to  ensure  sustainable  growth. 
However, since the Barcelona European Council in 2002 recognised this by setting a 3% of 
GDP target for expenditure on R&D by 2010, progress has remained slow. Two thirds of this 
expenditure should be funded by the private sector and the other third by public funding. 
Europe  202057,  the  new  European  strategy  for  jobs  and  growth,  has  maintained  the  overall 
R&D&I investment target of 3% of GDP. "Innovation Union" is one of the flagship initiatives 
of  the  new  strategy.  The  aim  is  to  re-focus  R&D  and  innovation  policy  on  the  challenges 
facing  our  society,  such  as  climate  change,  energy  and  resource  efficiency,  health  and 
demographic  change.  In  the  Competiveness  Council  of  October  2010,  following  the 
presentation of the Innovation Union Communication58, EU ministers discussed the essential 
elements of a new strategy for innovation to be addressed at the December European Council 
summit.  In  the  field  of  research,  the  Council  approved  the  launching  of  joint  programming 
projects  for  research  in  three  areas  corresponding  to  major  societal  challenges:  agriculture, 
food security and climate change; cultural heritage and prevention of nutritional problems.  

56 
57  
58  

Source: DG Competition. Note: Data cover industry and services only. 
"Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth", COM (2010) 2020. 
Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  Regions:  Europe  2020  Flagship  Initiative, 
Innovation Union COM(2010) 546 final. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
State aid for research, development and innovation  

National  governments  have  a  range  of  measures  to  choose  from  to  fund  and  consequently 
trigger  R&D&I,  the  exact  range  and  balance  of  which  depend  on  the  national  context  and 
form  the  policy  mix.  These  public  measures  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 greatest extent 
while minimising distortions of competition. In the context of the new Europe 2020 strategy, 
Member  States  must  now  implement  the  policy  priorities  at  their  level  and  establish  their 
national 
their  relative  starting  positions  and  national 
targets 
circumstances59.  

into  account 

taking 

State  aid  expenditure  on  R&D&I  amounted  to  € 10.6  billion  in  2009  (around  19%  of  total 
State aid to industry and services). This represented a relatively small share in public R&D&I 
funding although there are significant differences between Member States: while State aid to 
R&D&I accounted for 0.09% of GDP in 2009, the overall public funding for R&D was 0.64% 
of GDP60. 9 Member States awarded R&D&I aid above the average level: Belgium (0.22%), 
Slovenia  (0.19%),  the  Czech  Republic  (0.18%),  Luxembourg  (0.16%),  Finland  (0.14%), 
Spain (0.13%), France and Austria (0.11%), and Hungary (0.10%). Cyprus, Slovakia, Greece, 
Latvia,  Poland and Estonia granted 0.01% or less of GDP. More than 9% of aid to R&D&I 
was granted under block exempted measures. 

For the Union as a whole, the level of R&D&I aid increased from 0.05% of GDP in the period 
2004 – 2006 to 0.07% of GDP in 2007 - 2009. 

59 
60 

Conclusions of the European Council of 17 June 2010. 
Public R&D expenditure in 2008 – data for 2009 not available. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

                                                 
Figure 14: Public expenditure on R&D as % of GDP, 200961 62 

Public expenditure on R&D as %  of GDP, 2009

Sweden (3.75)

Finland (3.73)

Denmark (2.72)

Austria (2.67)

Germany (2.63)

France (2.02)

Belgium (1.92)

EU 27 (1.9)

United Kingdom (1.88)

Slovenia (1.66)

Netherlands (1.63)

Luxembourg (1.62)

Portugal (1.51)

Czech Republic (1.47)

Ireland (1.43)

Spain (1.35)

Estonia (1.29)

Italy (1.18)

Hungary (1)

Lithuania (0.8)

Poland (0.61)

Latvia (0.61)

Romania (0.58)

Greece (0.58)

Malta (0.54)

Bulgaria (0.49)

Slovakia (0.47)

Cyprus (0.46)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

1.20

%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 € 4.6 billion in 2009, of which 
risk  capital  represents  around  € 0.6 billion.  In  re lative  terms,  roughly  7%  of  aid  to  industry 
and services was exclusively earmarked for SMEs. Risk capital accounted for around 1% of 
total  aid.  For  the  first  time,  more  than  half  (53%)  of  aid  to  SMEs  was  granted  under  block 
exempted measures. 

61 

62 

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

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
                                                 
In 2009 aid granted to SMEs and risk capital decreased by €  1.1 billion compared to 2008, or 
a decrease of 20% in the amount granted. Only Denmark, Germany, Estonia, Spain, Romania 
and Finland increased the amounts granted to SMEs.  

Looking  at  the  trend,  aid  expenditure  to  SMEs  has  been  relatively  stable  over  time  but 
suffered  a  slight  reduction  in  2009.  Expressed  as  a  %  of  GDP,  it  remained  at  a  level  on 
average of around 0.047% of GDP.  

2.2.6. 

State aid for environmental protection 

Aid  earmarked  for  environmental  protection  amounted  to  € 13.2 billion  in  2009,  of  which 
€ 732 million 63 was granted through block exemption64. In relative terms, it represents 22.6% 
of total aid or 0.11% of EU-27 GDP. 

For the EU as a whole, the trend of aid for environment decreased from 25.5% to 23.3% of 
total aid to industry and services between 2004 - 2006 and 2007 - 2009. In absolute terms, it 
however increased by € 0.8 billion. Over the last six years on average 75% of aid was granted 
by indirect forms (e.g. tax exemptions or allowances), while direct aid instruments (e.g. grants 
or subsidies) represented on average 25% of total environmental aid.  

Environmental  aid  covers  a  wide  range  of  objectives,  including  support  measures  for 
renewable  energy,  energy-saving,  waste  management  and  remediation  of  contaminated  sites 
and  improvement  of  production  processes.  For  these  types  of  measures,  aid  granted  by 
Member  States  pursues  a  direct  benefit  to  the  environment.  State  aid  expenditure  can 
therefore be taken as a proxy to indicate the intended environmental benefit, regardless of the 
form  in  which  the  aid  may  be  awarded  (grant,  tax  exemption,  guarantee,  etc.).  This 
represented 35.5% of environmental aid in 2009 (around € 4.7 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 under this category of 
aid  scheme  indicates  the  amount  of  tax  revenue  foregone  and  can  therefore  not  serve  as  a 
proxy  measure  of  the  environmental  benefit  which  the  taxes  themselves  have  brought.  In 
2009, 56.1% of environmental aid (around € 7.4  billion) fell under this category. 

The overall level of expenditure in environmental aid in the EU is strongly influenced by the 
largest  aid  grantors,  Germany,  Sweden,  the  United  Kingdom  and  the  Netherlands,  and  in 
Germany and Sweden tax exemptions account for a large share of total environmental aid. A 
tax exemption from the energy tax on electricity for industry has been the most significant aid 
expenditure  for  Sweden  from  2005  onwards  and  represents  more  than  half  of  the 
environmental aid in Sweden. In Germany, 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  in 
Germany,  aid  granted  under  environmental  tax  exemption  schemes  fell  significantly,  by 
€ 3.2 billion between 2006 and 2009. 

63 

64  

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  2009,  around  73%  of  total  expenditure  (€ 9.7 billion)  was  aid  granted 
through tax exemption. 
A total of 131 aid measures implemented by 16 Member States represent block exempted aid. 74% of 
that aid was handed over in the form of direct grants and interest subsidies, around 26% in loans and a 
small part by tax exemption.  

EN 

30 

   EN 

                                                 
The Commission's Climate Change/Energy Package adopted in 2008 implemented a series of 
targets for the year 202065: reduction by 20% of CO2 emissions, a 20% share for renewable 
energy  in  EU  energy  consumption  and  a  20%  increase  in  energy  efficiency.  The  package 
included a policy mix of regulatory measures, including new Community Guidelines on State 
aid for Environmental Protection.66 These have since been complemented by the new GBER 
adopted in July 2008 which included specific provisions for environmental protection. 

The Climate Change/Energy Package targets have been subsequently reflected in the Europe 
2020 Strategy, the key elements of which the European Council agreed in March 201067. 

2.2.7. 

State aid supporting regional development and cohesion 

Aid earmarked for regional development 

The  Commission  Guidelines  on  national  regional  aid  for  2007-201368,  applicable  as  of 
1 January  2007,  clarify  the  general  approach  taken  by  the  Commission  to  consider  whether 
aid granted to promote the economic development of certain disadvantaged areas within the 
European Union is compatible with the internal market. The aim of regional aid is to develop 
the economic, social and territorial cohesion of a Member State and of the EU as a whole. 

The  Commission  encourages  Member  States  to  grant  regional  aid  on  the  basis  of  multi-
sectoral  schemes,  which  form  part  of  a  national  regional  policy.  These  schemes  should  lay 
down  the  general  conditions  under  which  a  Member  State  can  grant  regional  aid,  normally 
without  the  need  to  notify  individual  cases  to  the  Commission.  In  October  2006,  the 
Commission  adopted  a  block  exemption  regulation  concerning  national  regional  investment 
aid69 which remains applicable until the end of 2013, although Member States may also grant 
regional aid measures under GBER. 

Member  States  granted  aid  earmarked  for  regional  development  of  about  € 13.9 billion  in 
2009,  which  includes  € 4.9 billio n  granted  using  a  block  exemption.  This  represents 
approximately 29% of total horizontal aid for industry and services or 0.1% of EU-27 GDP. 

The share of regional aid has remained relatively stable in the long term. It has increased from 
24%  to  27%  between  the  periods  2004  -  2006  and  2007  -  2009.  France,  Greece,  Germany, 
Spain,  the  Czech  Republic  and  Poland  significantly  increased  their  regional  aid  (between 
€ 124 million  and  € 1  788 million)  while  the  United  Kingdom  and  Italy  decreased, 
respectively  by  around  € 398 million  and  € 348 milli on,  the  level  of  regional  aid  granted.. 

Aid pursuant to Article 107(3)(a) and (c) TFEU 

Aid for regional development can also be assessed directly under Article 107(3)(a) or Article 
107(3)(c) TFEU. Article 107(3)(a) authorises aid that promotes the economic development of 
areas  where  the  standard  of  living  is  abnormally  low  or  where  there  is  a  serious 
underemployment,  so-called  category  'a'  regions.  The  regional  aid  angle  under  Article 
107(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 recalling that aid earmarked for category 'a' or 'c' regions need not necessarily have 
regional development as a horizontal objective but could be earmarked for other objectives. 

65 
66 
67  
68 
69  

Targets set by the March 2007 European Council. 
OJ C 82 of 01.04.2008, p. 1. 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/113591.pdf.  
OJ C 54/13 of 4.3.2006. 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2006 of 24 October 2006; OJ L 302, 01.11.2006 p. 29. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
For  this  reason,  the  figures  presented  below  are different  from  those  quoted  in  the  previous 
section "aid earmarked for regional development".  

In 2009, more than € 14 billion of aid was direct ed to 'a' regions. While many EU-15 Member 
States have identified some 'a' regions within their country, the entire territory of the EU-12 
Member  States  is  eligible  as  an  'a'  region  with  the  exception  of  Cyprus  and  the  cities  of 
Prague, Bratislava and Budapest.  

Aid  to  'a'  regions  increased  in  2009  by  8%  compared  to  2008  (from  € 13 billion  to 
€ 14 billion), with France, Italy, Germany and Gr eece the main contributors to this increase.  

The long-term trend shows a decrease from € 15  billion on average in the period 2004-2006 to 
€ 13 billion in the period 2007-2009. Disparities be tween the Member States in the levels of 
aid reserved for assisted 'a' regions may reflect not only differences in regional policy but also 
in 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. 

Around  € 1.7 billion  was  reported  as  aid  for  assi sted  'c'  regions  in  2009  (compared  to  €  0.9 
billion in 2008, an increase in 2009 of 9%). All EU-15 Member States as well as some EU-12 
countries  have  identified  some  'c'  regions  in  their  country.  The  main  contributor  to  this 
increase was Germany  

In  some  instances  Member  States  also  reported  aid  aggregated  for  'a'  and  'c'  regions  which 
amounted to € 11.4 billion in 2009 (€ 9.5 billion in 2008). 

2.3. 

State aid earmarked for specific sectors 

2.3.1. 

State aid for rescue and restructuring firms in difficulty 

Disregarding  the  crisis–related  cases,  € 399 m illion  was  granted  as  rescue  and  restructuring 
aid in 200970. This strengthened a downward trend observed in recent years. On average, in 
the period 2004-2006 the total rescue and restructuring aid amounted to € 3.0 billion per year 
while it was only € 445 million annually in the  period 2007 - 2009. Almost two thirds of all 
2009  rescue  and  restructuring  aid  was  granted  by  the  United  Kingdom  (€  246  million), 
followed  by  Poland  (€  35  million),  France  (€  34  million),  Italy  (€  33  million)  and  8  other 
Member States (Germany, the Czech Republic, Spain, Austria, Slovenia, Romania, Denmark, 
Portugal). 

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. 6 Member States accounted 
for  92%  of  all  rescue  and  restructuring  aid:  France  (23%),  Romania  (19%),  Poland  (17%), 
Slovenia  (13%),  the  United  Kingdom  (12%)  and  Austria  (8%).  This  does  not  necessarily 
reflect a regular recourse to State aid for rescue and restructuring in each of these countries as 
one large rescue case may be sufficient to place them in this group. At the other end of the 
scale  are  7  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  2004  and  200971.  Over  this  six-year  period,  the 
banking sector (excluding the crisis measures) accounted for, on average, 8% of all rescue and 
restructuring aid (excluding crisis measures). 

70  

71  

Rescue  and  restructuring  aid  as  guided  by  the  Community  guidelines  on  State  aid  for  rescuing  and 
restructuring firms in difficulty, OJ C 244, 1.10.2004, pp. 2-17, as extended by OJ C 156, 9.7.2009, p.3. 
It  is  worth  recalling  that  rescue  and  restructuring  aid  granted  to  the  financial  sector  in  these  Member 
States is analysed in the chapter dealing with crisis measures.  

EN 

32 

   EN 

                                                 
2.3.2. 

State aid to the shipbuilding sector 

In  2009,  an  estimated  € 606 million  was  granted  to  the  shipbuilding  sector  mainly  by 
Germany  (€ 349 million),  Spain  (€ 185 million),  Poland  (€  29  million)  and  Italy 
(€ 75 million).  The  amount  of  State  aid  to  the  shipbuilding  sector  increased  from  an  annual 
average of € 414 million for the period 2004 - 2006 to € 569 million annually for the period 
2007 - 2009. 

2.3.3. 

State aid to the steel sector 

Since  the  European  Coal  and  Steel  Community  (ECSC)  Treaty  expired  on  23  July  2002, 
general  State  aid  rules  have  been  applied  to  the  steel  sector,  with  the  exception  that  no 
investment or restructuring aid may be granted to steel production unless it is closure aid.72 In 
2009, only two ad hoc aid measures were authorised by the Commission for the steel sector, 
in  Latvia  (a  guarantee  under  the  Temporary  framework,  i.e.  a  crisis  measure)  and  Germany 
(environmental  aid  under  the  GBER).  Ongoing  expenditure  however,  amounted  to 
€ 108 million; this was granted by the United Kingdom (€ 90 million - climate change levy) 
as  environmental  aid  and  by  Slovakia  (€ 18 million) 73.  There  is  a  clear  and  continuing 
decreasing trend in the aid to the steel sector from an annual average of € 359 million in the 
period 2004 - 2006 to € 167 million annually in the period 2007 - 2009. The downward trend 
can  be  largely  explained  by  the  fact  that  some  Member  States  either  stopped  or  reduced 
considerably  (e.g.  the  Czech  Republic,  Slovakia  and  Italy)  granting  State  aid  after  2004  to 
companies in the steel sector. 

2.3.4. 

State aid to the coal sector 

State  aid  to  the  coal  industry  is  governed  until  31  December  2010  by  a  specific  legal 
framework, the Coal Regulation 1407/200274. 

The downward trend continued reducing thus the global aid amount to € 2.7 billion in 2009. 

In  2009  the  Commission  finalised  the  Spanish  plan  for  access  to  the  coal  reserves  and 
approved the relevant annual aid for 2008 – 2010. Two annual aid decisions were adopted in 
2009 – 201075 regarding the implementation of the German restructuring plan 2006 – 2010. 
During 2010, the Commission approved aid to the coal sector in Poland. The aim of the Polish 
scheme is to support access to coal reserves. In 2010, another case in Spain approved by the 
Commission provides for an aid to replace the supply of free coal to some former coal miners. 
In  view  of  the  forthcoming  expiry  of  Regulation  1407/200276  (on  31  December  2010)  it 
appears  useful  to  record  the  work  already  undertaken  as  regards  future  regulation  in  this 
sector.  The  Commission  adopted  on  20  July  2010  a  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  on 
State aid to the hard coal industry77, following a public consultation78. 

72 

73  

74  
75  

76  
77  
78  

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)). 
Ad  hoc  aid  to  the  steel  sector  was  also  granted  in  2009  in  Latvia  as  crisis  aid,  under  the  temporary 
framework.  
Council Regulation (CE) N° 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002, EUOJ L205, 2.8.2002 p.1. 
For the purpose to give a complete overview on aid granted to the coal industry, the report includes data 
already available for 2010.  
Council Regulation (CE) N° 1407/2002 of 23 July 2002, EUOJ L205, 2.8.2002 p.1. 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/energy/coal_regulation_20_07_2010_en.pdf. 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/ia_carried_out/cia_2010_en.htm#comp. 

EN 

33 

   EN 

                                                 
The aim of this proposal is to progressively end operating subsidies to uncompetitive mines. 
Instead, any State subsidies should be increasingly directed at the financing of the social and 
environmental  consequences  of  the  closure  of  those  loss-making  mines.  In  this  context,  the 
Commission took into consideration the necessity to close uncompetitive hard-coal mines in 
the EU, but also the social impact of such closure, in particular in certain regions. 

In accordance with this proposal, Member States might grant: 

–  Aid to cover the production of coal in the context of a closure plan whose deadline does 

not extend beyond 1 October 2014; 

–  Aid to cover exceptional costs in connection with the closure of mines but which are not 
related  to  production  (in  particular  social  welfare,  rehabilitation  of  sites,  and  removal  of 
waste water…). 

The  proposal  for  a  Council  Regulation  was  transmitted  to  the  Council  for  decision  under 
Article 107(3)(e)79. 

2.3.5. 

State aid to the transport sector 

Introduction 

State aid to the transport sector is partially governed by a specific rule in the Treaty (Article 
93 TFEU), as well as secondary legislation and rules of soft law (cf. table 5 in the Annex). 

Expenditure and trend 

For the period 2007–2009 an average amount of € 2.8  billion per year of State aid was granted 
to the transport sector. For comparison, for 2004 – 2006 this sum amounted to € 2.4 billion 80. 
The  increase  of  some  12%  is  mainly  due  to  a  more  intensive  public  support  in  all  sectors, 
except in the inland passenger and freight navigation, where the averages were significantly 
reduced. 

Maritime transport 

More than € 1.8 billion was awar ded to the maritime sector in 2009. In comparison with the 
2007 – 2009 average of over € 1.5 billion per year,  the volume of aid remains rather constant. 
Most cases in this sector concern social aid to seafarers and special taxation rules for shipping 
companies  ("tonnage  tax"  schemes).  There  were  also  a  few  cases  where  Member  States 
notified public financing of port infrastructure. 
The  Communication  on  State  aid  to  ship  management  companies81  adopted  in  June  2009 
extends the possibility to qualify for State aid (granted under the form of tonnage tax or other 
tax  arrangements)  to  the  technical  and  crew  managers  even  when  operating  one  shipping 
vessel  separately.  Under  the  2004  Guidelines82  the  eligibility  was  limited  to  the  joint 
provision of both technical and crew management for a same vessel ("full management"). 

In 2009, positive decisions were adopted regarding State aid to seafarers in Italy and Finland. 
The  Commission  also  concluded  the  formal  procedure  opened  in  2007  regarding  the  DIS 

79  

80  

81  
82  

This provision stipulates that other categories of aid as may be specified by decision of the Council on a 
proposal from the Commission may be found to be compatible with the internal market  
Having  regard  its  exceptional  nature,  the  aid  amount  of  €  21  billion  reported  by  France  this  year, 
corresponding to the implementation of the Reform of the RATP pension scheme in 2006 (approved by 
the Commission on 13 July 2009, OJ L 327, 12.12.2009, p. 21), is not taken into account in this figure. 
OJ C 132, 11.03.2009, p. 6. 
Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport, OJ C 13, 17.1.2004, p. 3. 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
regime83 in Denmark. It accepted the extension of the DIS regime to cable-laying vessels by 
applying  by  analogy  the  Maritime  Guidelines.  In  addition,  it  concluded  the  investigation 
procedures  regarding  tonnage  tax  schemes  in  Ireland  and  Denmark  and  approved  an 
amendment to the Dutch tonnage tax scheme and the introduction of a tonnage tax scheme in 
Slovenia and in Poland. 

Also in 2009, the Commission partially authorised a Greek and a Latvian port infrastructure 
development  project  and  initiated  a  formal  investigation  procedure  regarding  certain  fiscal 
measures  in  favour  of  the  port  sector  in  France.  In  addition,  it  concluded  the  formal 
investigation  procedure  initiated  in  2008  regarding  the  public  financing  of  ferry  shipping 
services  between  the  Scottish  mainland  and  the  islands  of  the  west  and  north  coasts  of 
Scotland. With the exception of one route, the Commission confirmed that the public service 
obligations for the western and northern islands were legitimately defined and entrusted to the 
operators. 

Land transport 

The  new  Council  Regulation  1370/2007  on  public  passenger  transport  services  laying  down 
the rules applicable to the compensation of public service obligations in inland traffic entered 
into force on 3 December 200984. It repealed Council Regulations (EEC) N° 1191/6985 and N° 
1107/7086.  A  three  year  transitional  period  is  however  foreseen  for  freight  transport.  The 
decision adopted in the Danish railway case constitutes a first example of application of this 
Regulation87. 

Railways 

As  in  previous  years,  the  Commission  adopted  several  State  aid  decisions  to  promote  rail 
transport  and  combined  transport  in  several  Member  States,  including  Bulgaria,  the  Czech 
Republic, Germany and the UK (restructuring of Eurostar). 

With  regard  to  the  specific  rules  established  in  the  Community  guidelines  on  State  aid  for 
railway undertakings88, no aid under the form of debt cancellation has been notified until now 
to the Commission. 

Since  1  January  2010  Member  States  cannot  notify  measures  under  the  specific  rules 
applicable to the restructuring of the freight division of a railway undertaking. 

Road transport 

Pursuant to Regulation 1191/69, certain public financing initiatives for bus services operated 
under  a  public  service  contract  were  exempted  from  the  notification  obligation.  As  a  result, 
the aid amounts reported for the road and combined transport sector during the period 2007 – 

83  
84  
85  

86  

87  
88  

This regime exempts ship-owners from the payment in Denmark of the income tax of their seafarers. 
OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 1. 
Regulation (EEC) N° 1191/69 of the Council of 26 June 1969 on action by Member States concerning 
the obligations inherent in the concept of a public service in transport by rail, road and inland waterway, 
OJ L 156, 28.6.1969, p. 1. 
Regulation (EEC) N° 1107/70 of the Council of 4 June 1970 on the granting of aids for transport by 
rail, road and inland waterway, OJ L 130, 15.06.1970 p. 1. 
Decision not yet published. 
OJ C 184, 22.07.2008, p. 13. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
2009 – € 641 million per year on average – understate the volume of the public financing of 
these  services.  Under  the  new  Regulation  1370/2007,  the  scope  of  the  exemption  has  been 
widened but reporting requirements have been strengthened such that, in the future, there will 
be a higher degree of accuracy. 

Concerning bus transport, formal investigations procedures are ongoing as regards Ireland, the 
Czech  Republic  and  Germany.  The  Commission  is also assessing several complaints in  this 
sector.  In  the  field  of  the  urban  transport,  a  formal  investigation  procedure  was  closed 
regarding the reform of the financing method for the special pension scheme for the staff of 
RATP, the French public transport company. 

With regard to the improvement of public transport infrastructure, several major projects were 
authorised,  among  which  the  construction  and  maintenance  of  the  A1  and  A2  motorways  in 
Poland. 

In  line  with  the  wider  Community  objectives  of  the  common  transport  policy  and 
environmental  protection,  the  Commission  authorised  a  scheme  in  Slovenia  promoting  the 
purchase of heavy goods vehicles satisfying the Euro V pollution standard.  The Commission 
also  authorised  a  German  aid  scheme  aiming  at  supporting  market  acceptance  of  available 
highly efficient vehicle technologies and an aid scheme supporting the purchase of low-carbon 
buses in England. 

Aviation 

Over  the  period  2007  –  2009,  an  annual  average  of  €  338  million  of  aid  was  reported  by 
Member States for the air transport sector. These figures show a certain increase compared to 
the annual average of € 242 million for the period 2004 – 2006. 

The airline industry faced significant turbulence in 2009, with a fall in passenger and cargo 
demand  which  resulted  in  significant  losses  for  many  carriers.  During  that  year  the 
Commission  authorised  rescue  aid  for  the  Austrian  Airlines  Group  in  the  form  of  a  loan 
guarantee.  It  also  found  the  restructuring  plan  of  Austrian  Airlines  compatible  with  the 
common  market.  Furthermore,  subject  to  observance  of  several  conditions,  the  Commission 
decided  on  certain  changes  that  the  Greek  authorities  intended  to  introduce  in  the  sales 
processes  of  Olympic  Airlines  and  approved  the  intention  of  the  Greek  authorities  to  cover 
part of the costs of the voluntary redundancy scheme to be implemented by Olympic Catering 
SA in respect of certain of its staff. 

In  2009  the  Commission  approved  a  number  of  projects  for  financing  airport  infrastructure 
(concerning Germany, Poland, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus and the United Kingdom). Four start-up 
aids for establishing new lines and increasing existing frequencies were approved in the 2009 
-  2010  period.  Since  the  operation  of  airports  constitutes  an  economic  activity,  the 
Commission must assess whether the public financing has an impact on competing airports in 
particular.  In  most  cases,  the  Commission  considered  that  the  planned  investments  had  a 
positive impact on the accessibility of the region, which outweighed the negative impact on 
competition.  On  the  basis  of  the  criteria,  set  out  in  paragraphs  61  and  79  of  the  2005 
Community  guidelines  on  financing  of  airports  and  start-up  aid  to  airlines  departing  from 
regional airports89, the Commission concluded that public support in relation to these projects 
was compatible with the internal market. 

89   

OJ C 312, 9.12.2005, p. 1. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The Commission is also examining a large number of complaints concerning investment aid 
and start-up aid. In some of these cases, the formal investigation procedure is ongoing. The 
public  financing  of  new  routes  may  be  found  to  be  in  accordance  with  the  behaviour  of  a 
private  investor  acting  under  normal  market  conditions  and  in  such  cases  no  State  aid  is 
involved. However, if the public investment does constitute State aid it may still be declared 
compatible if the relevant conditions, laid down in the 2005 guidelines, are fulfilled. 

Finally,  the  Commission  accepted  that  the  measures  taken  by  France  brought  to  an  end  the 
differentiation in passenger charges as between national and EU flights, which in fact granted 
an advantage to airlines operating domestic flights. 

2.3.6. 

State aid to the agricultural sector 

New cases registered and decisions taken in 2009 

139 new measures were notified to DG Agriculture and the Commission took decisions in 141 
cases. 

Based on the primary objective for aid in this sector, it appears that almost 24.3% of the 141 
decisions  involved  aid  for  investment;  16.6%  involved  investments  in  agricultural  holdings 
and  7.6%  investments  in  processing  and  marketing.  Forestry  aids  accounted  for  the  next 
largest  category,  representing  14.6%  of  the  number  of  decisions  taken  (including  under  the 
new rules concerning the co-financed measures of the rural development programmes). 

11.6% of decisions involved environmental protection aids, and 10.4% aid to make good the 
damage  caused  by  natural  disasters  or  exceptional  occurrences.  Only  4.6%  related  to  aid  to 
compensate farmers for losses caused by adverse weather conditions. 7.6% involved aids for 
technical  support  and  for  advertising  of  agricultural  products.  Aid  for  agro  environmental 
commitments accounted for 6.2% of the total. Aid for combating animal diseases represented 
only 4.6% of decisions taken in 2009. 

Of the new aid measures, 20.8% were notified by Spain, followed by Italy (17.2%), Germany 
(14.3%) and France and the Netherlands (5.7%). 

The breakdown by country is marginally different when looking at block-exempted measures: 
Spain  had  28.8%  of  the  267  measures,  followed  by  France  (15.3%),  Italy  (13.1%)  and 
Germany (10.1%). Slovenia, that in 2008 was the third country for block exempted measures, 
communicated only 4 measures in 2009 (1.5%). 

Expenditure 

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  2009  is  €  11.18  billion 90 
compared  with  €  11.82  billion  in  2008.  The  di screpancy  with  the  total  for  2008  (€  12.1 
billion)  published  in  the  autumn  2009  Scoreboard  is  due  to  corrections  made  by  Member 
States in their annual reports submitted in 2010 for the period 2002-2009. 

The  highest  expenditure  was  reported  by  France  (€  2.2  billi on),  Finland  (€  1.2  billion)  and 
Germany (€ 0.8 billion). 

As can be seen by comparing the figures for 2008 and 2009, 13 Member States increased their 
State aid expenditure; all other countries (in order: Belgium, the Czech Republic, Germany, 

90  

Aid  measures  to  the  agricultural  sector  granted  under  Regulation  (EC)  No  800/2008  amounted  to 
roughly € 0.4 billion.  

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Ireland,  Spain,  Italy,  Lithuania,  Hungary,  Malta,  Austria,  Portugal  Slovenia  and  Finland) 
spent less. 

Block-exempted aid 

267  measures  allowed  aid  to  be  granted  via  a  block  exemption  in  2009  which  was 
considerably lower compared to 2007 (496) and 2008 (433). Until now, only Luxemburg and 
Malta have not granted block exempted aid. 

In  2009,  all  block-exempted  aid  was  granted  pursuant  to  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1857/2006.  Aid  measures  to  the  agricultural  sector  but  earmarked  for  research  and 
development,  aid  in  the  form  of  risk  capital,  training  aid,  environmental  aid  and  aid  for 
disadvantaged and disabled workers (to the extent that these categories of aid are not covered 
by Regulation 1857/2006) are granted under the GBER. For this reason, expenditure reported 
on  aid  measures  granted  under  Regulation  (EC)  No  70/2001  is  included  only  until  August 
2008. 

The total of BER expenditure in 2009 was € 1.46 bi llion, corresponding to 13.1% of the total 
State  aid  expenditure  in  agriculture,  when  in  2008  it  was  12.7%.  Analysing  the  results  per 
country,  it  appears  that  94.81%  of  the  Latvian  aid  expenditure  concerned  BER  measures, 
followed by Greece (65.93%), Spain (63.41%), Italy (40.8%), Slovenia (24.8%) and Belgium 
(17.48%). 

2.3.7. 

State aid to the fisheries sector 

Expenditure 

The total amount of State aid awarded to the fisheries sector was estimated at more than € 200 
million  in  200991.  The  data  are  based  on  the  figures  received  from  Member  States'  annual 
reports on existing aid schemes. France (€ 88 million 92) reported the highest figures, followed 
by Spain (more than € 36 million), the Czech Republic (more than € 26 million) and Denmark 
(almost  €  17  million).  Further  breakdown  of  expe nditure  figures  is  not  available  for  the 
fisheries sector. 

Block exemption 

The total amount of block-exempted aid paid out in 2009 is about € 8.32 million, with Greece 
accounting  for  25%  of  this  total.  This  amount  corresponds  to  23  block  exempted  measures, 
granted by 11 Member States. 

16  aid  measures  have  been  block-exempted  under  the  new  block  exemption  regulation  in 
force since 19 August 2008 (Commission Regulation (EC) No 736/2008 of 22 July 2008 on 
the  application  of  Articles  87  and  88  of  the  Treaty  to  State  aid  to  small  and  medium-sized 
enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of fisheries products)93.  

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.  However,  in  some  cases  the  actual  aid  element  may  differ  from  the  nominal 
amount as in the case of subsidies, loans or guarantees94.  

91  
92  
93  

94  

Estimate. 
Estimate. 
XF  n°1/2009,  2/2009,  4/2009,  5/2009,  6/2009,  7/2009,  8/2009,  9/2009.11/2009,  12/2009,  14/2009, 
16/2009, 1/2010, 2/2010, 5/2010, 10/2010. 
For details on the calculation of aid element, see methodological notes. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
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 2009 

2.4.1. 
Figure 1595: Share of aid instruments in total aid for industry and services;  

    EU-27; 2009  

Aid instruments as % in 2009
 (EU 27)

Guarantees
36%

Tax deferrals
0%

Soft loans
1%

Grants
10%

Tax 
exemptions
6%

Equity 
participation
47%

As  regards  total  State  aid  granted  for  industry  and  services  (all  cases)  in  2009,  the  aid 
instrument used the most frequently was the equity participation (roughly 47%), followed by 
guarantees (36%) and grants (10%). Less frequently used were the other instruments like tax 
exemptions (6%) and soft loans (around 1%). It comes as no surprise that equity participation 
was  the  most  prominent  instrument  used  in  2009,  given  the  predominance  of  the  crisis 
measures under which Member States often entered as share holder in banks. 
Figure 1696: Share of aid instruments in total aid for industry and services  

(crisis measures excluded); EU-27; 2009 

95  
96  

Source: DG Competition. 
Source: DG Competition. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Aid instruments as % in 2009 (EU 27) 
(crisis measures excluded)

Tax deferrals
0%

Soft loans
4%

Equity 
participation
1%

Guarantees
2%

Tax exemptions
42%

Grants
51%

When crisis measures are excluded from the total aid, the aid instrument most frequently used 
by  Member  States  was  grants  (roughly  51%),  followed  by  tax  exemptions  (approximately 
42%). Much less used were the other instruments i.e. soft loan (4%), guarantee (around 2%), 
and equity participation (less than 1%). 

6 Member States (Luxembourg, Denmark, Slovenia, Austria, Bulgaria, and Cyprus) gave 90% 
or more of aid through grants, while Portugal, Sweden, Malta, Slovakia, the United Kingdom, 
Ireland, France and Germany granted at least 50% of state aid to industry and services in 2009 
using tax exemptions. 

2.4.2.  Trend in the use of aid instruments (crisis measures excluded) 
Figure 1797: Aid instruments EU-27 as % of 3 year average (2004 - 2006)   

97  

Source: DG Competition. 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Aid instrument (EU-27) as % of 3 year average (2004-2006) 
(crisis measures excluded)

Tax deferrals
1%

Guarantees
2%

Soft loans
3%

Equity 
participation
1%

Tax exemptions
38%

Grants
55%

Figure 1898: Aid instruments EU-27 as % of 3 year average (2007 - 2009) 

Aid instruments EU-27 as % of 3-year average (2007-2009) 
(crisis measures excluded)

Tax exemptions
44%

Grants
50%

Equity 
participation
1%

Soft loans
3%

Tax deferrals
0%

Guarantees
2%

The comparison between the periods 2004 - 2006 and 2007 - 2009 shows that on average the 
use of aid instruments was generally stable with grants and tax exemptions confirmed as the 
preferred instruments.   

When  looking  at  the  period  2007  -  2009  in  isolation,  grants  accounted  for  roughly  50%  of 
total aid to industry and services (compared to 55% in the period 2004 - 2006). Many Member 

98  

Source: DG Competition. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
States  i.e.  Slovenia,  Denmark,  Luxembourg,  Austria,  Cyprus,  Estonia,  Latvia  and  Romania 
awarded 80% or more of their aid through grants. State aid granted through tax exemptions 
represented the second largest use of aid instruments, roughly 44% (compared to 38% in the 
previous three-year period). Use of other aid instruments is relatively uncommon.  

This situation on the use of aid instruments varies when the data is split for EU-15 and EU-12. 
In  the  period  2007  -  2009,  EU-15  awarded  49%  of  total  state  aid  to  industry  and  services 
through grants and 45% using tax exemptions. The figures for EU-12 are 64% for grants and 
31% for tax exemptions. 

3. 

STATE AID IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC CRISIS 

3.1. 

General background 

The  global  financial  crisis  which  hit  Europe  two  years  ago  was  the  greatest  in  its  severity 
since  the  Great  Depression  and  left  a  profound  mark  on  the  European  economy.  Critical 
liquidity  issues  which  rocked  European  financial  industry  started  to  emerge  well  before  the 
end of 2008. In several cases, the financial institutions engaged in extremely risky investment 
strategies fell into difficulties and sought relief from Member States in 2007 and early 2008. 
Once the full force of the financial crisis hit in late 2008, even the more risk-averse financial 
institutions  started  experiencing  the  negative  effects  of  the  credit  squeeze.  Already  in  the 
autumn  of  2008,  the  financial  crisis  and  advancing  recession  started  to  reinforce  each  other 
and the real economy was sent spiralling down as a result of scarce credit flows. 

Since then, the financial and economic conditions in EU have improved significantly and now 
most  of  the  Member  States  are  on  the  course  to  economic  recovery.  That  said,  some 
uncertainty  regarding  banking  sector  persists.  The  EU's  latest  economic  forecast99  predicts 
that the recovery in the EU will remain fragile facing challenges ahead. It appears that global 
trade and exports will be the main driving factors of the European recovery, however, weak 
domestic  demand  and  investment,  coupled  with  high  unemployment  and  slow  wage  growth 
will have a significant impact on the pace of the current economic upturn. GDP growth will 
be slow in the first three quarters of 2010 and should gain ground only at the end of that year. 
That could be viewed as a sign of fading impact of the temporary support that helped to avoid 
economic meltdown.  

The stabilisation of the European economy can be attributed in the main to the exceptionally 
wide instruments put in place to stimulate demand in the short-run. However, that kick-start to 
the  economy  had  its  cost,  weighing  heavily  on  public  finances.  The  general  government 
deficit has tripled in recent years. The yearly budgetary deficit reached 6.8% of GDP in the 
EU in 2009 (6.3% in euro-area), while the debt-to-GDP ratio rose to 73.6% (78.7% in euro-
area)  and  is  projected  to  rise  to  around  84%  in  2011  (88%  in  euro-area).  Together  with  the 
drop in public revenues, the crisis exposed weaknesses in the fiscal policies of some Member 
States. The crisis also exposed some of the problems which certain members of the euro-area 
face  in  regard  to  their  high  debt-to-GDP  ratio  and  the  subsequent  difficulties  as  regards 
refinancing  the  public  debt.  These  factors  added  additional  turmoil  to  the  fragile  recovery, 
especially in the southern Member States of the euro-area and in Ireland. The next hurdle for 
the  recovery  might  come  from  the  fiscal  consolidation  which  is  under  way  in  the  most 
Member  States  and  which  might  have  stronger  than  currently  estimated  negative  effects  on 
domestic demand. 

99  

European  Commission,  Directorate  General  for  Economic  and  Financial  Affairs,  European  economic 
interim forecast September 2010. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

                                                 
In  addition  to  monetary  and  fiscal  measures  taken  in  2009,  the  EU  and  its  Member  States 
continued  their  efforts  to  agree  on  regulatory  action  to  address  the  causes  of  the  financial 
crisis and prevent its repetition in the future. The first concrete steps were taken in the form of 
recommendations  by  the  de  Larosière  group100,  which  were  subsequently  endorsed  by  the 
Commission101. Next, legislative proposals were presented by the Commission in September-
October 2009 to reform prudential supervision in Europe102. In addition, the Commission has 
also taken steps to ensure the protection of bank depositors, make credit rating agencies more 
reliable  and  transparent,  strengthen  capital  base  requirements,  make  more  transparent 
operating  conditions  for  hedge  funds  and  adopt  recommendations  on  remuneration  policies 
and on bank resolution funds103. On 2 June 2010, the Commission outlined its actions in the 
Communication on regulating financial services for sustainable growth104. More recently, the 
Commission outlined its plans how to address crisis management in the future105. 

3.2. 

Commission's response to the financial crisis in the field of State aid 

State aid was one of the main instruments in helping to battle the financial crisis. The situation 
deteriorated  sharply  after  the  collapse  of  Lehman  Brothers  in  September  2008.  Poorly 
performing  assets,  severe  rating  downgrades,  a  poor  earnings  outlook  and  markets  players' 
uncertainty  about  exposure  to  impaired  assets  disrupted  normal  functioning  of  interbank 
(wholesale) markets. Those main factors led to serious difficulties in accessing liquidity and 
banks  became  reluctant  to  lend  to  each  other  and  to  the  real  economy.  Moreover,  market 
participants also started requiring capitalisation ratios far in excess of the minimum statutory 
capital requirements. The result was considerable solvency problems for a number of financial 
institutions. 

It  is  generally  accepted  that  after  October  2008  the  'credit'  crisis  became  systemic  and  no 
longer  affected  just  financial  institutions  which  could  be  considered  as  'undertakings  in 
difficulty'  under  the  existing  Rescue  and  Restructuring  guidelines106.  The  Commission 
responded  with  specific  and  structural  action  based  on  Article  107(3)(b)  TFEU  and  in  the 
course  of  just  a  few  months  adopted  four  communications107  aimed  at  preserving  financial 
stability  and  ensuring  legal  certainty.  That  decisive  coordination  of  Member  States'  actions 
allowed  them  to  address  the  severe  liquidity  shortages  which  had  led  spreads  on  interbank 
markets to increase exponentially in the wake of the crisis and helped calm down the markets 

100  

101  

102  
103  
104  
105  

106  

107  

The High  Level  Group on Financial  Supervision  in  the  EU,  chaired  by Jacques  de  Larosière,  Report, 
Brussels 25 February 2009. 
The Commission adopted a Communication on the European financial supervision, 
COM (2009) 252 final. 
For more details, please consult http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finances/committees/index_en.htm. 
The relevant documents can be found on http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finances/index_en.htm.  
Please refer to http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/finances/docs/general/com2010_en.pdf. 
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Central Bank on 'EU Framework for Crisis 
Management in the Financial Sector'. The document can be consulted at 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/docs/crisis-management/framework/com2010_579_en.pdf. 
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. 
The application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of 
the  current  global  financial  crisis,  OJ  C  270,  25.10.2008,  pp.  8-14,  Communication  from  the 
Commission — The recapitalisation of 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, Communication from the Commission on the treatment of impaired assets in the 
Community banking sector, OJ C 72, 26.3.2009, pp. 1-22, Communication from the Commission on the 
return to viability and the assessment of the restructuring measures in the financial sector in the current 
crisis under the State aid rules, OJ C 195, 19.8.2009, pp. 9-20. 

EN 

43 

   EN 

                                                 
and ease deleveraging by upgrading banks' capital base and cleaning impaired assets from the 
financial institutions balance sheets108. 

With  the  financial  crisis  deepening,  financial  institutions  were  deleveraging  and  becoming 
significantly  more  risk-averse  than  in  the  previous  years.  Companies  started  experiencing 
difficulties  in  accessing  credit.  As  part  of  its  response,  in  January  2009  the  Commission 
adopted  the  Temporary  Framework109.  Applicable  until  the  end  of  2010,  it  gives  Member 
States additional possibilities to address the effects of the credit squeeze on the real economy. 
For more detail on the Temporary Framework, read section 3.4. 

This  chapter  will  look  at  the  dynamics  of  the  financial  sector  in  2009,  the  most  important 
action taken by the Commission in 2009 and the highlights for 2010.  In contrast to the other 
chapters, and in order to present a full picture of crisis-related aid, the analysis here will not 
be limited to 2009 but will take into account the entire period from the beginning of the crisis 
up to a cut-off date of 1 October 2010. 

3.2.1.  Trends in the financial sector 2009 - 2010 

It  is  observed  that  the  situation  in  the  financial  sector  improved.  First,  in  2009  banks  used 
favourable  market  conditions  to  restore  their  capital  position.  That  development  allowed 
many of the larger banks to increase their Tier-1 capital ratio to above 10%, although smaller 
banks  still  have  not  regained  the  capitalisation  they  had  before  autumn  2008.  Second,  the 
banking  sector  had  a  rather  strong  performance  in  terms  of  earnings  and  profit  throughout 
2009. Finally, financial asset prices recovered, contributing to the good results on the earnings 
side.  Admittedly,  this  was  in  part  fuelled  by  record  lows  in  central  banks'  interest  rates, 
allowing low refinancing costs. 

Another  sign  of  the  situation  in  interbank  markets  having  improved  is  significantly  lower 
reliance  of  the  financial  institutions  on  State  guaranteed  liabilities.  According  to  the  data 
available to the Commission, guaranteed bonds constituted less than 5% of the total amount of 
banks' funding by the end of 2009 (compared to more than 30% in January 2009)110. These 
positive  signs  led  the  Commission,  upon  the  recommendation  from  the  Council,  to  review 
some of the existing State aid guarantee schemes for existing and new debt. 

Those  positive  signs  must  be  accompanied  by  some  caveats.  The  improvements  mentioned 
are  not  felt  equally  across  Europe  with  the  financial  institutions  in  the  countries  with 
sovereign debt issues being in a more difficult situation than those elsewhere in Europe. Next, 
the positive trends in capital ratios could possibly be offset by the fact that the extent of the 
impaired  assets  was  never  fully  disclosed  by  the  financial  institutions,  contributing  to  some 
degree  of  uncertainty.  Next,  the  strong  rebound  in  earnings  and  profits  appears  to  be  of  a 
temporary nature and without sustained strong performance by the real economy it will not be 
sustainable  in  the  long  term.  Therefore,  further  success  in  bringing  the  situation  in  the 

108  

109  

110  

For more detailed analysis of the main notions of these communications and also for deeper analysis of 
context  of  the  crisis  please  refer  to  previous  editions  of  the  Scoreboard,  in  particular  the  Autumn 
Scoreboard  2008,  Spring  special  edition  2009,  Autumn  Scoreboard  2009  and  Spring  special  edition 
2010. Also see the Report on Competition Policy for 2009. 
Communication from the Commission – Temporary Framework, OJ C 83, 7.4.2009, p. 1; Modification 
of  the  Temporary  Framework  –  to  allow  separate  limited  amount  of  aid  to  farmers,  OJ  C  261, 
31.10.2009;  2nd  Modification  of  the  Temporary  Framework  –  technical  modification  to  further 
facilitate access to finance and encourage long-term investment, OJ C 303, 15.12.2009, p.6 
The  dynamics  of  this  dependence  is  shown  in  Figure  1  of  the  Spring  Scoreboard  2010  and  Staff 
working  paper  on  the  application  of  state  aid  rules  to  government  guarantee  schemes  covering  bank 
debt to be issued after 30 June 2010, p.11. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

                                                 
financial  sector  closer  to  market  conditions  depends  on  a  number  of  factors  including  the 
strategies of the banks themselves. 

3.2.2.  The main highlights 2010 
The current year111 is proving to be very important in dealing with the new challenges. This 
chapter thus captures the main events and their implications for State aid policy112. 

Regardless  of  the  turmoil  over  sovereign  debt  issues,  discussions  started  on  how  to 
progressively reduce banks' reliance on State support. Demonstrable falling reliance on State 
guarantees  in  the  banking  sector  called  for  action.  The  Ecofin  Council  welcomed  the 
preliminary  analysis  of  the  Commission's  intention  to  introduce  specific  pre-requisites 
regarding  the  renewed  provision  of  guarantees  after  30  June  2010,  which  included  the 
increase of the guarantee fees based on banks' creditworthiness. Those actions paved the way 
for bringing funding costs closer to market conditions and requiring a viability review for the 
banks still heavily reliant on government guarantees113. Reacting to these policy lines, on 30 
April  2010  the  Commission  released  a  staff  working  paper  on  the  application  of  State  aid 
rules to government guarantee schemes covering bank debt to be issued after 30 June 2010114. 

Staff working paper on the application of state aid rules to government guarantee schemes covering 
bank debt to be issued after 30 June 2010 

The  Staff  working  paper  constitutes  the  first  step  towards  the  exit  from  guarantee  schemes  within  a 
coherent  framework  for  a  coordinated  approach  across  Member  States  maintaining  the  progress  in 
reinforcing  financial  stability.  In  general,  a  certain  exit  process  has  already  begun  at  the  level  of 
individual  banks.  Sound  institutions  have  largely  withdrawn  from  the  use  of  guarantees  in  order  to 
benefit  from  more  favourable  conditions  for  unsecured  market  funding  and  to  avoid  conditions 
attached to State assistance. Further, some Member States have decided not to prolong their guarantee 
schemes. As a consequence of the general improvement in  conditions , the risks for financial stability 
have subsided, and the distortions of competition between those financial institutions that issue State 
guaranteed  bonds  but  are  not  currently  under  restructuring  obligations  and  those  that  issue  strictly 
under  market  conditions  has  become  greater.  These  concerns  were  addressed  by  tackling 
simultaneously guarantee fees and subjecting users that continue to heavily rely on State guarantees, 
but that are currently not under restructuring obligations, to undergo a viability check. 

1. Increasing guarantee fees. Moderate increase in guarantee fees is seen as the right incentive for exit 
without  at  the  same  time  jeopardising  the  stability  of  financial  institutions,  although  Member  States 
are free to apply more stringent conditions. Under the schemes in force before 30 June 2010, in case of 
a  bond  with  maturity  over  one  year,  the  minimum  fee  comprised  a  flat  charge  of  50  basis  points 
augmented by each bank's median five-year senior debt credit default swap (CDS) spread observed in 
the period 1 January 2007 to 31 August 2008. For guarantee schemes prolonged beyond 30 June 2010, 
this pricing formula is made dependent on a bank's rating and is augmented in the following manner: 

(a) by 20 basis points for banks with a rating of A+ or A, 

111  

112  

113  

114  

Previous developments of 2009 and 2010 were captured in the Autumn Scoreboard 2009 and the Spring 
Scoreboard 2010. In order to reflex better the most current situation, this edition provides overview of 
the situation as of April 2010. 
The overview of the most important restructuring cases for 2009 can be found in the Commission staff 
working  document  accompanying 
the  competition  policy  2009,  p.  49-54; 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/annual_report/2009/part_2_en.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. 
The document can be consulted on 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/phase_out_bank_guarantees.pdf.  

the  Report  on 

EN 

45 

   EN 

                                                 
(b) by 30 basis points for banks rated A-, and 

(c) by 40 basis points for banks rated below A-. Unrated banks are considered to have a BBB rating. 

2.  Viability  check.  Until  30  June  2010,  the  mere  use  of  guarantees  did  not  automatically  trigger  the 
obligation to submit a viability review or a restructuring plan. Under the Banking Communication and 
the decisional practice of the Commission, a restructuring or liquidation plan had to be notified only if 
the  guarantee  was  called  upon  because  the  bank  defaulted  on  a  covered  liability.  However,  current 
market conditions no longer represent a serious obstacle for banks across the board to access liquidity 
as in the more acute crisis period. Hence it is appropriate to introduce a differentiation on conditions 
attached to the use of State guarantees based on the  extent to which banks rely on them. Therefore, 
while limited usage of State guarantees can be allowed without scrutiny, a larger use in both absolute 
terms  or  in  relation  to  the  bank's  total  amount  of  liabilities  should  trigger  the  viability  review  as  a 
prerequisite for conformity of the extension of guarantee schemes under Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. For 
guarantee schemes prolonged beyond 30 June 2010, this threshold is set at a ratio of 5% of outstanding 
guaranteed liabilities over total liabilities and at a total amount of guaranteed debt of € 500 million. 

Another significant event was the second round of stress tests carried out by the Committee of 
European Banking Supervisors under the mandate from the Ecofin Council115. The stress tests 
took into account various macro-economic parameters to assess banks' resilience to credit and 
market  risks,  in  particular  exposure  to  sovereign  debt  and  reliance  on  public  support 
measures. It covered a sample of major cross-boarder banking groups representing over 60% 
of the EU banking sector in terms of total assets (91 banks) using agreed baseline and adverse 
scenarios for 2010-2011. Under the adverse scenario, the total amount of impaired assets and 
trading losses would amount to € 56 6 billions according to the test results. Tier 1 capital ratio 
would  fall  from  10.3%  in  2009  to  9.2%  by  the  end  of  2011  (compared  to  the  regulatory 
minimum of 4% and to the threshold of 6% set up for that exercise). In the selected adverse 
conditions, seven banks would see their Tier 1 capital drop below the level of 6% taken as a 
benchmark  for  the  test.  They  were  Spanish  cajas,  Hypo  Real  Estate  from  Germany  and 
Greece's ATE bank116. As regards implications for State aid, nearly all of those banks (except 
a  few  cajas)  were  already  undergoing  restructuring  pursuant  to  the  EU  State  aid  rules.  It  is 
also  important  to  mention  that  any  future  stress  test  would  not  automatically  mean  that 
granting State aid was required as banks remain free to raise funding on the market. 

Furthermore,  on  22  September  2010,  the  European  Parliament  approved  new  rules  on  the 
revamped system of prudential supervision in the EU. The reform will enable newly created 
supervisory  institutions  to  spot  systemic  risks  within  the  European  banking  system  and 
contribute  to  avoiding  a  repetition  of  the  financial  crisis.  In  concrete  terms,  the  new 
framework  will  reinforce  financial  stability,  ensure  the  consistent  application  of  basic 
technical  rules,  put  in  place  an  early  warning  system  and  effectively  solve  disagreements 
between  financial  supervisors.  The  framework  will  create  new  institutions,  namely  a 
European  Systemic  Risk  Board  and  three  new  European  Supervisory  Authorities  for  the 
financial  services  sector:  a  European  Banking  Authority  (EBA),  a  European  Insurance  and 
Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) and a European Securities and Markets Authority 
(ESMA). Each of the new authorities will be made up of the 27 national supervisors. Other 

115  

116  

The first round of stress tests was conducted in 2009 and their results released in October 2009. See 
Council conclusions of 9 December 2009, 
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ecofin/111706.pdf.  
For  more  detailed  information  on  stress  tests  and  their  outcome,  please  refer  to  CEBS  homepage  at 
http://www.c-ebs.org/.  

EN 

46 

   EN 

                                                 
important  aspects  of  crisis  management  were  outlined  in  the  Communication  on  the  EU 
Framework for Crisis Management in the Financial Sector117. 

3.3. 

General trends in State aid granted to the financial sector in 2009 

In the period between 1 October 2008 and 1 October 2010,118 the Commission took more than 
200  decisions  in  the  financial  services  sector  based  on  Article  107(3)(b)  TFEU.  Aiming  to 
remedy  a  serious  disturbance  in  Member  States  economies,  these  decisions  authorised, 
amended  or  prolonged  41  schemes  and  addressed  with  individual  decisions  the  situation  in 
more than 40 financial institutions. The financial crisis called for wide-ranging action with the 
Commission  authorising  financial  crisis  measures  in  the  field  of  State  aid  in  22  Member 
States,  i.e.  all  Member  States  except  Bulgaria,  the  Czech  Republic,  Estonia,  Malta  and 
Romania. 

The  maximum  volume  of  Commission-approved  measures  including  schemes  and  ad  hoc 
interventions  amount  to  € 4 588.90  bil lion  or  39%  of  EU-27  GDP  for  2009119.  The  total 
volume approved for schemes (€ 3 478.96 billion)  was considerably higher than for individual 
financial  institutions  (€ 1 109.94 billion).  Th e  large  amounts  of  support  approved  under 
schemes  can  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  some  Member  States  adopted  blanket  guarantee 
schemes which covered all their banks' debt120. In terms of aid instruments used, the greatest 
bulk  was  approved  as  guarantees  including  schemes  and  ad  hoc  interventions  representing 
€ 3 485.25 billion (30% of EU-27 GDP for 2009) or  76% of all aid approved for the financial 
sector. € 546.08 billion (4.5% of  GDP) was approved as recapitalisation measures, followed 
by € 401.79 billion (3.3% of GDP) fo r impaired assets interventions. The volume of liquidity 
instruments  approved  was  € 155.77  billion  (1.3%  of   GDP).  It  appears  that  Member  States 
relied principally on guarantee measures which had a stabilising effect for the financial sector 
without  weighing  heavily  on  the  public  finances  as  opposed  to  more  interventionist 
instruments  such  as  recapitalisations  or  the  cleaning  of  impaired  assets.  In  addition,  nearly 
70% of approved aid relates to just 5 Member States (the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, 
Germany and France). 

Distinction  between  approved  aid,  actually  used  amounts  and  aid  element  for  the  financial 
institutions 

Three different concepts are used in this Scoreboard to better explain the volumes approved, 
subsequently used and the benefit obtained by the financial institutions. 

• 
The maximum approved volume (budget) of crisis measures represents the overall 
maximum amount of State aid measures (such as guarantees, capital injections and other) set 
up by Member States and approved by the Commission. This figure corresponds to the upper 
limits of support which Member States are allowed to grant to the financial institutions. This 
figure,  however,  neither  expresses  the  amounts  actually  implemented  nor  the  benefit  which 
individual financial institutions obtained. 

117  

118  

119  

120  

The document can be consulted at http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/bank/docs/crisis-
management/framework/com2010_579_en.pdf. 
This  chapter  aims  to  capture  the  most  recent  developments  and  provides  an  overview  of  approved 
financial crisis aid up to 1 October 2010. However, data on expenditure at the time of writing is only 
available for the years 2008 and 2009. Therefore, this staff working document focuses on expenditure in 
2009. Where the trends need to be highlighted, expenditure data for 2008 is provided. 
The reference period for approved amounts and decisions taken in the context of financial crisis cases 
taken in this Scoreboard is from 1 October 2008 till 1 October 2010. 
Blanket guarantee schemes were adopted in Denmark and Ireland. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

                                                 
• 
The actually used amount (nominal amount) of the aid measure expresses the actual 
volume of the aid measure which Member States implemented. For example, in the case of a 
guarantee  or  liquidity  measure,  actually  used  amount  would  represent  the  volume  of  a 
guarantee or loan handed through a particular scheme or to a particular financial institution. 
Typically, these amounts would be much lower than maximum approved volumes as not the 
whole amount authorized by the Commission is taken-up. 

• 
The  aid  element  (gross  grant  equivalent)  of  State  aid  measures  expresses  the 
monetary  advantage  granted  to  individual  banks  either  through  schemes  or  ad  hoc 
interventions. The exact volume of the aid element depends on the case and the aid instrument 
in question (guarantee, recapitalisation etc). In most cases the aid element is much lower than 
actually  used  amounts  because  not  the  whole  amount  actually  used  can  be  considered  as  a 
benefit passed on to a beneficiary. For example, the aid element of a guarantee is the benefit 
expressed as a difference between a guarantee fee offered by Member State and the market. 
However, accounting the exact amount of the aid element in some cases might be difficult due 
to the lack of information on the prevailing market prices. Therefore, Member States and the 
Commission use particular proxy methods as described in the Methodological notes annexed 
to this Staff working document. 

In  2009,  the  amount  actually  used  (nominal  amount)  of  aid  reported  to  the  Commission  by 
Member States was € 1 106.54 b illion or 9.3% of EU-27 GDP.121 As regards the overall take-
up  rate,  only  slightly  more  than  half  of  the  approved  maximum  volumes  were  used  by 
Member States (take-up rate of 56%)122. 
According to the annual reports on State aid expenditure for 2009,123 Member States reported 
the aid element (gross grant equivalent) of that amount to constitute € 351.68 billion 124. That 
total  is  more  than  five  times  higher  than  non-crisis  aid  granted  for  the  whole  industry  and 
services sector (€ 61.9 billion for 2009). Furthe r breakdown of the aggregate figures can be 
found in the summary table below. 
Table  1125  –  Summary  table  on  maximum  approved  volumes,  nominal  amount  and  aid 
element, in € billion   

Schemes  

Approved 
volume 2008-
2010 

3 478.96 

Actual use i.e. 
nominal 
amount126  
2009 
727.38 

Aid element 
2009 

180.91 

Total crisis 
aid granted 
as a % of 
GDP127 
1.53% 

121  
122  

123  

124  

125  
126  

127  

Data on actual use is drawn from Member States' annual reports on State aid. 
The  take-up  rate  constitutes  actual  use  of  State  aid  measures  for  2008  and  2009  relative  to  the  total 
approved  amount  (minus  approved  budgets  for  2010).  Actual  use  for  2010  cannot  be  reflected  as  the 
Commission is still not in a possession of expenditure data for 2010. This figure would be reflected in 
the autumn scoreboard 2011. 
In  the  absence  of  data  of  actual  expenditure  and/or  estimations  provided  by  Member  States,  in  some 
instances  Member  States  were  asked  to  confirm  estimations  made  by  the  Commission's  services.  For 
exact estimation methods applied, please refer to the Methodological notes. 
Data on aid element is drawn from Member States' annual reports on State aid. For more information on 
distinction between actual use and aid element, exact definitions of aid element for each aid instrument 
(guarantees, recapitalizations and impaired assets) in regard of the financial crisis cases, please refer to 
the Methodological notes of the Scoreboard. 
Source: DG Competition. 
The nominal amount is the amount approved by the Commission, e.g. for guarantees the amounts which 
can be covered by the State.  
This percentage constitutes aid element for 2009 relative to the EU-27 GDP for 2009. 

EN 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                 
interventions 

          for guarantees 
          for recapitalisation measures 
          for asset relief interventions 
          for  liquidity  measures  other  than 
guarantee schemes 
Ad  hoc 
individual financial institutions 
          for guarantees 
          recapitalszation measures 
          for asset relief interventions 
          for  liquidity  measures  other  than 
guarantees 
TOTAL 

favour  of 

in 

3026.28 
348.64 
62.17 
41.87 

612.59 
95.15 
1.4 
18.23 

77.33 
95.15 
1.4 
8.6 

1109.94 

379.16 

170.76 

458.97 
197.44 
339.63 
113.9 

214.3 
46.36 
108.38 
11.11 

50.81 
44.49 
73.87 
1.5 

0.6% 
0.8% 
0.01% 
0.05% 

1.44% 

0.4% 
0.3% 
0.6% 
0.01% 

4 588.90 

1 106.54 

351.68 

2.9% 

As  regards  the  distribution  within  the  aid  instruments,  guarantees  remained  the  most  used 
support  measures  with  € 826.89  billion  being  actually  used  in  2009.  The  gross  capital 
injections into financial institutions were € 141. 51 billion, and the cleaning of impaired assets 
amounted  to  € 109.78  billion.  Finally,  € 28.34  billi
on  were  used  for  liquidity  interventions 
throughout the EU. 

The  evolution  of  the  aid  element  in  the  financial  crisis  cases,  however,  reveals  a  slightly 
different trend. State aid (aid element) granted for both schemes and ad hoc cases in the form 
of recapitalisations amounted to € 139.64 billion  or approximately 40% of total State aid (aid 
element)  granted  in  the  context  of  the  financial  crisis128,  followed  by  guarantees  (€ 123.47 
billion), measures related to impaired assets (€

 75.27 billion) and liquidity injections (€ 8.6). 

A more detailed picture is presented in the following table which presents aggregated data per 
Member  State  relating  to  overall  approved  amount  and  actual  use  both  for  schemes  and  ad 
hoc measures. 

128  

This trend can be explained by the methodology to assess the aid element of recapitalization measures. 
For more information please see the sub-section on recapitalization and the Methodological notes. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Table 2 – Approved amounts, actual use and expenditure per Member State (all schemes and 
ad hoc measures)129 

Approved amounts 2008-2010

Actual use 2008

Aid element 2008

Actual use 2009

Aid element 2009

Aid element as a % of 
national GDP 2009

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

850.30
723.31
599.66
592.23
351.10
334.27
323.60
328.59
161.56
91.70
78.00
54.00
20.45
20.00
12.00
11.59
10.33
9.24
8.78
3.46
3.00
1.74
4588.90

182.34
0.34
586.22
192.07
81.37
99.35
17.03
55.86
1.29
10.79
0.00
0.12
4.76
0.00
0.00
3.98
0.00
0.00
0.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
1236.47

62.28
0.03
56.48
51.08
25.59
0.94
14.04
21.47
0.34
0.99
0.00
0.00
0.52
0.00
0.00
2.78
0.00
0.00
0.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
237.48

282.41
11.29
14.44
262.68
129.48
60.31
75.00
120.43
79.39
30.94
25.12
0.00
0.65
4.05
2.00
2.72
2.57
0.00
0.86
0.00
2.23
0.00
1106.54

119.91
11.03
8.03
100.00
26.75
7.32
9.70
32.29
8.50
9.35
12.18
0.00
0.07
4.05
0.20
0.88
0.35
0.00
0.86
0.00
0.23
0.00
351.68

7.65%
6.74%
3.60%
4.15%
1.40%
0.70%
1.70%
9.57%
2.90%
3.37%
5.13%
Not used
0.04%
0.27%
0.57%
2.33%
0.38%
Not used
4.62%
Not used
1.36%
Approved in 2010

3.3.1.  Guarantees on bank debt 

Guarantee  schemes  have  proven  to  be  an  appropriate  and  effective  tool  to  address  liquidity 
problems and have played a key role in preventing the financial system from collapsing. The 
detailed guidance on the criteria for compatibility with the internal market was provided in the 
Commission's  Banking  Communication130.  Seeking  to  ensure  the  temporary  nature  of  these 
measures, the guarantee schemes have been approved for periods of 6 months at a time with 
the  possibility  to  prolong  them.  Since  autumn  2008  and  up  to  1  October  2010,  the 
Commission approved or renewed 41 schemes and individual interventions relating to more 
than 40 financial institutions.  

While the use of guarantees was at its height at the end of 2008 and the first half of 2009, it 
decreased  significantly  thereafter.  In  the  wake  of  the  onslaught  of  the  crisis,  the  mere 
availability  of  such  guarantee  schemes  was  in  itself  a  reassuring  signal  to  the  market  even 
without  them  being  fully  exploited  after  the  summer  2009.  The  following  figure  further 
illustrates the decrease in the number of guaranteed bonds issued after the summer 2009. 

129  

130  

Source: DG Competition. Please note that figures for 2008 actual use and aid element are different from 
the  ones  announced  in  the  Autumn  Scoreboard  2010  because  of  the  data  adjustments  carried  out  by 
Member States (or proposed by the Commission), as for example in the case of Denmark (including the 
scheme NN51/2008 into the year 2008). 
The application of State aid rules to measures taken in relation to financial institutions in the context of 
the current global financial crisis, OJ C 270, 25.10.2008, pp. 8-14. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Figure 19131 – Number of guaranteed bonds issued through schemes (October 2008 – August 
2010) 

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08

2008

2009

2010

As  follows  also  from  the  spring  edition  of  the  Scoreboard  2010132,  the  share  of  guaranteed 
bonds in the overall funding of the financial institutions had decreased significantly since the 
second half of 2009. In addition, the evidence clearly showed that as from the second half of 
2009 guarantees were mostly used by the financial institutions having lower ratings133. 

These factors coupled with the generally improving situation led to discussions on a gradual 
phase-out of State support. On 2 December 2009, the Ecofin Council concluded on the need 
to  disengage  from  various  forms  of  temporary  support  for  the  financial  sector.  The 
conclusions stressed in particular that the unwinding of State aid measures should start with 
guarantee  schemes.  In  that  regard,  the  Commission  presented  a  preliminary  analysis  of  the 
intention to introduce specific pre-requisites for the renewed provision of guarantees after 30 
June  2010.  The  main  changes  concerned  the  increase  of  the  guarantee  fees  based  on  banks' 
creditworthiness134. The Ecofin Council of 18 May 2010 welcomed the Commission analysis 
and  work  started  on  bridging  the  difference  in  funding  costs  and,  thus,  encouraging  sound 
financial institutions to exit from State guarantees while requiring others to assess their long-
term viability and address weaknesses through restructuring where necessary. 

However,  the  actual  disengagement  in  some  countries  started  even  earlier.  Some  Member 
States (Italy, France and the UK) discontinued their schemes in late 2009 or early 2010. The 
Netherlands tightened the conditions of its guarantee scheme as of 1 January 2010. After 30 
June 2010, 13 Member States135 have prolonged their schemes and a new guarantee scheme 
was  approved  for  Lithuania  in  line  with  the  policy  conditions  set  out  in  the  Staff  working 
paper  of  30  April  2010.  Total  operational  schemes  across  the  EU  now  stand  at  14.  Cyprus, 
Finland and Slovakia chose to phase-out their guarantee measures. The relatively high number 
of  Member  States  which  still  kept  guarantee  measures  can  be  explained  by  Member  States' 

131  
132  
133  

134  
135  

Source: Commission services. 
Please refer to Figure 1 in the Spring Scoreboard 2010. 
Please  refer  to  Figure  8  of  Staff  working  paper  on  the  application  of  state  aid  rules  to  government 
guarantee schemes covering bank debt to be issued after 30 June 2010. 
For summary details please refer to the previous section of this paper. 
Austria,  Germany,  Denmark,  Greece,  Spain,  Hungary,  Ireland,  Latvia,  Netherlands,  Poland,  Portugal, 
Sweden and Slovenia. 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
                                                 
willingness  to  reiterate  their  commitment  to  support  financial  institutions  in  the  case  of 
unforeseen future shocks. 

The total volume of guarantee measures authorised by the Commission from 1 October 2008 
until  1  October  2010  equals  € 3 485.25  billion.  Reports  from  Member  States  on  State  aid 
expenditure reveal that € 826.89 billion (7% of  EU-27 GDP) has been effectively used with 
the aid element of € 128.15 billion representing  roughly 1% of EU-27 GDP. The take-up rate 
for  the  guarantees  is  65%.  The  further  aggregate  breakdown  between  schemes  and  ad  hoc 
interventions is summarised in the table below. 
Table 3136 – Guarantees granted for liabilities of financial institutions in 2009 (schemes and 
ad hoc), € billion 

Approved volumes 
(1.10. 2008- 
31.7.2010) 
3026.28 
458.97 
3485.25 

Schemes 
Ad hoc interventions 
Total 

Actual use in 2009 

Aid element for 
2009 

612.59 
214.3 
826.89 

77.33 
50.81 
128.14 

% of aid element 
in relation to Eu-
27 GDP for 2009 
0.6% 
0.4% 
1% 

Member States granted € 77.33 billion through  schemes of which € 32.14 billion for Germany 
(1.3% of national GDP), € 16.21 billion for th e UK (1% of national GDP) and € 7.87 billion 
for  Sweden  (2.6%  of  national  GDP).  As  regards  ad  hoc  measures,  of  the  € 50.81  billion 
reported,  Belgium  tops  the  list  with  € 19.15  b illion  (5.6%  of  national  GDP),  followed  by 
Germany (€ 17.13 billion, 0.7% of national GDP). 

3.3.2.  Recapitalisation measures 

A  second  important  measure  in  response  to  the  financial  crisis  was  recapitalisation 
instruments. First dealt with in the Banking Communication and later addressed separately in 
the Recapitalisation Communication,137 recapitalisation measures seek to boost capital base of 
a  financial  institution  This  type  of  action  is  primarily  aimed  at  restoring  confidence  in  the 
financial markets and ensuring lending to the real economy. Recapitalisation is also viewed as 
an  indispensible  State  aid  enforcement  response  to  reduced  levels  of  capitalisation  which 
mostly concern financial institutions with riskier business or investment models. 

The Recapitalisation Communication established a number of conditions on matters such as 
remuneration, review clauses and preventing undue distortions of competition138. In addition, 
it also set important principles for encouraging exit of financial institutions from State capital 
participation. Exit strategies, which are normally enshrined in the decision authorising the aid, 
should be achieved in principle through pricing conditions (including increase of capital price 
over  time),  constraints  on  dividend  payments  and  other  redemption  clauses  which  generally 
encourage  private  capital  raising.  The  criteria  to  assess  recapitalisation  schemes  are 
summarised in the Commission staff working document of 7 August 2009139. 

The  total  volume  of  approved  recapitalisation  measures  (both  schemes  and  ad  hoc)  in  the 
reference period amounted to € 546.08 billion. Me mber States reported having actually used 

136  
137  

138  
139  

Source: DG Competition. 
Communication  from  the  Commission  —  The  recapitalization  of  financial  institutions  in  the  current 
financial crisis: limitation of aid to the minimum necessary and safeguards against undue distortions of 
competition, OJ C 10, 15.1.2009, pp. 2-10. 
For more detail description please refer to the Spring edition of the Scoreboard 2009, p.12. 
Staff working document of 7 August 2009, DG Competition’s review of guarantee and recapitalization 
schemes in the financial sector in the current crisis ("Review paper"), from p.9 ff. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
                                                 
€ 141.3 billion in 2009 140, of which € 139.43 billion can be considered as State aid. In 2008, 
the figures showed that State aid for recapitalisation instruments amounted to € 94.87 billion 
while actual use was € 99.57 billion. The take-up  rate for the recapitalisation measures stands 
at 62%. A more detailed picture is provided in the table below. 
Table 4141 – Recapitalisation measures for 2009, in € billion 

Approved volumes 
(01.08.2008-
31.7.2010) 
348.64 
197.44 
546.08 

Schemes 
Ad hoc interventions 
Total 

Actual use in 2009 

Aid element for 
2009 

95.15 
46.36142 
141.51 

95.15 
44.49 
139.64 

% of aid element 
in relation to Eu-
27 GDP for 2009 
0.8% 
0.3% 
1.1% 

The  relatively  small  difference  between  actual  use  of  aid  measures  and  aid  element  can  be 
explained by the fact that recapitalisation in most cases could not be done on market terms. 
Therefore,  the  aid  element  of  recapitalisation  measures  is,  in  most  of  the  cases,  the  whole 
amount of the recapitalisation143. It singled out Member States as the only 'investors' willing 
to participate in the financial institutions capital at the time.  

If  approved  amounts  in  the  table  above  are  compared  to  the  Spring  2010  Scoreboard,  more 
sizable approvals can be registered only as regards ad hoc interventions whereas total figures 
for schemes changed only very slightly144.  

Roughly 70% of all recapitalisation aid in 2009 was reported from 3 Member States, namely 
the  UK  (€ 51  billion),  Germany  (€ 40.73  billion)  and  Ireland  (€ 11  billion)  comprising  both 
schemes and ad hoc interventions. 

So  far  15  Member  States  chose  to  address  capitalisation  issues  through  schemes  with  9  of 
them  being  devoted  purely 
including  both 
to  recapitalisation  and 
recapitalisation  measures  and  other  instruments  such  as  guarantees,  impaired  assets  or 
liquidity support. 9 schemes are still in place: France, Italy, Denmark, the United Kingdom, 
Sweden  and,  more  recently,  Slovakia  phased-out  their  support  in  the  form  of  capital 
interventions.  As  in  the  case  of  guarantees,  one  of  the  main  reasons  provided  by  Member 
States for retaining recapitalisation schemes in place is the perceived risks of potential future 
volatility, even if the overall situation had stabilised. 

the  remainder 

Recapitalisation measures were taken regarding slightly more than 30 financial institutions in 
12 Member States. Some of the cases required action from two or even more Member States.  

3.3.3. 

Impaired assets 

Impaired assets are often referred to as root causes of the current financial crisis. In a nutshell, 
in  the  years  preceding  the  financial  crisis,  the  importance  of  securitisation  markets  grew 
significantly as financial institutions traded in considerable volumes of various forms of asset-
backed  securities.  The  complexity  of  those  financial  instruments  and  the  fact  that  many  of 
them  fell  outside  the  scope  of  banking  regulation  created  huge  information  asymmetries  on 
the actual value of assets backed by them. While keeping such assets off-balance in the years 
preceding the crisis, many financial institutions were compelled to take them onto the balance 
sheet  once  the  financial  crisis  hit.  Coupled  with  valuation  uncertainty  and  very  high 

140  
141  
142  
143  

144  

In the absence of reliable data for some cases, the figures were estimated by the Commission services. 
Source: DG Competition. 
The Spring Scoreboard used a figure comprising also of other capitalization measures than State aid. 
A slight difference in the figures appears due to the fact that in some ad hoc interventions not the whole 
amount used could be calculated as constituting aid element. 
See Chapter 3 of the spring edition of scoreboard 2010. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
                                                 
refinancing costs, that meant that the financial institutions were faced with prospective write-
downs as some of the assets were expected to loose (or were actually losing) their value145. 

Early  in  2009  the  Commission  adopted  a  coordinated  approach  in  the  Impaired  Assets 
Communication146 aimed at helping Member States to address the situation on banks' balance 
sheets without distorting competition. As the figures suggest, it proved to be an important tool 
in  Member  States'  arsenal  for  dealing  with  the  financial  crisis.  As  of  1  October  2010,  the 
maximum  approved  volume  for  both  schemes  and  ad  hoc  measures  was  € 401.79  billion. 
Member States reported to have actually used roughly a quarter of this sum (€ 109.78 billion) 
with € 75.27 billion constituting an aid element.  In 2008, Member States did not incur State 
aid expenditure in regard of impaired assets. The take-up rate for impaired assets was 32%. A 
further breakdown between schemes and ad hoc cases is illustrated in the following table. 
Table 5147 – Impaired assets interventions for 2009, in € billion 

Approved volumes 
(2008-2010) 

Actual use in 2009 

Aid element for 
2009 

Schemes 
Ad hoc interventions 
Total 

62.17 
339.63 
401.80 

1.4 
108.38 
109.78 

1.4 
73.87 
75.27 

% of aid element 
in relation to Eu-
27 GDP for 2009 
0.04% 
0.6% 
0.64% 

As  regards  schemes,  only  Germany  and  Ireland  approved  schemes  related  exclusively  to 
impaired  assets,  while  other  Member  States  (Austria,  Hungary  and  Lithuania)  incorporated 
these  measures  into  more  general  schemes  related  to  the  financial  crisis.  As  already 
mentioned in the spring edition of Scoreboard 2010,148 no special budget was allocated to the 
German  scheme  and  it  expired  without  being  used.  Nearly  all  approved  aid  relates  for  one 
scheme in Ireland taking also into account its recent amendment (€ 61.1 billion). 

As  it  is  evident  from  the  table,  the  impaired  assets  measures  were  mostly  approved  as 
individual interventions which allowed for more tailor-made solutions. During the reference 
period  the  Commission  approved  ad  hoc  cases  in  eight  Member  States  (Austria,  Belgium, 
France, Germany, Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom). The aid element 
for individual interventions in the form of impaired assets is mostly concentrated in 3 Member 
States (Belgium, Germany and the UK) and constitutes € 68.87 billion for 2009.  

3.3.4.  Liquidity interventions other than guarantees 

As the wholesale banking markets ceased to function at the end of 2008, financial institutions 
with  heavy  reliance  on  wholesale  funding  faced  a  liquidity  squeeze.  That  difficulty  was 
mostly due to the fact that the new debt could not be collateralized and sold to refinance the 
existing debt. In order to address the situation, Member States stepped in with various forms 
of liquidity measures mostly constituting soft loans or special purpose (usually central bank) 
securities to shore up financial institutions which faced acute liquidity shortages. 

Liquidity was granted both through schemes and as ad hoc measures. The aggregate data for 
liquidity  interventions  shows  that  € 28.35  bi llion  was  used  in  2009  of  the  € 155.77  billion 
approved  during  the  reference  period.  The  aid  element  for  that  amount  constitutes  € 8.6 

145  

146  

147  
148  

For  more  background  on  EU's  response  regarding  impaired  assets,  please  refer  to  article  by  Yassine 
Boudghene, Stan Maes and Martin Scheicher, Asset Relief Measures in the EU – Overview and Issues, 
published on http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1677310. 
Communication from the Commission on the treatment of impaired assets in the Community banking 
sector, OJ C 72, 26.3.2009, pp. 1-22. 
Source: DG Competition. 
See p. 9. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
                                                 
billion. In 2008 State aid (aid element) for liquidity interventions amounted to € 9.92 billion 
with € 32.95 billion being effectively used and theref ore a slight decrease is registered in this 
regard  in  2009.  The  take-up  rate  of  liquidity  measures  is  67%.  A  further  breakdown  of  the 
statistical data can be consulted in the table below. 
Table 6149 – Liquidity measures other than guarantees for 2009, in € billion 

Approved volumes 
(2008-2010) 

Actual use in 2009 

Aid element for 
2009 

Schemes 
Ad hoc interventions 
Total 

41.87 
113.9 
155.77 

3.3.5.  Restructuring 

18.23 
10.11 
28.34 

7.01 
1.5 
8.51 

% of aid element 
in relation to EU-
27 GDP for 2009 
0.05% 
0.01 
0.06 

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.  That  process  is  necessary  for  a  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 
market150. 

Up  to  10  August  2010,  the  Commission  had  received  close  to  40  restructuring  cases 
concerning  14  Member  States.  Two  of  these  cases  involve  2  Member  States,  another  case 
relates to 3 different Member States. 20 of these cases have been finalised by a Commission 
decision. 

3.4. 

Aid granted under the Temporary Framework 

3.4.1.  Context and purpose of the Temporary Framework 

With the financial crisis deepening during 2008, financial institutions were deleveraging and 
becoming  significantly  more  risk-averse  than  in  previous  years.  Companies  started  to 
experience difficulties with access to credit. As part of its response, the Commission adopted 
in  January  2009  the  so-called  Temporary  Framework  to  give  Member  States  additional 
possibilities to address the effects of the credit squeeze on the real economy.  

The  Temporary  Framework  focuses  on  two  objectives:  first,  maintaining  continuity  in 
companies' access to finance (for instance, to allow Member States to provide guarantees for 
loans at reduced premiums or subsidised interest rates for loans and to hand out grants of up 
to  € 500  000  per  company);  second,  to  support   sustainable  growth  in  the  long-term  by 
encouraging companies to continue investing, for instance in new technology projects. Apart 
from  these  new  aid  measures,  some  existing  guidelines  were  adapted  under  the  Temporary 
Framework,  e.g.  the  simplification  of  the  rules  inter  alia  on  higher  ceilings  for  risk  capital 
investments and the simplification of the rules on export credit. 

The  Temporary  Framework  is  a  horizontal  instrument  that  has  allowed  Member  States  to 
support all sectors of the economy hit by the crisis.  

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 

149  
150  

Source: DG Competition. 
For  more  information  on  the  Commission's  policy  in  regard  of  the  restructuring  please  refer  to  the 
Restructuring Communication and the spring edition of the Scoreboard 2010. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

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

The  Temporary  Framework  forms  part  of  a  wider  Commission  response  to  the  economic 
crisis:  the  European  Economic  Recovery  Plan  adopted  in  November  2008,  which  was 
endorsed by the European Council151.  

By  end  October  2009,  Member  States  had  to  provide  to  the  Commission  with  a  report  on 
elements indicating the need for the Commission to maintain the measures provided under the 
Temporary Framework beyond 2010 and in particular to provide detailed information on the 
environmental  benefits  of  the  subsidised  loans.  For  this  purpose,  the  Commission  sent  a 
questionnaire  to  Member  States  and  sought  comments  from  interested  third  parties.  In 
March 2010, the Commission sent a second questionnaire to Member States in order to gather 
further  and  more  updated  evidence  on  the  use  of  the  Temporary  Framework  taking  into 
account  current  economic  circumstances152.  In  October  2010,  the  Commission  published  a 
draft  proposal  on  a  limited  prolongation  of  the  Temporary  Framework  until  2011153.  The 
document was also discussed in a multilateral meeting with the Member States.  

3.4.2.  Measures approved under the Temporary Framework 
Since  the  adoption  of  the  Temporary  Framework154  in  January  2009,  most  Member  States 
have  made  use  of  the  new  facilities  offered  to  support  access  to  finance  in  the  current 
financial and economic crisis.  
Between 17 December 2008 and 1 October 2010, the Commission authorised 73 schemes155 
under the Temporary Framework: 

•  23  schemes  for  aid  up  to  € 500 000 per  company  proposed  by  Bulgaria,  the  Czech 
Republic,  Germany,  Estonia,  Ireland,  Greece,  Spain,  France,  Italy,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 
Luxembourg,  Hungary,  Malta,  the  Netherlands,  Austria,  Poland,  Portugal,  Romania, 
Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland and the United Kingdom; 

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

•  8 schemes for subsidised loan interests, in the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, France, 

Italy,  Hungary and the United Kingdom; 

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

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

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

•  13  export-credit  schemes,  in  Belgium,  Denmark,  Germany,  France,  Latvia,  Lithuania, 

Luxembourg, Hungry, the Netherlands, Austria, Slovenia, Finland and Sweden. 

151   

152  

153  
154  

155  

COM/2008/0800 final; read the English version via 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0800:FIN:EN:PDF.  
Read the Member States' replies at 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_temporary_framework/index.html. 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/consultations/2010_temporary_measures/index.html. 
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. 
Number  does  not  include  amendments  to  previously  approved  schemes  under  the  Temporary 
Framework; figure includes only measures that constitute aid to industry and services. 

EN 

56 

   EN 

                                                 
Furthermore,  the  Commission  has  approved  5  ad  hoc  aid  measures  and  aid  to  agricultural 
producers: 

•  5 guarantee measures in Latvia, Romania and Sweden – most to car manufacturers; 

•  12  schemes  for  aid  up  to  €  15,000  for  agricu ltural  producers  in  Belgium,  Bulgaria, 
Germany,  France,  Italy,  Latvia,  Hungary,  Netherland,  Austria,  Slovakia,  Finland  and  the 
United Kingdom. 

Of  the  27  Member  States,  only  Cyprus  has  so  far  not  used  any  of  the  possibilities  offered 
under the Temporary Framework while Germany and France, at the other extreme, were the 
Member States that each has approved the highest number of measures. 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).  France  had  also  adopted  7  schemes  covering  all  the  instruments  (inter  alia  two 
schemes were adopted to provide risk capital). The Commission has also authorised several 
measures for Hungary (6 measures), Italy (5 measures), Latvia and the United Kingdom (each 
4  measures).  The  remainder  of  Member  States  made  use  of  only  some  possibilities  that  the 
Temporary Framework offers. For the full details, see table 3-1 in the Annex. 

3.4.3.  Aid granted in 2009 

The  maximum  volume  of  the  Commission's  approved  measures  under  the  Temporary 
Framework amounted to approximately € 81.3 billion in 2009 156, which represents 0.68% of 
EU-27 GDP. Following from the annual reports submitted by Member States and by taking 
into  account  also  the  replies  to  the  Commission's  second  questionnaire  on  the  Temporary 
Framework the aggregated aid element of all aid measures implemented by Member States is 
estimated at € 2.2 billion 157, which represents in relative terms 0.018% of EU-27 GDP.  

Aid granted in the form of a maximum aid amount of € 500 000 per undertaking amounted to 
€ 1.2 billion which represents 55% of all ai d granted under the Temporary Framework. A few 
Member States provided aid in the form of guarantees whose estimated aggregate aid element 
amounted  to  €  0.3  billion  or  12%  of  all  Temp orary  Framework  aid.  Reduced-interest  rate 
loans represent only a small fraction, i.e. € 0.007 billion or less than 1%. An estimated to € 
0.7  billion  of  aid  was  granted  under  risk  capital  measures  and  France  accounted  for  a  large 
part of that aid.    

Concerning the aid instruments used by Member States under the Temporary Framework, by 
volume of aid granted, tax exemption was the most used instrument, although mainly applied 
by  France.  It  represents  37%  of  the  entire  aid  volume  granted  under  the  Temporary 
Framework.  The  use  of  direct  grants  made  up  43%,  guarantees  17%  and  loans  only  3%. 
Equity participations and tax deferrals had no particular importance in this context.   

At  first  sight,  the  total  volume  of  approved  aid  measures  under  the  Temporary  Framework 
may suggest a significant aid expenditure. However, Member States granted aid of only 2.7% 
of the approved volume in 2009. This effect could partly be explained in view of the fact that 
Member States were cautious in the determination of the budget given the uncertainties as to 

156  

157  

Estimate; amount is expected to be higher, however, not quantifiable at the moment of the Scoreboard 
production.  In  a  few  instances,  some  aid  expenditure  already  occurred  at  the  end  of  2008.  For  the 
purpose  to  keep  the  main  facts  on  expenditure  under  the  Temporary  Framework  rules  simple,  such 
expenditure were included for 2009 of the corresponding Member State. The approved aid volume of 
the  €  15,000  aid  to  agricultural  pr oducers  amounted  to  €  1.2  billion  an d  is  excluded  from  the  figure. 
Excluded is also export credit since it concerned a simplification of rules. 
Apart, expenditure on aid of up to € 15 000 for agricultural producers is estimated to € 4.9 million. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

                                                 
the depth and duration of the crisis and the need to send the markets a clear signal of public 
authorities'  availability  to  meet  potential  demand  that  then  turned  out  to  be  lower  than 
expected.  Furthermore,  it  appears  that  Member  States  were  applying  strict  granting 
conditions, also in view of budgetary constraints, which have kept the number of beneficiaries 
limited.  On  the  basis  of  the  feedback  from  Member  States,  received  via  the  second 
questionnaire  on  the  Temporary  Framework,  it  appears  that  some  Member  States 
implemented  some  of  their  Temporary  Framework  measures  only  during  the  second  half  of 
2009  but  due  to  national  budget  restrictions  the  actual  expenditure  was  partly  or  fully 
postponed into the year 2010 for which a higher aid expenditure is expected.   

With  respect  to  the  preference  through  which  Member  States  provided  the  aid  under  the 
Temporary Framework, the maximum aid amount of € 500 000  per undertaking appeared to 
be the most used tool to grant aid to the real economy. In second place, Member States made 
use of guarantees and subsidised interest loans.  

3.4.4. 

Special reference to the car sector 

In the automotive sector, the sharp drop in demand was mainly related to the degradation of 
households' access to finance. Most of the measures taken focused on easing access to finance 
in order to maintain companies' capacity to grow and compete. Measures on subsidised loans, 
guarantees  and  green  products  have  been  adopted  in  Spain,  France,  Italy,  United  Kingdom, 
Sweden  and  Romania  where  the  automotive  sector  has  a  relatively  higher  share  of  the 
economy. 

Sectoral  supply-side  support  measures  (loans  and  guarantees)  carry  other  risks  in  the  long 
run158. Measures to maintain companies' innovation capacity, for instance, might have adverse 
effects  on  potential  innovative  entrants.  In  particular,  by  favouring  incumbents,  public 
authorities  do  not  encourage  disruptive  innovative  new  players  to  enter  the  market  (OECD, 
2009).  The  preferential  loans  provided  to  large  car  manufacturers  is  a  specific  example;  it 
could provide those car manufacturers with a competitive advantage in leading the change to 
a green economy. 

Concerning  State  aid  to  the  car  industry,  the  Commission  has  continued  to  enforce  a  strict 
policy in order to ensure that any State aid granted to this industry complies fully with State 
aid  and  internal  market  rules.  It  does  not  authorise  aid  granted  under  the  Temporary 
Framework  to  support  access  to  finance  in  the  context  of  the  financial  crisis  that  would  be 
subject – de jure or de facto – to political constraints concerning the location of production 
activities  within  the  internal  market.  The  beneficiary  undertakings  must  therefore  retain  full 
freedom  to  develop  their  economic  activities  anywhere  in  the  internal  market.  The 
Commission carefully examined each case that raised this type of protectionist concerns. 

This  approach  was  confirmed  early  in  2009  when  France  announced  its  intention  to  grant 
State aid to its national car producers on the basis of a scheme approved under the Temporary 
Framework.  Following  extensive  contacts  between  the  Commission  and  the  French 
authorities,  the  latter  eventually  made  undertakings  to  the  effect  that  the  loan  agreements 
intended  for  the  car  manufacturers  would  not  contain  any  condition  regarding  either  the 
location  of  their  activities  or  a  preference  for  France-based  suppliers.  A  similar  issue  was 
raised in the context of State aid that Germany intended to grant to Adam Opel GmbH under 
an approved Temporary Framework scheme, in connection with a sale by General Motors of 

158  

Read more detail in 
http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/european_economy/2009/pdf/ee11_2009_en.pdf. 

EN 

58 

   EN 

                                                 
its Opel/Vauxhall European operations to an investor. Eventually, General Motors reversed its 
decision to sell Opel and the investor's process was terminated. 

There  were  also  cases  in  the  automotive  sector  that  were  individually  notified  to  the 
Commission,  such  as  the  Volvo  case,  where  the  Commission  approved  a  guarantee  to  be 
issued  by  the  Swedish  state  as  collateral  for  a  loan  from  the  European  Investment  Bank  to 
finance green projects by Volvo cars directly on the basis of the Temporary Framework159. 

4. 

SIMPLIFICATION OF THE STATE AID RULES 

4.1. 

A new architecture for State aid control 

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

Four guiding principles underpinned the reform programme: 

•  less and better 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. 

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, alongside the block exemption mechanism, individual 
assessment  of  State  aid  notified  to  the  Commission  may  be  subject  to  two  basic  levels  of 
scrutiny. In principle, State aid measures notified to the Commission are scrutinised applying 
a standard assessment. This allows an opinion to be formed 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.  By  adopting  this  two-tiered  approach,  the 
Commission  focuses  its  analysis  on  the  most  distortive  aid  measures,  while  also  ensuring 
effective State aid control via the standard assessment.  

By applying a level of assessment proportionate to the impact of the aid measure, the current 
State aid architecture assures a strict and practical form of State aid  control in an EU of  27 
Member States, where it is impossible to assess every notification of national aid measures in 
detail.  Furthermore,  the  new  architecture  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,  in  line  with  the  priorities  and  headline  targets  of  the 
Europe 2020 Strategy160.  

159  
160 

N 80/2009. 
Communication  from  the  Commission  -  Europe  2020:  a  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive 
growth, COM (2010)2020 of 3.3.2010. 

EN 

59 

   EN 

                                                 
Following the SAAP, the Commission adopted in 2009 a simplification Package to further 
modernise and simplify State aid procedures. This Package (in force since 1 September 2009) 
comprises a Best Practice Code161 and a notice on a Simplified Procedure162, both of which 
aim  at  improving  the  effectiveness,  transparency  and  predictability  of  State  aid  procedures, 
within the existing legal context of the Procedural Regulation163. 

The simplified procedure aims at ensuring that clearly compatible aid is approved 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 to give third 
parties the possibility to comment.  

The  Best  Practice  Code,  which  is  complementary  to  the  simplified  procedure  initiative, 
details  how  State  aid  procedures  should  be  carried  out  in  practice.  It  is  based  on  a  joint 
commitment  of  the  Commission  and  Member  States  to  achieve  more  streamlined,  and 
predictable  procedures  at  each  step  of  a  State  aid  investigation.  Consequently,  the 
Commission should be able to adopt its decisions on State aid cases faster, within the existing 
procedural legal framework. 

In  2009,  the  majority  of  aid  measures  were  scrutinised  via  a  standard  assessment.  For  risk 
capital  cases  a  detailed  assessment  was  carried  out  in  24%  of  the  cases  decided  164.  For 
R&D&I  cases  the  figure  was  30%165.  There  was  no  detailed  assessment  for  environmental 
protection cases (47 cases) and only 1 of the 59 regional aid cases was made the subject of a 
detailed assessment.  

As  for  the  simplified  procedure,  it  was  used  for  two  cases  in  2009  (since  the  simplification 
package was in force only from 1 September 2009). 

4.2. 

Types of aid measures used by Member States 

An  increasing  number  of  aid  measures  are  exempted  from  ex  ante  Commission  scrutiny, 
either  by  the  de  minimis  regulation166  or  by  block  exempted  regulations  (most  notably  the 
General  Block  Exemption  Regulation  (GBER),  which  entered  into  force  on  29  August 
2008)167.  The  rationale  behind  this  is  that  such  measures  are  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 laid down in the relevant 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 

161 
162 

163 

164 
165 
166 

167 

Code of Best Practice for the conduct of State aid control procedure (OJ C 136, 16.06.2009, p. 3-12). 
Commission Notice on a Simplified procedure for the treatment of certain types of State aid; OJ C 136, 
16.06.2009, p. 3-12. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application 
of Article 93 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 83, 27.03.1999, p. 1. 
4 out of 16 risk capital cases. 
9 out of 30 R&D&I cases. 
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. 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  800/2008  of  6  August  2008  declaring  certain  categories  of  aid 
compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block 
exemption Regulation), OJ L 214, 9.8.2008, p. 3–47. 

EN 

60 

   EN 

                                                 
thresholds and individual aid (also known as 'ad hoc' aid) awarded outside a scheme need to 
be notified individually.  

Both in terms of numbers and in terms of volumes block exempted aid increased in the last 
years, while aid remaining under the Commission scrutiny (schemes and individual aid taken 
together, excluding crisis measures) decreased, as is illustrated by the following two tables168.  
Figure 21169: Trend by type of aid measures (numbers); EU-27 

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

s
e
r
u
s
a
e
m
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

1400

1200

1000

800

600

198

400

294

77

279

200

0

249

291

128

241

275

86

225

964

105

248

93

254

640

655

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Block exem pted aid

Schemes

Individual aid

168 

169  

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 has been put aside for the purpose of the analysis. 
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 

61 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Figure 22170: Trend by type of aid measures (volume); EU-27 

Trend in the type of aid measure used (expenditure), EU 27 
(2004-2009); crisis measures excluded

)
 €
n
o

i
l
l
i

b
n
i
(
e
m
u
o
v
d
A

l

i

70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Notifiable individual aid
Schemes without individually notified applications
Block exempted aid

Numbers of aid measures171  

In comparison with the previous year, 2009 saw a significant increase in the number of new 
block exempted measures set up by Member States. The main reason for this was the General 
Block Exemption Regulation which entered into force in August 2008 and widened the scope 
of the previously existing block exemptions by including new areas where block exempted aid 
can be granted (e.g. environmental protection aid and R&D&I aid). 

In  2009,  block  exempted  aid  measures  accounted  on  average  for  76%  of  all  new  State  aid 
measures set up in the Member States. Notified aid (schemes and individual aid) accounted 
for  the  remaining  24%  of  which  the  proportion  of  individual  aid  was  rather  low  i.e. 
approximately 7 %. 

Over  the  long-term,  the  trend  shows  a  steady  increase  in  the  use  of  block  exempted  aid  by 
Member  States.  It  increased  between  2004  and  2006  from  34%  to  43%.  Then  it  jumped  to 
64%  in  2007,  mainly  due  to  the  entry  into  force  of  the  new  regional  aid  framework  for  the 
years 2007 - 2013 which triggered block exempted aid earmarked for regional investment aid. 
This  level  of  block-exempted  aid  was  roughly  maintained  in  2008  (65%)  and  sharply 
increased again in 2009 (76%). 

The increase in the number of new block exempted measures set up by Member States was 
accompanied by a significant reduction of aid measures which were under individual scrutiny 
by the Commission (schemes and individual aid).  

With respect to notified schemes, the share which they represent of all aid measures declined 
from 40% in 2004 to 25% in 2008. This downward trend continued in 2009 (18%). 

A  similar  decrease  was  seen  for  individual  aid  measures,  whether  individual  applications 
within a scheme or ad hoc measures, both of which dropped from 27% in 2004 to around 9% 
in 2008. This trend was sustained in 2009 (7%). 

Volume of aid measures172  

170  

171  

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. 
Crisis measures excluded. Statistics on crisis measures are presented in Chapter 3. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
On  the  basis  of  2009  data,  about  19%  of  the  total  aid  volume  to  industry  and  services  was 
awarded  on  the  basis  of  block  exemptions,  which  corresponds  in  absolute  terms  to  around 
€ 10.8 billion.  Aid  granted  through  schemes  whic h  had  been  subjected  to  the  Commission's 
scrutiny  represented  the  bulk  of  measures  in  terms  of  volume,  roughly  69%  (around 
€ 40 billion). Individual aid acc ounted for the remaining 12 %.  

The  share  of  block  exempted  aid  in  the  total  volume  of  aid  to  industry  and  services  rose 
steadily from 4% in 2004 to 12% in 2007, 16% in 2008 and 19% in 2009 (which in absolute 
terms  corresponds  to  € 2.4 billion  in  2004,  €  6.1  billion  in  2007,  €  8.9  billion  in  2008  and 
€ 0.8  billion  in  2009).  The  main  reasons  for  th e  increase  lie  in  the  introduction  of  a  block 
exemption for regional aid in 2007 and the GBER in 2008. With the exception of the Czech 
Republic,  Ireland,  Cyprus,  Latvia,  Lithuania,  Hungary,  the  Netherlands,  Finland  and  the 
United  Kingdom  all  other  Member  States  granted  more  aid  under  the  block  exemptions  in 
2009 than in the previous year in absolute terms. In particular, Bulgaria, Malta, Luxembourg, 
Denmark,  Belgium  and  Slovakia  granted  substantially  more  aid  under  the  block  exemption 
regulations173. 

During the same six-year period 2004 - 2009, aid volumes granted under notified schemes and 
individual  aid  were  generally  on  a  downward  path.  With  respect  to  notified  schemes,  the 
corresponding aid volume fell from 85% in 2004 to 79% in 2008 and 69% in 2009.  

The same positive, downward trend was observed for aid volumes granted as individual aid 
(either the individual application of schemes or ad hoc aid) in the years 2004 - 2008 when it 
came  down  from  10%  in  2004  to  5%  in  2008.  Between  2008  and  2009,  individual  aid 
increased  to  almost  12%  of  the  total.  In  absolute  terms  it  was  equal  to  €  6.9  billion  that  is 
around  €  4.1  billion  more  than  in  2008,  of  whic h  €  2.5  billion  can  be  assigned  to  the 
individual applications of schemes. 

This  overall  positive  development,  i.e.  increasing  numbers  and  volumes  in  block  exempted 
aid combined with a downward trend on notified aid, allows the Commission to focus on the 
examination  of  individual  applications  of  a  scheme  and  ad-hoc  measures  it  is  these  cases 
which most often haven the greatest potential to distort competition.  

5. 

ENFORCEMENT THE STATE AID RULES 

5.1. 

Unlawful aid 

Article  108(3)  TFEU  obliges  Member  States  to  not  only  notify  State  aid  measures  to  the 
Commission before their implementation but also to await the outcome of the Commission's 
investigation before implementing notified measures. When either of these obligations is not 
respected,  the  state  aid  measure  is  considered  to  be  unlawful.  When,  following  a  formal 
investigation  procedure,  the  state  aid  measure  is  considered  incompatible  with  the  internal 
market, the Commission shall decide that the Member State must take all necessary measures 
to  recover  the  aid  from  the  beneficiary  in  accordance  with  national  procedures  (negative 
decision with recovery). 
In the period 2000 to 30 June 2010, the Commission took 910 decisions on unlawful aid174. In 
21.6%  of  unlawful  aid  cases  (197  cases)  the  Commission  intervened  by  taking  a  negative 
decision  on  an  incompatible  aid  measure.  This  negative  decision  normally  requests  the 

172  
173 
174  

Crisis measures excluded. Statistics on crisis measures are presented in Chapter 3. 
Additional information on block exempted aid granted in 2009 is presented in Chapter 2.2.2.  
The Commission reports about recovery on a cumulative, mid-year basis. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

                                                                                                                                                         
Member State concerned to recover the illegally awarded aid. In a further 2.1% of unlawful 
aid cases (19 cases), the Commission took a conditional decision. 

In  addition,  there  are  roughly  160  pending  unlawful  aid  cases  which  are  still  under 
Commission  scrutiny.  These  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). 

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 recovery decisions, 
which  will  ensure  equality  of  treatment  of  all  beneficiaries.  To  this  end,  the  Commission 
adopted  in  November  2007  its  Recovery  Notice,  which  defines  the  role  and  obligations  of 
Member States and the Commission as regards the common aim of undoing the distortion of 
competition caused by illegal and incompatible aid. 

State of play 

The  latest  figures  indicate  that  significant  progress  has  been  made  in  the  execution  of 
recovery decisions since the SAAP in 2005. At the end of June 2010, there were 54 pending 
recovery  decisions  compared  with  94  at  the  end  of  2004.  This  improvement  in  the 
Commission's enforcement record of its decisions should contribute to an increased state aid 
discipline on the part of Member States. 

As of 30 June 2010, seven pending recovery cases were closed and 3 new recovery decisions 
were  taken.  Spain  and  Italy  had  the  highest  number  of  pending  cases  (15  each,  which 
represents 55 % of the EU total), followed by Germany  (7) and France (4).  It is also  worth 
noting that there is no pending case in 14 of the 27 Member States. Table 4-3 in the Annex 
provides the complete list of outstanding recovery decisions. 

Recovery of illegal incompatible State aid is still a lengthy process: in more than a third of the 
54  pending  recovery  cases  the  decision  was  adopted  more  than  four  years  ago.  Significant 
efforts have been and are being made to implement the oldest recovery decisions.  

The  execution  of  recovery  decisions  by  Member  States  is  closely  monitored  by  the 
Commission.  Where  Member  States  do  not  take  all  measures  available  to  implement  such 
decisions,  the  Commission  has  taken  the  line  of  systematically  initiating  infringement 
proceedings against the Member State concerned. As of 30 June 2010, the Commission had 
decided  to  launch  action  under  Article  108(2)  TFEU  in  3  cases  and  to  initiate  or  pursue  an 
infringement  action  under  Article  260(2)  TFEU  in  3  other  cases.  A  complete  list  of  these 
cases is available on the DG Competition website and in Table 4-4 in the Annex. 

Amounts from recovery  

Table  4-1  in  the  Annex  provides  data  on  the  amounts  of  aid  to  be  recovered  under  the  143 
recovery  decisions  adopted  since  2000.  For  most  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 2010 is more than € 12 billion (€ 12.066 billion). 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
 
10.728 billion of aid had already been recovered by 30 June 

Of these € 12.066 billion, some € 
2010 (consisting in € 9.417 billion of  aid effectively recovered and € 1.311 billion of aid lost 
in  bankruptcy  proceedings).  This  represents  88.9%  of  the  total  amount  of  illegal  and 
incompatible  aid  to  be  recovered  under  recovery  decisions  adopted  since  1  January  2000. 
Taking  into  account  the  further  €  370  million  of 
illegal  and  incompatible  aid  that  has  been 
registered  in  ongoing  bankruptcy  proceedings  (which  represents  3%  of  total  aid  to  be 
recovered),  it  appears  that,  in  monetary  terms,  the  rate  of  execution  of  recovery  decisions 
adopted since 1 January 2000 is close to 92%. 

Recovery in the agricultural sector 

As  of  30  June  2010,  the  Commission  has  taken  14  recovery  decisions  in  the  period  dating 
from 1999 to 30 June 2010. There were 10 pending recovery cases in the agricultural sector 
with  around  € 1.3 billion  aid  yet  to  be  recovered.  One  Spanish  case  has  been  added  in 
comparison  to  the  former  scoreboard.  One  Greek  case  was  closed  in  the  first  semester  of 
2010. Further details can be consulted in the table below. 

Table 7: Pending recovery cases by Member State, first semester 2010 

Spain 

Germany 

Italy 

France 

Portugal 

Greece 

Total 

Situation 
31/12/2009 

New cases 
31/12/2009-
30/06/2010 

Cases closed 
31/12/2009-
30/06/2010 

Situation 
30/06/2010 

1

1

1

3

2

2

10

1

1

1  

1  

2

1

1

3

2

1

10

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

So  far,  no  infringement  proceedings  pursuant  to  Article  108(2)  TFEU  have  been  brought 
before the Court of Justice of the European Union. 

Recovery in the fisheries sector 

The Commission adopted seven recovery decisions in the area of fisheries. The total amount 
of  aid  to  be  recovered  is  unknown  due  to  lack  of  information  provided  by  Member  States 
authorities, however, it is estimated that the amount should be in the region of € 100 million. 
So far, only around € 4.5 million has been successfully recovered. In 2010, the Commission 
took  two  cases175  to  the  Court  of  Justice  over  the  failure  to  comply  with  the  obligations 
established by the Treaties. For more details, see Table 4-2 in the Annex. 

175  

Namely - CR 96/2001 and CR 97/2001. 

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
  
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
 
                                                 
Recovery in the transport sector 

The estimated amount of aid to be recovered in the transport sector amounts to € 1.5 billion, 
however, exact amounts to be recovered in each case are not known due to a lack of precise 
data from the national authorities. So far, the Commission has taken 7 negative decisions with 
a recovery order in the transport sector. In  2009, one negative decision  with  recovery order 
was handed down but aid could not be recovered176. No recovery decisions were taken in the 
first half of 2010. 

As regards the air transport sector, the Commission has taken a number of recovery decisions 
involving  Italy  (Alitalia)  and  Greece  (Olympic  Airways,  Olympic  Airways  Services  and 
Olympic Airlines) since 2000. Some recovery has already taken place and, with regard to the 
outstanding amounts, the recovery claims are/will be included in the liquidation processes of 
the respective companies. 

By  judgment  of  13  September  2010  the  General  Court  partially  annulled  the  Commission 
Decision  C  11/2004  on  privatisation  of  Olympic  Airways.  The  Court  held  that  the 
Commission had failed to prove that about € 131 million granted by Greece constituted State 
aid. At the same time it upheld the Commission's decision according to which the continued 
forbearance  of  the  Greek  State  towards  Olympic  Airways’  non-payment  of  taxes  and  social 
security contributions (of about € 354 million) am ounted to illegal and incompatible State aid 
which had to be recovered. 

5.3. 

Enforcement of State aid Law: 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 adopted in 
April 2009  a  new  Notice on the  Enforcement  of  State  Aid  Law  by  National  Courts177. This 
Notice replaced the existing 1995 Notice on Cooperation with National Courts178 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. 
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  decided  to  introduce  more 

• 

176  

177  
178  

C 10/2005 – Restructuring aid to COMBUS A/S. Aid could not be recovered due to the fact that the 
beneficiary was dissolved. 
Commission Notice on the enforcement of State aid law by national courts (OJ C 85, 9.4.2009, p. 1). 
Commission Notice on cooperation between national courts and the Commission in the State aid field 
(OJ C 312, 23.11.1995, p. 8). 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
                                                 
practical  and  user-friendly  co-operation  mechanisms  along  the  lines  of  those  already 
available in the antitrust area179. 

Following  the  adoption  of  the  new  Notice  the  Commission  has  recently  intensified  its 
advocacy efforts in the area of private State aid enforcement. A dedicated set of web pages 
has  been  launched  on  the  DG  Competition  website180,  and  a  booklet181  gathering  the  EU 
materials  most  relevant  for  State  aid  enforcement  in  the  judges'  daily  work  has  been 
published. Furthermore, the Commission has provided grants for the organisation of State aid 
training for national judges182 throughout Europe. 

5.4. 

Ex-post monitoring 

With the entry into force, in August 2008, of the GBER an increasing number of aid measures 
are  no  longer  subject  to  the  notification obligation.  By  August  2010  around  1 471  State  aid 
measures  had  been  implemented  on  the  basis  of  this  Regulation.  Article  10  of  the  GBER 
constitutes the basis for realising ex-post 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, 2008, and 2009 a 
series  of  sample-based  monitoring  exercises  covering  both  approved  aid  schemes  and 
measures adopted under BERs. As already indicated in the Autumn 2009 Scoreboard (point 
5.4), the Commission has, with these 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 all Member States. The analysis 
of the results of the first four exercises shows that overall, the 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. 

179  

180  
181  
182  

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). 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/court/state_aid.html.  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/publications/state_aid/national_courts_booklet_en.pdf.  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/court/training.html.  

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
  METHODOLOGICAL NOTES

183 

As  in  previous  Scoreboards,  the  figures  in  this  report  are  based  on  the  annual  reports  on 
existing  schemes  submitted  by  the  Member  States  pursuant  to  Article  5  of  Commission 
Regulation (EC) 794/2004184 and Annex III A of that Regulation, which defines the scope and 
content of the data that Member States have to provide to the Commission. Furthermore the 
data are based on the information submitted by Member States in their notifications pursuant 
to Article 2 of Council Regulation (EC) 659/1999185. Where actual expenditure data were not 
available, Member States were asked to provide commitments or budget appropriations and to 
mark  the  data  accordingly.  Where  no  such  information  was  available,  Member  States  were 
requested to provide an estimate of the aid element, or in the absence of such estimate, were 
asked to confirm or adapt the estimate calculated by the Commission services, mainly on the 
basis of information provided in previous years and in line with the applied standard method 
of  assessing  the  aid  element186.  For  the  purpose  of  producing  a  meaningful  Scoreboard,  the 
absence of data requires the inclusion of estimates in order to provide a complete picture on 
State aid expenditure on the basis of all aid measures implemented by Member States. 

The  Scoreboard  covers  State  aid  as  defined  under  Article 107(1)  TFEU  (ex  Article 87(1)  of 
the EC Treaty) that Member States granted from 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2009. Data 
from previous years are also included in the report when needed to show trends. All State aid 
data  refer  to  the  implementation  of  Commission  decisions  but  exclude  cases  which  are  still 
under examination.  

Aid granted for Services of General Economic Interest are excluded from the Scoreboard. For 
more detail, read the conceptual remarks at DG Competition's website.187 Also excluded from 
the report is expenditure through Community funds and other Community instruments.  

Figures may be different from those published in previous Scoreboards. First, Member States 
may  have  replaced  provisional  figures  or  estimates  from  the  previous  year(s)  by  final  data. 
With  respect  to  expenditure  in  tax  schemes  which  pose  particular  difficulty  when 
quantifying188,  if  expenditure  is  corrected  at  a  later  stage  it  may  contribute  to  a  change  in 
previous  figures  and  to  a  shift  in  the  distribution  of  horizontal  or  sectoral  aid  in  particular. 
Second,  when  the  Commission  takes  a  decision  on  a  non-notified  aid  measure,  the  aid  in 
question is attributed to the year(s) in which it was awarded. In cases resulting in expenditure 
over a number of years, the total amount is generally attributed to each of the years in which 
expenditure  took  place.  Third,  all  data  are  provided  at  constant  prices  (in  million  Euro  or 
billion  Euro  where  appropriate)  of  the  year  2000  but  referenced  to  the  year  under  review. 
Moreover, figures change due to inflation being taken into account.    

Figures when expressed in percentage of GDP are measured by reference to the year to which 
expenditure data relate. 

183  

184  
185  
186  

187  
188  

Read more on methodological remarks under  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/conceptual_remarks.html. 
OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1. 
OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1. 
For more detail, read 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/conceptual_remarks.html.  
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/studies_reports/conceptual_remarks.html. 
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  may  work  with 
estimates.    

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
                                                 
   
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 to 
industry and services (i.e. total aid less agriculture, fisheries and transport). 

Aid  measures  to  give  support  to  the  financial  sector  qualify  as  crisis  measures  if  they  were 
adopted under specific State aid rules introduced in the context of the current global financial 
crisis189. Measures which respond to the financial crisis but were approved prior these specific 
State  aid  rules  do  also  count  as  crisis  measures.  In  this  respect,  such  aid  measures  are 
classified  as  sectoral  aid.  For  the  purpose  of  the  analysis  above,  the  volumes  on  crisis 
measures  may  be  excluded  from  the  total  of  sectoral  aid  with  a  view  to  achieving  a  true 
picture on State aid expenditure without the distorting effect of the crisis measures. 

The standard method to calculate the aid element of the crisis measures to the financial sector 
has, like in the previous Scoreboard, been applied as follows: 

•  For guarantee schemes the aid element is estimated at 10% of the guaranteed amount.  

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

guaranteed amount.  

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

cases) the aid element is estimated at 20% of the guaranteed amount. 

•  The basis for the estimation is the average outstanding guarantee volume for 2009. 

•  For  recapitalisation  measures  the  aid  element  is  estimated  at  the  full  recapitalisation 

amount for 2009. 

•  For  impaired  assets  measures  the  aid  element  is  estimated  to  the  amount  which  has 

been established in the decision. 

•  For restructuring measures the aid element is estimated to correspond to the provisions 

in the restructuring guidelines. 

Aid granted under the Temporary Framework also qualifies as crisis measures. As to point 5.1 
of  the  Temporary  Framework,  the  simplification  of  the  rules  on  short-term  export  credit 
insurance  is  not  considered  to  represent  a  particular  category  of  aid  expenditure  for  the 
purpose of the Scoreboard and hence was excluded from the aggregation of the data.     

Concerning the reporting of aid granted under the Temporary Framework, the general rule has 
been applied: 

•  In instances where a Temporary Framework measure is (i) a new ad hoc measure, (ii) 
a new scheme or (iii) a new framework scheme under which a number of new schemes 
may  be  implemented,  the  Member  State  simply  reports  expenditure  under  this 
Temporary Framework measure. 

•  In  instances  where  a  Temporary  Framework  measure  (i)  modifies  an  existing  aid 
measure  or  (ii)  the  Member  State  uses  one  or  more  existing  aid  measures  for  its 
implementation, and hence aid is granted under Temporary Framework conditions, the 
Member  State  reports  the  aid  amounts  (including  the  aid  element)  under  the 

189  

For more detail, read chapter 3. 

EN 

69 

   EN 

                                                 
corresponding  Temporary  Framework  measure.  By  contrast,  all  aid  that  falls  outside 
the aforementioned conditions (i) and (ii) shall be reported under the case number of 
the  initially  authorised  non-Temporary  Framework  measure.  For  restructuring 
measures the aid element is estimated to correspond to provisions in the restructuring 
guidelines. 

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 

70 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX: STATISTICAL TABLES 
Table 1-1190: 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; 2009) 

State aid in billion EUR 

State aid as % of GDP 

Total State 
Aid less 
railways 

Total State 
Aid for 
industry and 
services191 

Total State 
Aid less 
railways 

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

Trend in the share 
of aid to horizontal 
objectives as a % 
of total aid, 2004  
- 2009 in % points 
(1) 

FIGURES 
INCLUDE CRISIS 
MEASURES 

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) 

427.2 

417.3 

9.9 

34.3 

0.7 

0.9 

10.2 

116.8 

0.04 

12.6 

14.3 

13.2 

42.3 

10.2 

0.4 

1.1 

0.2 

1.0 

1.9 

0.1 

12.1 

11.2 

2.9 

1.7 

0.8 

0.5 

0.3 

2.1 

11.1 

124.2 

2.8 

0.04 

0.001 

412.1 

405.6 

6.5 

33.9 

0.0 

0.7 

10.0 

115.4 

0.01 

11.8 

14.1 

12.4 

39.3 

9.2 

0.3 

0.9 

0.1 

1.0 

1.5 

0.1 

11.4 

10.5 

2.2 

1.6 

0.2 

0.4 

0.2 

0.8 

10.9 

123.2 

2.4 

0.04 

0.001 

Total State 
Aid for 
industry 
and 
services 

3.5 

3.7 

0.8 

10.1 

0.1 

0.5 

4.5 

4.8 

0.1 

7.2 

5.9 

1.2 

2.1 

0.6 

1.7 

4.9 

0.3 

2.7 

1.5 

1.7 

2.0 

3.8 

0.7 

1.0 

0.1 

1.3 

0.4 

0.5 

3.7 

7.9 

3.6 

3.8 

1.1 

10.2 

2.1 

0.7 

4.6 

4.8 

0.3 

7.7 

6.0 

1.3 

2.2 

0.6 

2.4 

5.8 

0.8 

2.8 

2.0 

2.0 

2.1 

4.1 

0.9 

1.0 

0.7 

1.5 

0.5 

1.2 

3.8 

7.9 

1.02 

0.43 

0.04 

0.87 

0.43 

0.04 

n.a. (2) 

n.a. 

n.a. 

12 

11 

55 

5 

100 

88 

19 

11 

100 

6 

11 

32 

23 

45 

21 

2 

100 

9 

50 

23 

15 

10 

71 

18 

50 

47 

89 

98 

22 

2 

-59.7 

-64.6 

18.1 

-92.4 

21.0 

-2.0 

-87.7 

-61.7 

0.0 

-66.9 

-76.5 

-19.7 

-53.7 

-17.2 

-10.2 

-92.8 

15.4 

-95.0 

11.5 

5.0 

-76.8 

-52.3 

22.8 

-0.5 

27.5 

39.6 

18.2 

0.1 

-54.1 

-88.2 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

190  

191  

Data cover all State aid measures as defined under Article 107 TFEU (former Article 87(1) of the EC 
Treaty)  that  Member  States  awarded  and  the  Commission  examined.  The  Community  rules  on 
agricultural and fisheries policies are not covered by the EEA Agreement. Hence, aid to these sectors is 
not included for the EFTA countries. (1) Change in percentage points between annual average of 2004-
2006  and  2007-2009.  Source:  DGs  Competition,  Energy,  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. 
I.e. less agriculture, fisheries and transport. 

EN 

71 

   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; 2009) 

State aid in billion EUR, 
2009 

State aid as % of GDP, 
2009 

Trend in the share of aid to 
GDP, 2004 - 2009 in % 
points of GDP(1) 

FIGURES 
EXCLUDE 
CRISIS 
MEASURES 

Total State 
Aid less 
railways 

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

Total State 
Aid less 
railways  

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

Total aid 
less 
railways 

Total state 
aid for 
industry and 
services 

Share of 
aid to 
horizontal 
objectives 
as % of 
total aid 
for 
industry 
and 
services, 
2009 

Trend in 
the share 
of aid to 
horizontal 
objectives 
as a % of 
total aid, 
2004 - 
2009 in % 
points (1) 

EU 27 

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 

73.2 

65.1 

8.1 

2.0 

0.7 

0.9 

2.1 

16.7 

0.04 

1.5 

2.0 

5.7 

14.7 

5.7 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

0.1 

1.4 

0.1 

2.4 

1.7 

2.9 

1.6 

0.8 

0.3 

0.3 

2.1 

2.6 

4.0 

2.8 

58.1 

53.4 

4.7 

1.6 

0.03 

0.7 

1.9 

15.2 

0.01 

0.7 

1.8 

4.9 

11.7 

4.6 

0.1 

0.0 

0.1 

0.1 

0.9 

0.1 

1.7 

1.0 

2.2 

1.6 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

0.8 

2.4 

3.2 

2.4 

0.04 

0.001 

0.04 

0.001 

0.6 

0.6 

0.9 

0.6 

2.1 

0.7 

1.0 

0.7 

0.3 

0.9 

0.8 

0.5 

0.8 

0.4 

1.0 

1.0 

0.8 

0.3 

1.5 

2.0 

0.4 

0.6 

0.9 

1.0 

0.7 

0.9 

0.5 

1.2 

0.9 

0.3 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.5 

0.1 

0.5 

0.9 

0.6 

0.1 

0.5 

0.7 

0.5 

0.6 

0.3 

0.4 

0.1 

0.3 

0.2 

1.0 

1.7 

0.3 

0.4 

0.7 

0.9 

0.1 

0.7 

0.4 

0.5 

0.8 

0.2 

1.02 

0.43 

0.04 

0.87 

0.43 

0.04 

-0.08 

-0.07 

-0.19 

0.13 

1.42 

0.16 

0.06 

-0.11 

-0.04 

0.46 

0.21 

0.03 

-0.32 

-0.08 

-0.41 

-0.06 

0.21 

-0.04 

-0.82 

-1.23 

-0.01 

-0.02 

-0.18 

0.18 

-0.27 

-1.55 

0.14 

-0.14 

-0.04 

0.00 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

0.00 

0.01 

-0.13 

0.13 

-0.09 

0.18 

0.08 

-0.10 

-0.02 

0.07 

0.31 

0.04 

0.09 

-0.07 

-0.42 

0.01 

0.16 

0.03 

0.18 

-1.14 

0.02 

-0.07 

0.00 

0.20 

-0.85 

-1.40 

0.12 

0.05 

-0.03 

0.02 

n.a. 

n.a. 

n.a. 

84 

85 

76 

100 

100 

88 

97 

86 

100 

89 

87 

80 

79 

84 

95 

100 

100 

100 

76 

23 

99 

99 

71 

19 

50 

91 

90 

99 

100 

91 

2.8 

0.04 

0.001 

5.7 

2.8 

29.5 

0.5 

21.0 

-1.9 

0.7 

3.9 

0.0 

5.6 

-5.0 

9.9 

-0.8 

2.5 

39.4 

1.3 

15.4 

0.0 

19.1 

5.1 

5.2 

21.3 

22.8 

1.0 

27.5 

69.4 

18.3 

0.7 

0.0 

-0.8 

2.4 

0.04 

0.001 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
 
Table 1-3192: State aid for primary objectives and sectoral aid as % of total aid (crisis 

measures excluded); 2009 

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

83.8 

84.6 

75.8 

100.0 

100.0 

88.2 

97.2 

86.4 

100.0 

89.4 

86.9 

80.0 

78.7 

84.2 

94.8 

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 

75.7 

22.9 

99.3 

99.1 

71.0 

18.9 

50.5 

91.4 

90.0 

99.4 

99.7 

Hungary 

Malta 

Netherlands 

Austria 

Poland 
Portugal194 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 
United 
Kingdom 

t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

22.6 

23.7 

10.5 

17.4 

0.0 

1.0 

22.2 

37.1 

6.9 

6.2 

2.0 

16.7 

2.8 

3.9 

7.4 

50.6 

31.3 

8.4 

4.3 

0.0 

62.1 

35.3 

14.2 

0.2 

0.0 

10.3 

32.1 

40.8 

82.0 

91.4 

36.2 

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

23.9 

23.4 

29.7 

6.4 

59.4 

17.6 

18.2 

10.6 

46.2 

39.8 

45.8 

36.5 

E
M
S

g
n
i
n
i
a
r
T

6.9 

7.4 

1.5 

13.3 

0.4 

3.1 

0.3 

6.0 

7.6 

14.6 

9.1 

26.6 

20.0 

0.5 

27.5 

18.5 

21.2 

0.5 

3.0 

6.2 

62.8 

10.6 

2.0 

27.9 

31.1 

1.5 

3.3 

16.3 

28.8 

3.8 

30.8 

4.6 

21.2 

5.1 

7.6 

3.8 

6.8 

23.8 

9.0 

4.6 

1.5 

11.8 

3.1 

0.3 

4.3 

8.5 

0.1 

3.0 

1.3 

0.7 

1.7 

9.5 

0.1 

8.1 

1.6 

1.5 

3.3 

4.0 

0.4 

1.6 

0.5 

1.0 

0.9 

5.4 

0.0 

2.5 

0.8 

4.3 

11.9 

0.0 

1.2 

0.0 

3.4 

0.3 

0.0 

2.4 

4.3 

0.5 

0.0 

0.1 

3.8 

1.9 

0.3 

1.7 

0.0 

24.3 

13.1 

38.8 

76.0 

25.2 

35.2 

21.1 

1.5 

27.8 

51.3 

8.7 

28.6 

14.6 

0.7 

18.2 

22.9 

7.6 

28.9 

39.9 

47.1 

1.1 

8.1 

5.8 

.
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

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

,
d
i
a

6.9 

7.0 

6.3 

5.8 

0.0 

0.0 

2.0 

3.4 

42.6 

12.2 

0.7 

2.9 

14.3 

5.5 

64.3 

9.8 

0.0 

8.2 

24.3 

5.6 

4.2 

3.1 

0.1 

1.1 

3.9 

6.1 

1.3 

10.0 

4.6 

18.1 

d
i
a

t
n
e
m
y
o
l
p
m
E

4.2 

3.3 

14.0 

6.9 

0.0 

0.3 

64.5 

0.0 

0.8 

1.8 

0.0 

1.3 

0.2 

4.6 

0.2 

4.0 

8.5 

0.0 

1.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.4 

28.0 

3.2 

0.0 

5.4 

0.0 

5.3 

0.1 

0.3 

3
9
1
d
i
A

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

16.2 

15.4 

24.2 

0.0 

0.0 

11.8 

2.8 

l
a
o
C

4.7 

4.7 

4.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

13.6 

11.4 

0.0 

10.6 

13.1 

20.0 

21.3 

15.8 

5.2 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

24.3 

77.1 

0.7 

0.9 

29.0 

81.1 

49.5 

8.6 

10.0 

0.6 

0.3 

8.6 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

15.5 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

3.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

3.9 

0.0 

41.4 

7.1 

2.3 

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

6.1 

6.1 

6.6 

0.0 

0.0 

0.3 

0.0 

2.2 

0.0 

6.7 

11.4 

4.2 

20.4 

0.7 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

20.2 

75.9 

0.4 

0.3 

1.6 

0.0 

1.7 

1.5 

7.7 

0.6 

0.0 

0.1 

g
n
i
r
u
t
c
a
f
u
n
a

M
n
o
N

r
e
h
t
O

s
r
o
t
c
e
S

2.3 

1.5 

11.9 

0.0 

0.0 

9.7 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.8 

0.0 

0.1 

11.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.8 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

21.9 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.3 

7.4 

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

2.2 

2.4 

0.3 

0.0 

0.0 

1.7 

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 

0.3 

0.0 

0.0 

81.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

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

0.8 

0.8 

1.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

2.8 

0.0 

0.0 

3.9 

1.0 

0.2 

0.8 

3.7 

5.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.2 

0.0 

0.6 

1.6 

0.0 

6.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.1 

0.0 

1.0 

192  
193  

194  

Source: DG Competition, DG Energy.  
Aid for specific sectors awarded under measures for which there was no horizontal objective as well as 
aid for rescue and restructuring. 
Aid 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 

73 

   EN 

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 1-4195: Trend in share of primary objectives in total aid between 2004 - 2006 and 

2007 - 2009 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

5.7 

2.8 

29.5 

0.5 

21.0 

-1.9 

0.7 

3.9 

0.0 

5.6 

-5.0 

9.9 

-0.8 

2.5 

39.4 

1.3 

15.4 

0.0 

19.1 

5.1 

5.2 

t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

-2.1 

-3.5 

7.7 

5.2 

-0.9 

-4.6 

-12.6 

-7.2 

4.6 

3.0 

-2.6 

7.3 

0.3 

1.0 

4.6 

20.9 

11.1 

3.7 

2.8 

0.0 

2.3 

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 

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

.
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

d
i
A

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

l
a
o
C

4.2 

3.8 

8.8 

4.0 

4.0 

3.1 

-2.2 

-2.5 

0.0 

0.0 

-0.1 

1.2 

-11.7 

21.2 

-16.6 

-0.3 

-0.9 

-1.7 

7.5 

0.6 

2.7 

2.8 

1.3 

2.0 

-5.7 

-2.8 

-29.5 

-0.5 

-3.6 

-3.6 

-4.2 

0.0 

1.2 

33.6 

0.7 

1.2 

-13.0 

-1.9 

-21.0 

-16.4 

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

-0.2 

-0.3 

-0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

-7.2 

-2.6 

-1.8 

1.9 

-1.1 

-1.1 

9.8 

-0.3 

4.2 

-8.9 

-3.1 

8.1 

2.4 

2.1 

4.3 

4.2 

-4.4 

5.8 

-0.8 

11.0 

0.3 

1.9 

2.8 

2.2 

0.4 

-5.8 

13.8 

-0.3 

-12.8 

-2.3 

-2.4 

-29.1 

2.9 

-1.3 

1.4 

1.1 

8.0 

-5.2 

19.2 

-6.3 

-18.3 

-13.7 

24.4 

-1.8 

4.5 

-0.1 

0.5 

0.6 

2.2 

-5.7 

-0.8 

-0.8 

-0.8 

0.2 

0.4 

2.3 

1.6 

0.0 

0.2 

0.2 

9.0 

-0.3 

0.1 

-4.4 

-7.5 

-0.2 

-10.3 

-0.3 

-1.7 

4.9 

2.5 

8.3 

0.0 

2.3 

-0.5 

0.0 

1.1 

1.0 

1.5 

0.0 

11.2 

0.1 

0.2 

2.5 

-0.3 

0.8 

3.5 

0.3 

-2.6 

-5.0 

8.4 

1.8 

9.8 

-0.3 

-8.7 

4.9 

1.3 

1.3 

0.1 

0.3 

-0.7 

-3.9 

0.0 

-5.6 

5.0 

0.8 

-2.5 

-1.3 

-15.4 

0.0 

-5.1 

-5.2 

-9.9 

-11.5 

24.5 

-39.4 

-19.1 

-3.7 

0.0 

0.0 

-3.9 

-0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

-4.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

-3.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

-0.6 

-0.3 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 
-
21.1 
0.0 

Austria 

21.3 

12.5 

0.7 

10.1 

-0.5 

-2.0 

-0.5 

0.9 

-21.3 

Poland 

Portugal 

Romania 

Slovenia 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 
United 
Kingdom 

22.8 

1.0 

27.5 

69.4 

18.3 

0.7 

0.0 

8.8 

0.0 

2.6 

12.5 

44.4 

-1.1 

-1.9 

4.1 

3.0 

9.0 

-0.4 

0.4 

16.6 

34.6 

15.9 

-24.6 

-6.7 

1.6 

0.4 

3.2 

0.8 

3.9 

-0.1 

-2.1 

0.2 

-1.3 

-0.8 

1.1 

-0.4 

1.2 

-0.8 

0.0 

0.6 

-1.1 

1.6 

0.1 

9.0 

0.4 

0.0 

0.6 

0.1 

-0.3 

0.0 

-22.8 

-14.5 

-25.4 

15.8 

-1.0 

0.0 

-0.8 

-0.1 

0.0 

-0.9 

-27.5 

31.4 

6.6 

-69.4 

-0.1 

-18.3 

2.9 

-0.2 

-0.7 

0.0 

5.0 

-0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

-39.9 

-23.5 

-74.1 

-18.2 

1.0 

0.0 

-0.1 

-0.2 

0.0 

0.0 

0.2 

1.9 

-0.8 

-0.4 

-14.9 

-0.1 

-2.9 

-0.2 

13.7 

0.8 

-1.3 

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

-1.5 

1.5 

-27.2 

-0.5 

-8.0 

-1.0 

-2.1 

0.7 

0.0 

-3.1 

4.9 

1.7 

4.5 

-0.5 

-0.9 

-1.3 

-9.0 

0.0 

-13.8 

-5.7 

-2.2 

0.1 

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

0.0 

-0.2 

2.0 

0.0 

3.4 

5.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

-0.1 

-0.1 

0.1 

-0.5 

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

-0.3 

-0.3 

-0.1 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

1.4 

-0.6 

0.0 

0.5 

0.2 

0.1 

0.4 

-0.8 

-11.5 

-26.6 

0.0 

-6.5 

0.0 

-1.4 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

0.0 

-0.2 

0.6 

-3.1 

-0.3 

1.3 

0.0 

4.4 

0.0 

0.0 

-1.7 

-0.2 

0.2 

195  

Source: DG Competition, DG Energy. 

EN 

74 

   EN 

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

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

Legislative act 

Validity 

Full title and official text 

2010 

Regional aid 
guidelines 

01.01.2011 
31.12.2013 

– 

Communication  of  the  Commission  on  the  review  of  the  State  aid  status 
and the aid ceiling of the statistical effect regions in the following National 
regional State aid maps for the period 1.1.2011- 31.12.2013 Official Journal 
C 222, 17.08.2010, p.2; press release: IP/10/976 

2009 

Communication 
on public 
service 
broadcasting 

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 

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 

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

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Cinema 
Communication 

2008 

General block 
exemption 
regulation 

– 

07.02.2009 
31.12.2012 
Extension of 
applying the 
current criteria 
until 31.12.2012 

29.08.2008 
31.12.2013 

– 

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 

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 

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 

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 

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  

SGEI Package 

From 
19.12.2005 

Commission Decision of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 
86(2)  of  the  EC  Treaty  to  State  aid  in  the  form  of  public  service 

EN 

76 

   EN 

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

compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation 
of services of general economic interest. OJ L 312, 29.11.2005, p. 67; press 
release IP/05/937 

29.11.2005 
29.11.2011 

– 

Community  framework  for  State  aid  in  the  form  of  public  service 
compensation 
OJ C 297, 29.11.2005, p. 4; press release IP/05/937 

From 
19.12.2005* 

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

* No end of validity is specified in the text 

In addition to the legislative changes foreseen in the SAAP, the Commission adopted also a 
set  of  temporary  rules  being  a  response  to  the  crisis  in  the  financial  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 

08.12.2009 
31.12.2009  

28.10.2009 
31.12.2010 

25.02.2009 
31.12.2010 

– 

– 

– 

Communication from the Commission amending the Temporary 
Community Framework for State aid measures to support access 
to  finance  in  the  current  financial  and  economic  crisis  (the 
maximum amount of investment loan concerned by a guarantee) 
OJ C 303 of 15.12.2009, p. 6 

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 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
February 2009). 

17.12.2008 
31.12.2010 

– 

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

* No end of validity is specified in the text 

EN 

78 

   EN 

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

Framework (until 1 October 2010)  

Member State 

EUR 
500.000 per 
under-
taking 

Guarantee 

N117/2009 

20/03/2009 

Reduced-
interest rate 
loans 

Reduced-
interest rate 
loans for green 
products 

Risk capital 
aid 

Simplification of 
requirements of 
the Export Credit 
Communication 

N68/2009 

03/06/2009 

N532/2009 
06/11/2009  

Belgium 

Bulgaria 

Czech 
Republic 

Denmark 

Germany 

Estonia 

Ireland 

Greece 

N198/2009 

06/05/2009 

   N554/2009 196 
29/10/2009 

N384/2009 

05/08/2009 

N 91/2010200 

31/05/2010 

N39/2009 

3/02/2009 

N 333/2010 

10/09/2010 

N236/2009  

07/05/2009 

N668/2008 

30/12/2008  

N299/2009
197 

N237/2009  

06/05/2009 

N661/2008 

04/06/2009 

N27/2009 

30/12/2008 

N426/2009 

27/02/2009 

N38/2009 

04/08/2009 

19/02/2009 

N411/2009
198  

17/07/2009 

N 
255/2010199 

31/10/2010 

N387/2009 

13/07/2009 

N186/2009 

15/04/2009 

N473/2009
201 

15/12/2009 

N304/2009  

N308/2009 

N309/2009  

15/07/2009 

03/06/2009 

03/06/2009 

196  
197  
198  
199  
200  
201  

Amendment to N198/2009. 
Amendment to N 668/2008. 
2nd Amendment to N 668/2008. 
3rd Amendment to N 668/2008. 
Amendment to N 384/2009. 
Amendment to N 186/2009. 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
EUR 
500.000 per 
under-
taking 

N307/2009 

08/06/2009 

N7/2009 

19/01/2009 

N188/2009
203 

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 

Guarantee 

N68/2010 

30/03/2010 

N 
157/2010202 

24/06/2010 

N23/2009 

N15/2009 

N11/2009 

16/03/2009 

N449/2009 

 05/10/2009 

N119/2009 

17/04/2009 

27/02/2009 

04/02/2009 

03/02/2009 

N36/2009  

N278/2009
204 

08/06/2009 

30/06/2009 

N248/2009  

N266/2009 

N268/2009 

N542/2009 

N279/2009 

28/052009 

28/05/2009 

29/052009 

 26/10/2009 

20/05/2009 

Member State 

Spain 

France 

Italy 

Latvia 

Lithuania 

N139/2009 

22/04/2009 

N670/2009 

15/12/2009 

N124/2009 

19/03/2009 

N506/2009
205 

22/12/2009 

N272/2009 

08/06/2009 

N523/2009
206 

13/11/2009 

N46/2010207 

10/03/2010 

Luxembourg 

N99/2009 

N128/2009 

27/02/2009 

11/03/2009 

N114/2009 

10/03/2009 

N203/2009 

Hungary 

N77/2009 

24/04/2009 

N78/2009 

24/02/2009 

N341/2009  

24/02/2009 

01/07/2009 

N 56/2010208 

06/05/2010 

202  
203  
204  
205  
206  
207  
208  

Amendment to N 68/2010. 
Amendment to N 7/2009. 
Amendment to N 7/2009. 
Changes to N 124/2007. 
Amendment to N 272/2009. 
Amendment to N 272/2009. 
Amendment to N 341/2009. 

N84/2010 

10/06/2010 

N659/2009 

21/12/2009 

N50/2009 

20/04/2009 

N 187/2010 

06/07/2010 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

Malta 

EUR 
500.000 per 
under-
taking 

N118/2009  

18/05/2009 

Netherland 

N156/2009  

01/04/2009 

Austria 

Poland 

Portugal 

N47a/2009 

20/03/2009 

N317/2009
210 

18/06/2009 

N408/2009 

17/08/2009 

N 
22/2010211 

16/07/2010 

N 
50/2010212 

16/07/2010 

N 
86/2010213 

16/07/2010 

N13/2009 

19/01/2009 

Romania 

N547/2009 

03/12/2009 

Guarantee 

Reduced-
interest rate 
loans 

Reduced-
interest rate 
loans for green 
products 

Risk capital 
aid 

Simplification of 
requirements of 
the Export Credit 
Communication 

N409/2009  

02/10/2009 

N14/2010209 

05/02/2010 

N434/2009 

17/12/2009 

N47d/2009 

26/03/2009 

N286/2009 

05/06/2009 

N478/2009
214 

13/11/2009 

N680/2009
215 

17/12/2009 

N 
173/2010216 

30/07/2010 

209  
210  
211  
212  
213  
214  
215  
216  

Amendment to N 406/2009. 
Amendment to N 47a/2009. 
Amendment to N 408/2009. 
2nd Amendment to N 408/2009. 
3rd Amendment to N 408/2009. 
Linked to N 27/2009.  
Amendment to N 478/2009. 
Amendment to N 286/2009. 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member State 

EUR 
500.000 per 
under-
taking 

Slovenia 

N228/2009 

12/06/2009 

Guarantee 

NN34/2009 

12/06/2009 

N105/2010
217 

16/04/2010 

Slovakia 

Finland 

Sweden 

N222/2009  

30/04/2009 

N711/2009
218 

02/02/2010 

N224/2009 

N82b/2009 

03/06/2009 

09/06/2009 

N80/2009 

05/06/2009 

N541/2009 

08/02/2010 

Reduced-
interest rate 
loans 

Reduced-
interest rate 
loans for green 
products 

Risk capital 
aid 

Simplification of 
requirements of 
the Export Credit 
Communication 

N713/2009 

16/03/2010 

N258/2009 

22/062009 

N605/2009 

25/11/2009 

United 
Kingdom 

N43/2009 

N71/2009 

15/05/2009 

N72/2009 

04/02/2009 

27/02/2009 

N460/2009219 

27/02/2009 

14/08/2009 

N257/2009 

217  
218  
219  

Amendment to NN 34/2009. 
Amendment to N 222/2009. 
Amendment to N 257/2009. 

EN 

82 

   EN 

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

2000-2010 (by 30 June 2010) 

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Date of Decision

15
358
352

10
1043
938

19
1703
1170

23
4979
4974

25
1956
1926

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
(b) Aid lost in bankruptcy
(c) Interest
Aid registered in bankruptcy
Amount outstanding (2)
% 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.

2
17
226
107
1.7% 31.4% 1.5% 10.1% 0.1% 73.2% 4.3% 65.6%

871
1447
0
5

215
9
0
6

68
313
3
30

21
335
125
105

88
141
8
534

6
255
244

9
163
56

45
51
0
11

0
7
8
41

12
56
15

4103

1858

1081

137

199

917

15

54

13
1498
1018

1018

0
323
0
480
32.0%

8
46
25

25

0
6
0
20
43.5%

1S2010
3
10
9

9

0
2
0
1
10.0%

Total

143
12067
10727
0
9416

1310
2651
370
1340
11.1%

Table 4-2: Recovery in the fisheries sector 

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

number of 
decisions adopted

2

0

0

3

1

1

Member States and 
cases
total aid to be 
recovered

FR 
CR96/2001,
CR97/2001

18200000

Amounts recovered
Aid covered by de 
minimis

N/A

3600000

UK C37/2006, 
C38/2006, 
C39/2006

FR 
CR3/2009

BE 
C30/2008

381389 87000000

339013

660000

amounts 
unknown

amounts 
unknown

43838

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
Table 4-3: Pending recovery decisions (by 30 June 2010) 

Case 
number 

Working title of the case 

Member State 

Date of the 
decision 

Number of the 
decision 

Official Journal of the 
European Union 

CR 1/2009 

Alleged aid to MOL 

Hungary 

09/06/2010 

Not yet published 

CR 4/2003 

Export aid to WAM 

CR 36/2010 

Preferential  electricity  tariff  in 
favour - Alcoa 

CR 45/2007 

of 

financial 
Amortization 
goodwill  for  acquisitions  of 
foreign targets  

Italy 

Italy 

24/03/2010 

Not yet published 

19/11/2009 

Not yet published 

Spain 

28/10/2009 

Not yet published 

CR 59/2007  Rescue aid to Ixfin 

Italy 

28/10/2009 

2010/359/EC 

CR 19/2008  Rescue aid for Sandretto 

Italy 

30/09/2009 

2010/215/EC 

CR 5/2000 

Alleged aid for SNIACE 

Spain 

10/03/2009 

2009/612/EC 

CR 55/2007  BT Group plc 

UK 

11/02/2009 

2009/703/EC 

CR 19/2005 

Restructuring  aid  for  Szczecin 
Shipyard 

Poland 

06/11/2008 

2010/3/EC 

CR 17/2005 

Restructuring  aid  for  Gdynia 
shipyard 

Poland 

06/11/2008 

2010/47/EC 

CR 48/2006  DHL Leipzig Halle 

Germany 

23/07/2008 

2008/948/EC 

CR 1/2004 

Regional law nr 9/98 

Italy 

02/07/2008 

2008/854/EC 

CR 16/2004  Hellenic Shipyard 

Greece 

02/07/2008 

2009/610/EC 

CR 56/2006  Bank Burgenland 

Austria 

30/04/2008 

2008/719/EC 

OJ L 167 of 
01.07.2010, p. 39 

OJ L 92 of 13.04.2010, 
p. 19 

OJ L 210 of 
14.08.2009, p. 4 

OJ L 242 of 
15.09.2009, p. 21 

OJ L 5 of 08.01.2010, 
p. 1 

OJ L 33 of 04.02.2010, 
p. 1 

OJ L 346 of 
23.12.2008, p. 1 

OJ L 302 of 
13.11.2008, p. 9 

OJ L 225 of 
27.08.2009, p. 104 

OJ L 239 of 6/9/2008, 
p. 32 

CR 13/2007  Rescue aid to New Interline 

Italy 

16/04/2008 

Not yet published 

CR 38/2007 

Alleged  aid  to  Arbel  Fauvet 
Rail SA 

France 

02/04/2008 

2008/716/EC 

CR 
36a/2006 

Terni Companies 

Italy 

20/11/2007 

2008/408/EC 

CR 23/2006  Technologie Buczek 

Poland 

24/10/2007 

2008/344/EC 

OJ L 238 of 
05/09/2008, p. 27 

OJ L 144 of 
04/06/2008, p. 37 

OJ L 116 of 
30/04/2008, p. 26 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 
number 

Working title of the case 

Member State 

Date of the 
decision 

Number of the 
decision 

Official Journal of the 
European Union 

CR 37/2005 

Tax-exempt  reserve  fund  for 
certain companies 

Greece 

18/07/2007 

2008/723/EC 

CR 16/2006 

Restructuring  aid 
Mineraria Silius 

to  Nuova 

Italy 

21/02/2007 

2007/499/EC 

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 

France 

07/02/2007 

2007/375/EC 

Ireland 

07/02/2007 

2007/375/EC 

Italy 

07/02/2007 

2007/375/EC 

CR 38/2005  Biria Gruppe 

Germany 

24/01/2007 

2007/492/EC 

CR 30/2005  Restructuring aid to Kliq NV 

Netherlands 

19/07/2006 

2006/939/EC 

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

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

OJ L 147 of 
08/06/2007, p. 29 

OJ L 147 of 
08/06/2007, p. 29 

OJ L 147 of 
08/06/2007, p. 29 

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

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

CR 2/2004 

Ad  hoc  financing  of  Dutch 
public broadcasters 

Netherlands 

22/06/2006 

2008/136/EC 

OJ L 49 of 22/272008, 
p.1 

CR 25/2005 

Measures in favour of Frucona 
Kosice 

Slovakia 

07/06/2006 

2007/254/EC 

CR 37/2004 

Aid 
to 
Corporation 

Componenta 

Finland 

20/10/2005 

2006/900/EC 

CR 8/2004 

incentives  for  newly 

Fiscal 
listed companies 

Italy 

16/03/2005 

2006/261/EC 

CR 43/2001 

to  Chemische  Werke 

Aid 
Piesteritz GmbH 

Germany 

02/03/2005 

2005/786/EC 

CR 12/2004 

Fiscal  incentives  for  outward 
FDI 

Italy 

14/12/2004 

2005/919/EC 

CR 57/2003  Tremonti bis 

Italy 

20/10/2004 

2005/315/EC 

CR 95/2001  Aid to Siderurgica Anon 

Spain 

16/06/2004 

2005/827/EC 

CR 57/2002  Article 44 septies CGI 

France 

16/12/2003 

2004/343/EC 

CR 39/2001  Aid to Minas Rio Tinto sal 

Spain 

27/05/2003 

2004/300/EC 

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

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

OJ L 094 of 
01/04/2006, p. 42 

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

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

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

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

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

OJ L 098 of 
02/04/2004, p. 49 

CR 62/2000  Aid 

to  Kahla 

(Porzellan  Germany 

13/05/2003 

2003/643/EC 

OJ L 227 of 

EN 

85 

   EN 

Working title of the case 

Member State 

Date of the 
decision 

Number of the 
decision 

Official Journal of the 
European Union 

Case 
number 

CR 94/2001 

GmbH) 

Export 
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 

aid 

scheme 

Germany 

05/03/2003 

2003/595/EC 

CR 70/2001 

to  Hilados  y  Tejidos 

Aid 
Puigneró S.A. 

Spain 

19/02/2003 

2003/876/EC 

CR 35/2002  Fiscal aid scheme – Açores 

Portugal 

11/12/2002 

2003/442/EC 

CR 27/1999  Aid to Municipalizzate 

Italy 

05/06/2002 

2003/193/EC 

CR 60/2000 

Fiscal  aid 
Vizcaya (III) 

-  Province  of 

Spain 

20/12/2001 

2003/86/EC 

CR 58/2000 

Fiscal  aid  -  Province  of  Alava 
(III) 

Spain 

20/12/2001 

2003/28/EC 

CR 59/2000 

Fiscal  aid 
Guipuzcoa (III) 

-  Province  of 

Spain 

20/12/2001 

2003/192/EC 

CR 53/1999 

Fiscal  aid 
Guizpuzcoa (II) 

-  Province  of 

Spain 

11/07/2001 

2002/894/EC 

CR 54/1999 

CR 52/1999 

Fiscal  aid 
Vizcaya (II) 

Fiscal  aid 
Vizcaya (I) 

-  Province  of 

Spain 

11/07/2001 

2003/27/EC 

-  Province  of 

Spain 

11/07/2001 

2002/806/EC 

C 50/1999 

Fiscal  aid 
Guipuzcoa (I) 

-  Province  of 

Spain 

11/07/2001 

2002/540/EC 

CR 48/1999 

Fiscal  aid  -  Province  of  Alava 
(I) 

Spain 

11/07/2001 

2002/820/EC 

CR 49/1999 

Fiscal  aid  -  Province  of  Alava 
(II) 

Spain 

11/07/2001 

2002/892/EC 

CR 41/1999 

Aid 
beteiligungsholding Gmbh 

to 

Lintra 

Germany 

28/03/2001 

2001/673/EC 

CR 38/1998 

Aid  for  Kimberly  Clark/Scott 
Group 

France 

12/07/2000 

2002/14/EC 

CR 10/1999  Salzgitter AG 

Germany 

28/06/2000 

2000/797/ECSC 

CR 81/1997 

Social  security  reductions  - 
Venezia et Chioggia 

Italy 

25/11/1999 

2000/394/EC 

CR 49/1998 

Employment aid measures (Loi 
Nr 196/97) 

Italy 

11/05/1999 

2000/128/EC 

11/09/2003, p. 12 

OJ L 202 of 
09/08/2003, p. 15 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OJ L 174 of 
04/07/2002, p. 31 

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

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

OJ L 236 of 
05/09/2001, p. 3 

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

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

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

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

EN 

86 

   EN 

Case 
number 

Working title of the case 

Member State 

Date of the 
decision 

Number of the 
decision 

Official Journal of the 
European Union 

CR 44/1997  Aid for Magefesa 

Spain 

14/10/1998 

1999/509/EC 

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

EN 

87 

   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 2010) 

Case 
number 

CR 
56/2006 

CR 
38/1998  

Working title 

Member 
State 

Court case 

State of play and recent developments 

Bank Burgenland 

Austria 

C-551/09 

Aid for Kimberly Clark/Scott Group 

France 

C-232/05 

14/07/09: Commission decision to initiate 
Art.  108(2)  TFEU  proceedings  against 
Austria 

Press release: IP/09/1134 

05/10/06:  Art.  108(2)  TFEU  action  - 
Judgment  ECJ  –  ECJ  rules  that  France 
has failed to fulfil its Treaty 

obligation 

CR 
57/2002 

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

France 

 C-214/07 

24/10/06: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against France  

CR 
38/2007 

Alleged aid to Arbel Fauvet Rail SA 

France 

CR 
37/2005 

CR 
16/2004 

Tax exempt reserve fund 

Greece 

C-354/10 

Hellenic Shipyards 

Greece 

Press release: IP/06/1471 

13/11/08:  art.  108(2)  action  -  Judgment 
ECJ 
for  non 
-  France  condemned 
implementation of the decision 

05/05/10:  Commission  sent 
letter  of 
formal notice to France under Art. 260(2): 
IP/10/529 

28/10/09: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against France  

Press release: IP/09/1627 

23/06/2010:  new  negative  decision 
adopted 

24/02/10: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against Greece  

Press release: IP/10/183 

14/04/10: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against Greece  

Press release: IP/10/428 

EN 

88 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CR 
62/2000 

Thuringen Porzellan (Kahla) 

Germany 

C-39/06  

16/02/05: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against Germany 

24/01/06:  Application  lodged  at  the  ECJ 
pursuant to Art. 108(2) 

Press release: IP/05/189 

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

failing 

CR 
49/1998  

Employment  aid  measures  (Loi  Nr 
196/97) 

Italy 

C-99/02 

CR 
27/1999  

Aid to Municipalizzate 

Italy 

C-207/05 

01/04/04:  ECJ 
Italy  for  failing 
decision  

judgment  condemning 
implement  CEC 

to 

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

letter  of 

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

25/06/2009:  Commission  decision 
initiate 260(2) Action against Italy 

to 

Press release: IP/09/1028 

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

judgment  condemning 

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

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

05/05/10: Commission decision to send a 
complementary  letter  of  formal  notice 
under Art. 206(2) 

CR 
57/2003 

Tremonti Bis 

Italy 

C-303/09 

25/01/06: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against Italy  

Press release: IP/06/77 

11/03/08: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against Italy 

CR 
8/2004 

Fiscal  incentives  for  newly  listed 
companies 

Italy 

C-304/09 

19/07/06: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against Italy  

Press release: IP/06/1040 

11/03/08: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against Italy 

Press release: IP/08/435  

CR 
81/1997 

Social  security  reductions  –  Venezia 
e Chioggia 

Italy 

C-302/09 

10/05/07: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against Italy  

Press release: IP/07/648 

11/03/08: Commission decision to initiate 

EN 

89 

   EN 

 
 
 
CR 
16/2006 

Restructuring aid to Nuova Mineraria 
Silius 

Italy 

13/02/08: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) proceedings against Italy 

Art. 108(2) action against Italy 

CR 
12/2004 

CR 
13/2007 

CR 
1/2004 

CR 
23/2006 

Fiscal incentives for outward FDI 

Italy 

C-305/09 

Rescue aid to New Interline SPA 

Italy 

C-454/09 

Regional law 9/98 – Misuse of aid 

Italy 

C-243/10 

Technologie Buczek 

Poland 

C-331/09 

CR 
25/2005 

Measures 
Kosice 

in 

favour  of  Frucona 

Slovakia 

C-507/08 

CR 
44/1997 

Aid to Magefesa 

Spain 

C-499/99 

11/03/08: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against Italy 

Press release: IP/08/435  

25/11/09: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) TFEU action against Italy 

Press release: IP/09/1140 

27/01/10: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) TFEU action against Italy 

Press release: IP/10/103 

11/03/08: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) action against Poland 

Press release: IP/09/777 

17/06/08: Commission decision to initiate 
Art.  108(2)  TFEU  proceedings  against 
Slovakia 

Press release: IP/08/952 

02/07/02:  ECJ 
judgment  condemning 
Spain  for  failing  to  implement  part  of 
Commission decision 

17/06/09: Commission decision to initiate 
Art.  108(2)  TFEU  proceedings  against 
Spain 

Press release: IP/09/960 

19/11/09:  Commission  sent 
letter  of 
formal notice under Art. 260(2) TFEU to 
Spain 

Press release: IP/09/1789 

18/03/10: Commission decision to send a 
complementary  letter  of  formal  notice 
under Art. 206(2) 

CR 

Fiscal aid – Province of Alava (I)  

Spain 

C-485/03, 

14/12/06:  ECJ 
Spain 

for 

judgment  condemning 
implement 

to 

failing 

EN 

90 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
48/1999 

Fiscal aid - Province of Alava (II) 

C-486/03, 

Commission decision 

CR 
49/1999 

CR 
50/1999 

CR 
52/1999 

CR 
53/1999 

CR 
54/1999 

CR 
58/2000 

CR 
59/2000 

CR 
60/2000 

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) 

26/06/08: Commission decision to send a 
Reasoned  Opinion  under  Art.  260(2) 
TFEU (ex. Art. 228(2) ECT) to Spain 

C 487/03, 

C-488/03, 

C-489/03, 

C-490/03 

Fiscal aid - Province of Alava (III) 

Spain 

 C-177/06 

Fiscal  aid  -  Province  of  Guipuzcao 
(III) 

Fiscal aid - Province of Vizcaya (III) 

(Basque fiscal aid schemes) 

21/12/05: Commission decision to initiate 
Art. 108(2) TFEU action against Spain 

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

Press release: IP/05/1655 

15/04/09:  Commission  sent 
letter  of 
formal notice under Art. 260(2) TFEU to 
Spain 

19/11/09: Commission decision to send a 
Reasoned  Opinion  under  Art.  260(2) 
TFEU (ex. Art. 228(2) ECT) to Spain 

Press release: IP/09/1790 

EN 

91 

   EN 

 
 
Table 5: Summary of rules for the transport sector 

Land transport (road. rail. inland waterways)  

-  Article 93 TFEU contains rules for the compatibility of State aid in the area of coordination of transport 
and  public  service  obligation  in  transport.  The  Commission  considers  in  its  constant  practice  that 
Article  93  constitutes  a  lex  specialis  with  respect  to  Article  107(2)  and  Article  107(3),  as  it  contains 
special rules for the compatibility of State aid. In addition, Article 93 TFEU constitutes a lex specialis 
also with respect to Article 106(2) TFEU, and therefore, Article 106(2) TFEU cannot be applied in the 
area of coordination of transport and public service obligation in the inland transport sector220; 

-  Until 2 December 2009, Article 93 was in practice implemented by means of 3 Council Regulations: 1) 
Council  Regulation  1191/69221,  2)  Council  Regulation  1107/70222  and  3)  Council  Regulation 
1192/69223.  As  from  3  December  2009  Regulation  1370/07224  will  replace  Regulations  1191/69  and 
1107/70. Regulation 119/69 remains applicable for a three years transitional period to the inland freight 
transport; 

-  Community guidelines on State aid for railway undertakings, adopted on 30 April 2008225. 

Aviation  

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

agreement to State aids in the aviation sector226; 

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

airports227. 

Maritime transport  

-  Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport228; 

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

funding for the launching of the motorways of the sea229; 

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

companies230. 

220  

221  

222  

223  

224  

225  
226  
227  
228  
229  
230  

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). 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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). 
OJ C 184, 22.7.2008, p. 13. 
OJ C 350, 10.12.1994, p. 5. 
OJ C 312, 9.12.2005, p. 1. 
OJ C 13, 17.1.2004, p. 3. 
OJ C 317, 12.12.2008, p. 10. 
OJ C 132, 11.6.2009, p. 6. 

EN 

92 

   EN