Special Report No 15/2011 ‘Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?’
Date: 2011-12-15
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, administrative check, anti-subsidy proceeding, control of State aid, powers of the institutions (EU), supervisory power

EUROPEAN
COURT OF AUDITORS

4
3
8
0
-
1
3
8
1
N
S
S

I

1
1
0
2

5
1
o
N

t
r
o
p
e
R

l

a
i
c
e
p
S

DO THE COMMISSION’S PROCEDURES  

ENSURE EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF  

STATE AID CONTROL?

EN

 
 
 
 
Special Report No 15 

 2011

DO THE COMMISSION’S 
PROCEDURES ENSURE 
EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF 
STATE AID CONTROL? 

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1
Fax +352 4398-46410
E-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu

Special Report No 15 

 2011

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 

It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011

ISBN 978-92-9237-377-1

doi: 10.2865/26852

© European Union, 2011

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

CONTENTS

3

PARAGRAPH

ACRONYMS	AND	ABBREVIATIONS

I–IV	

EXECUTIVE	SUMMARY

1–11	

INTRODUCTION

12–15	

AUDIT	SCOPE	AND	APPROACH

16–95	

OBSERVATIONS

16–33	

	IDENTIFYING	RELEVANT	STATE	AID	CASES

17–30 

31–33 

 INSUFFICIENT COMMISSION CHECKS TO ENSURE MEMBER STATES ARE COMPLYING WITH  
THEIR OBLIGATION TO NOTIFY STATE AID

 THE COMMISSION IS NOT PROACTIVE ENOUGH IN RAISING MEMBER STATES’ AWARENESS OF  
THEIR OBLIGATIONS TO NOTIFY STATE AID

34–83	

CASE	HANDLING

35–41 

42–60 

 THE COMMISSION IS HAMPERED BY A LACK OF RELIABLE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION AND 
ORGANISATIONAL PROBLEMS

 NEW PROCEDURES FOR MANAGING NOTIFICATIONS HAVE NOT RESOLVED THE PROBLEM OF  
TIMELINESS AND CUMBERSOMENESS

61–67 

COMPLAINTS CONTINUE TO TAKE A LONG TIME TO RESOLVE AND THE PROCEDURE IS NOT TRANSPARENT

68–74 

ENFORCEMENT OF RECOVERY DECISIONS

75–83 

PROMPT REACTION BY THE COMMISSION TO THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

84–95	

MONITORING	BY	THE	COMMISSION

85–93 

THE STATE AID DATA PROVIDED BY THE MEMBER STATES IS INCOMPLETE AND INSUFFICIENTLY RELIABLE

94–95 

 THE NUMBER OF EX ANTE EVALUATIONS HAS BEEN LIMITED AND THE COMMISSION DOES NOT HAVE  
AN EX POST EVALUATION FUNCTION

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

	
4

96–100	

CONCLUSIONS	AND	RECOMMENDATIONS

96	

97–98	

99-100	

 THE	COMMISSION	HAS	INSUFFICIENT	ASSURANCE	THAT	IT	DEALS	WITH	ALL	
RELEVANT	STATE	AID	CASES

 STATE	AID	PROCEDURES,	IN	PARTICULAR	FOR	COMPLAINTS,	STILL	TAKE	A	
LONG	TIME	AND	LACK	TRANSPARENCY

 THE	COMMISSION	DOES	NOT	ASSESS	THE	EX	POST	IMPACT	OF	ITS	
STATE	AID	CONTROL	IN	A	COMPREHENSIVE	WAY

ANNEX	—	KEY	RULES	GOVERNING	THE	COMMISSION’S	STATE	AID	CONTROL

REPLY	OF	THE	COMMISSION

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

	
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

5

BPC: Best Practices Code

CP: ‘Cas présumé’ (either complaint or ex officio investigation)

Ex	officio	(Latin): By virtue of office or position; ‘by right of office’: in State aid matters, it is used to refer 
to own-initiative investigations, when Competition DG takes the initiative to examine and/or decide to 
launch an investigation of an alleged unlawful aid

(G)BER: (General) Block Exemption Regulation

GDP: gross domestic product

MAP: Mutually agreed planning

PETRA: Pilot Experiment Time Reporting Application

PN: Pre-Notification 

R	&	D(&	I): Research, Development (and Innovation) 

REQ: Request for information 

SAAP: State Aid Action Plan 

SANI: State Aid Notification Interactive (software used to notify State aid) 

SME: small and medium enterprises 

SP: Simplified Procedure 

TEC: Treaty establishing the European Community

TFEU: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

6

EXECUTIVE 
SUMMARY

I.
E U   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a r e   r e q u i r e d   t o   n o t i f y 
all planned State aid measures to the Com -
m i s s i o n   a n d   t o   o b t a i n   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n’s 
approval before implementing these meas -
ures. State aid control in all sec tors except 
a g r i c u l t u r e   a n d   f i s h e r i e s   f a l l s   u n d e r   t h e 
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y   o f   t h e   E u r o p e a n   C o m m i s -
sion’s DG  for  Compet ition .

II.
T h e   C o u r t   c o n s i d e r e d   w h e t h e r   t h e   C o m -
mission’s procedures ensure effec tive man -
a g e m e nt   o f   S t ate   a i d   co nt ro l,   a s s e s s i n g   i n 
par t icular wh ethe r :

( i) 

( ii)  

the system of notifications, complaints   
a n d   e x   o f f i c i o   e n q u i r i e s   e n s u r e   t h a t 
t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a n d l e s   a l l   r e l e v a n t 
State aid cases;

t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   a d e q u a t e   m a n -
a g e m e n t   s t r u c t u r e s   a n d   p r o c e d u r e s 
i n   p l a c e   fo r   e f fe c t i v e   h a n d l i n g   o f   t h e 
State aid cases within  th e d eadli n es ;

( iii)   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   m o n i t o r s   t h e   i m p a c t 

of its  St ate aid control.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

III.
T h e   C o u r t ’s   f i n d i n g s   r e l a t e   t o   a n   a u d i t 
m a d e   i n   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a n d   i n   e i g h t 
M e m b e r   S t a te s   s e l e c te d   fo r   t h e   a u d i t .  Th e 
Cour t found t hat :

—  the Commission has made effor ts to en-
sure that all relevant State aid cases are 
handl ed b ut  its systems do  no t g uaran -
tee th at  al l aid  is  cap tu red;

—  t h e   p r o c e d u r e s   f o r   n o t i f i e d   S t a t e   a i d 

ta ke a  l ong  time;

—  complaints continue to take a long time 
t o   r e s o l v e   a n d   t h e   p r o c e d u r e   i s   n o t 
transp arent ;

—  the Commission reacted promptly to the 

finan cial c r isis;

—  th e  Co mmissio n  d oes  not   as ses s   th e   ex 
p ost  imp ac t   of  it s   State  aid  co ntrol  in   a 
comprehens ive way.

77

EXECUTIVE 
SUMMARY

IV.
O n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   t h e s e   o b s e r v a t i o n s ,   t h e 
Cour t recommen ds t he Com miss ion : 

—  t o   r e v i e w   t h e   a l l o c a t i o n   o f   r e s o u r c e s 
d e v o t e d   t o   S t a t e   a i d   c o n t r o l ,   i n   o r d e r 
t o   b e   m o r e   p r o a c t i v e   i n   r a i s i n g   M e m -
ber States’ awareness of State aid rules, 
to step up its monitor in g ac t ivit ie s and 
to   o rg a n i s e   i t s   ex   o f f i c i o   e n q u i r i e s   i n   a 
m o r e   s y s t e m a t i c   a n d   t a r g e t e d   w a y   t o 
detec t  illeg al a id ;

—  to increase the transparenc y of its case -
h a n d l i n g   p r o c e d u r e s ,   b y   m o r e   r e g u -
l a r l y   i n fo r m i n g   t h e   s t a k e h o l d e r s   o f   t h e 
progress of the case and opening formal 
investig ation  procedures  more qui c k ly ;

—  t o   s h o r t e n   t h e   d u r a t i o n   o f   t h e   p r o c e -
d u r e s ,   e . g .   b y   l i m i t i n g   t h e   n u m b e r   o f 
R e q u e s t s   f o r   I n f o r m a t i o n   t o   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s   a n d   d e a l i n g   s w i f t l y   w i t h   u n -
foun ded complaint s;

—  t o   i m p l e m e n t   a n   e n h a n c e d   s y s t e m   o f 
t i m e   r e c o r d i n g   a n d   m a n a g e m e n t   r e -
p o r t i n g   t o   o p t i m i s e   t h e   a l l o c a t i o n   o f 
resources;

—  to regularly assess the ex post impac t of 
State aid control on companies, markets 
an d th e overall economy.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

1  Council Regulation (EC) 
No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 

laying down detailed rules for 

the application of Article 93 of 

the EC Treaty (now Article 108 

TFEU) (OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1).

2  Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 

implementing Council 

Regulation (EC) No 659/1999  

(OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1).

INTRODUCTION

8

1.	

2.	

3.	

T h e   E u r o p e a n   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   o v e r a l l   r e s p o n s i b i l i t y   t o   e n -
sure   effec tive   St ate  aid  co ntrol.   Compe ti ti on  DG   ha s  th e  le ad 
resp o nsib ilit y  fo r  the  man agement   of  E U  com pet it ion   polic y. 
Ag r i c u l t u re   a n d   R u r a l   D e ve l o p m e n t   D G   a n d   M a r i t i m e   Af f a i r s 
a n d   Fi s h e r i e s   D G   a re   re s p o n s i b l e   fo r   S t a t e   a i d   co n t ro l   i n   t h e 
areas  o f  agr icul tu re  and  f is her ies.   Compe ti ti on   DG   is   re spon -
sib le  fo r St ate  aid contro l  in all ot he r  e con omi c  se c tor s.

The legal basis for the Commission’s State aid control is given 
in Ar ticles 107 to 108 TFEU (see paragraphs 3 and 8 and Annex). 
A  Council  regulation  (the  Procedural  R egulation 1)  and  a  Com-
m i s s i o n   re g u l at i o n   ( t h e   I m p l e m e nt i n g   R e g u l at i o n 2)   s e t   o u t   i n 
detail how the Commission carries out its responsibilities. The 
Commission  issues  communications  and  guidelines  which  are 
i nte n d e d   to   gi ve   f u r t h e r   ex p l a n at i o n s   o f   h ow   t h e   r u l e s   a p p l y 
in prac tice.

Ar t icl e  107(1) TF EU  defines  St ate  aid   as  ‘any   a id   grante d  by   a 
M e m b e r   S t a t e   o r   t h r o u g h   S t a t e   r e s o u r c e s   i n   a ny   fo r m   w h a t-
s o e ve r   w h i c h   d i s to r t s   o r   t h re ate n s   to   d i s to r t   co m p e t i t i o n   by 
f avo u r i n g   c e r t a i n   u n d e r t a k i n g s   o r   t h e   p ro d u c t i o n   o f   c e r t a i n 
g o o d s ,   i n   s o   f a r   a s   i t   a f fe c t s   t r a d e   b e t w e e n   M e m b e r   S t a t e s’. 
Four cumulative cr iter ia need to be met for an aid measure to 
con stit ute State aid:

 ο involve a transfer of State resources; 

 ο entail an economic advantage for undertakings; 

 ο distor t  or  threaten  to  distor t  competition  by  selectively  fa -

vouring certain beneficiaries; and 

 ο have the potential to produce an effect on intra-Union trade. 

T h e r e f o r e ,   s u b s i d i e s   g r a n t e d   t o   i n d i v i d u a l s   o r   g e n e r a l   m e a s-
ures  o pe n t o  al l  ent erp ris es  do n ot  g e ne r all y c on st it ut e S tat e 
aid . T he a im o f t he Co mmiss ion ’s  r ule s i s to e ns ur e th at  S tat e 
aid granted by Member States is compatible with the internal 
marke t. 

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

 
9

4. 

5. 

S t a t e   a i d   i s   p r o v i d e d   i n   d i f f e r e n t   w a y s .   T h e   m o s t   c o m m o n 
fo r m s   a re   g r a n t s   a n d   t a x   e xe m p t i o n s.   O t h e r   i n s t r u m e n t s   a re 
sof t loans, guarantees, tax defer rals and equit y par ticipation. 
State aid can be granted by national/federal, regional or local 
gover nme nt, as wel l as  g over nm ent- cont rolle d  enti ti es. 

3  As defined by Article 107(1) 
TFEU; see also paragraphs 88 to 

89 for the types of aid that are 

excluded from the Commission’s 

statistics.

4  Source: COM(2010) 701 final 
of 1 December 2010 — State 

Aid Scoreboard Report on State 

aid granted by the EU Member 

States — Autumn 2010 Update.

The Lis bo n Eu ro p ean Co u nc il in M arc h  2 0 0 0  se t th e obj ec ti ve 
of  ‘ l ess  and b et ter targeted State  aid ’.  St ate aid 3 to th e in dus -
t r y   a n d   s e r v i c e s   s e c t o r   ( e xc l u d i n g   r a i l w a y s,   o t h e r   t r a n s p o r t , 
a g r i c u l t u r e   a n d   f i s h e r i e s )   f l u c t u a t e d   a r o u n d   0 , 5  %   o f   E U - 2 7 
GDP until the outbreak of the financial crisis in the second half 
of   2008,  b ut   ro se  to  3, 5  %  o f   GDP   or   4 10   billion  e uro  in   2 0 0 9, 
w h i c h   i s   t h e   h i g h e s t   l e v e l   s i n c e   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s t a r t e d   i t s 
State  aid  s ur ve ys  in   19 90   (s ee  Fi gu re  1) .  State  aid  granted  to 
the financial sec tor in the contex t of the financial crisis repre -
sented 351,7 bil l io n euro  in 2 00 9  or  2 , 9 8 % of E U- 27  GDP, and 
i s   t h e re fo re   re s p o n s i b l e   fo r   m o s t   o f   t h e   i n c re a s e   i n   S t ate   a i d 
in  2008–0 9 4.

F I G U R E 	 1

S TAT E 	 A I D 	TO 	 I N D U S T R Y 	 A N D 	 S E R V I C E S 	 I N 	T H E 	 E U 	 ( A S 	%	 O F 	 E U - 27	 G D P )

P
D
G
7
2
-
U
E

f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

0,5

0,0

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Source: European Commission.

 
 
 
 
10

5  COM(2005) 107 final of 
7 June 2005 — State aid action 

plan — Less and better targeted 

State aid: a roadmap for State aid 

reform 2005–09 (Consultation 

document).

6  Several stakeholders 
expressed difficulties about the 

use of private enforcement of 

State aid rules as it is difficult 

for competitors to gather 

information about the alleged 

incompatible aid and it is more 

costly than a complaint to the 

Commission.

6.	

7.	

8. 

 I n   2 0 0 5 ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   p r e s e n t e d   a   S t a t e   A i d   A c t i o n   P l a n 
( S A A P ) 5  to   m a k e   S t ate   a i d   r u l e s   b e t te r   co n t r i b u te   to   s u s t a i n-
a b l e   g r o w t h ,   c o m p e t i t i v e n e s s ,   s o c i a l   a n d   r e g i o n a l   c o h e s i o n 
and environmental protec tion. The SAAP was based on the fol-
lowing pr inciples: less and better targeted aid; a refined eco -
n o m i c   a p p ro a c h ;   m o re   e f fe c t i ve   p ro c e d u re s,   b e t t e r   e n fo rc e -
m e n t ,   h i g h e r   p re d i c t a b i l i t y   a n d   e n h a n ce d   t ra n s p a re n c y ;   a n d 
a shared responsibilit y bet ween the Commission and M ember 
S t a t e s .  T h e   S A A P   w a s   g r a d u a l l y   i m p l e m e n t e d   b e t w e e n   2 0 0 5 
an d 200 9. 

The SAAP in par ticular highlighted the need for better target-
ed  e nfo rceme nt   and  mo nitor in g   a s  re g ards   St ate  ai d  gra nte d 
by   M e m b e r   St ate s   a n d   s t re s s e d   t h at   p r i vate   l i t i g at i o n   b e fo re 
n a t i o n a l   c o u r t s   c o u l d   c o n t r i b u t e   t o   t h i s   a i m   b y   e n s u r i n g   i n-
c re a s e d   d i s c i p l i n e   i n   t h e   f i e l d   o f   St ate   a i d.   I n   Ap r i l   2 0 0 9 ,   t h e 
Commission issued a new Notice on State aid Enforcement by 
N at i o n a l   Co u r t s   gi v i n g   d e t a i l e d   g u i d a n ce   a n d   ra i s i n g   awa re -
n e s s   o f   i t s   p o s s i b l e   u s e   a s   a n   a l t e r n a t i ve   a n d   a   c o m p l e m e n t 
to enforceme nt  throu gh  the Europe an  Commi ss ion .  Howeve r, 
r e c o u r s e   t o   C o u r t   p r o c e e d i n g s   a t   n a t i o n a l   l e v e l   i s   s t i l l   n o t 
wide sp read 6.

Ar ticle 108 TFEU (see Annex) requires EU Member States to no -
tify  al l  pl anned State aid measures  to th e  Com mi ss ion  an d  to 
obtain the Commission’s approval before implementing these 
measures (except for those measures that the Commission has 
e xe m p t e d   f r o m   n o t i f i c a t i o n )   ( s e e   p a r a g r a p h s   1 9   t o   2 5 ) .  T h e 
Commission is the only authority which can declare a State aid 
measure compatible with the Treat y and has large discretion -
ar y p owers  in  t hat resp ec t.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

11

9. 

The Co mmiss io n  c an either dec ide  t h at th e me as ure does  n ot 
c o n s t i t u t e   a i d ,   d e c i d e   t o   a p p r o v e   o r   l a u n c h   a   f o r m a l   i n v e s -
t i g a t i o n .   A l l   d e c i s i o n s   m u s t   b e   a d o p t e d   w i t h i n   t w o   m o n t h s 
following the receipt of a complete notification 7. Competitors 
or other interested par ties who believe that a cer tain measure 
c o n s t i t u t e s   S t a t e   a i d   c a n   c o m p l a i n   t o   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n .   T h e 
Commission can also take the initiative to launch an investiga-
tio n (ex o fficio) into  cer tain  alle ge d  St ate a id  me asure s.

10.   Notifications and complaints are examined in t wo phases (see 
F i g u r e s   2   a n d   3 ) .   T h e   f i r s t   p h a s e   c o n s i s t s   o f   a   p r e l i m i n a r y 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n   t o   d e t e r m i n e   i f   t h e   n o t i f i e d   m e a s u r e   c o n s t i -
tu tes  St ate  aid,  and  if  s o,   if  it  is  compat ibl e  St ate  aid 8. Wh ere 
t h e   Co m m i s s i o n ,   a f te r   a   p re l i m i n a r y   i nve s t i g at i o n ,   f i n d s   t h at 
doubts are raised as to the compatibility with the internal mar -
ket,   it   s hal l   d ecide  to  op en  a  for ma l  inve st ig at ion   proced ure. 
D ur ing   t he  entire  p roced ure,  th e  n oti fy i n g  M embe r   St ate  h as 
t h e   p o s s i b i l i t y   to   m o d i f y   t h e   n o t i f i e d   m e a s u re ( s )   i n   o rd e r   to 
make  it comp atib l e. 

7  See Article 4.5 of the 
Procedural Regulation. The 

notification will be considered 

as complete if, within two 

months from its receipt, or from 

the receipt of any additional 

information requested, the 

Commission does not request 

any further information. If the 

Commission asks for further 

information (by sending a 

request for information (REQ)), 

a new two-month period starts 

when the Member State submits 

the information requested.

8  Article 4.2 to 4 of the 
Procedural Regulation.

11.   Wh i l e   t h e   p ro ce d u re   d u r i n g   t h e   f i r s t   p h a s e   i s   e s s e n t i a l l y   b e -
tween the Commission and the Member State the second phase 
is more transparent, as the opening decision is published and 
all interested par ties (including the aid beneficiaries and com-
pe tito rs ) have  t he r ig ht to  submit  com me nt s.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

12

F I G U R E 	 2

SIMPLIFIED	OVERVIE W	OF	THE 	PROCE DURE 	FOR	NOTIFIED 	AID

Pre-notification by Member State

Pre-notification contacts between 
MS and Commission (PN-case)

Notification by Member State

Preliminary investigation 
(N-case)

Is it State aid?

VNo

Non-aid decision by the 
Commission or withdrawal of the
notification by the MS

V

Doubts about 
compatibility?

Yes

Formal investigation procedure 
(C-case)

VNo

Approval decision by Commission

Is the aid compatible?

VNo

Negative decision by the 
Commission
(with or without recovery)

Approval decision by Commission

Recovery procedure (RC-case) (if any 
aid was given before the negative 
Commission decision)

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

VYesVYes13

F I G U R E 	 3

SIMPLIFIED	OVERVIE W	OF	A	COM PL AINT	PROCE DURE

Complaint by interested party

Preliminary Investigation
(CP-case)

Is it State aid?

VNo

Non-aid decision by the
Commission or withdrawal of the
complaint by the complainant

Yes

V

Doubts about 
compatibility?

Yes

V

Formal investigation procedure
(C-case)

VNo

Decision by the
Commission or  withdrawal of  the
complaint by the complainant

Is the aid compatible?

VNo

Negative decision by the
Commission
(with or without recovery)

Yes

V

Decision by the Commission 

Recovery procedure (RC-case) 
(if any aid was given before the 
negative Commission decision)

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH

14

12.  

 The overall objective was to assess whether the Commission’s 
procedures ensure effective management of State aid control. 
The  main audit  qu est ion w as br oke n down  i n to t h e follow in g 
thre e su b -q uest ion s:

9  COM(2010) 701 final.

10  Denmark, Germany, France, 
Italy, Cyprus, Hungary, Slovenia 

and the United Kingdom.

(a ) Does the system of notifications, complaints and ex officio 
en qu ir ies ens ure  t hat th e Com mi ssi on  h andl es  al l rel evant 
St ate aid c ases?

(b) D o e s   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a ve   a d e q u a t e   m a n a g e m e n t   s t r u c -
tures and procedures in place for effec tive handling of the 
St ate aid c ases w ithin the  de adline s?

(c) D o e s   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   m o n i t o r   t h e   i m p a c t   o f   i t s   S t a t e   a i d 

co nt ro l ?

13.  

The audit focused on the organisation and the decision-mak ing 
a n d   m o n i to r i n g   p ro ce s s e s   o f   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   d u r i n g   t h e   p e -
r io d 20 08 –10, b ut did no t asses s t h e  val idi t y  of  th e  de cis ion s 
t a k e n   by   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n .  Th e   a u d i t   s co p e   cove re d   t h e   a re a s 
of  St ate aid co ntrol  fo r w hic h  Co mpe ti ti on  DG  is  re s pon s ible. 
Thes e are as rep resented 9 6 % of all State aid granted in 2 00 9 
( e xc l u d i n g   ra i l w ays ) 9  d u e   to   t h e   s p e c i f i c   l a rg e   vo l u m e   o f   a i d 
granted  to  the  financial  sec tor.

14.  

Th e au dit wor k at  Commiss ion  le vel  in c lude d:

 ο t h e   e x a m i n a t i o n   o f   a   s a m p l e   o f   5 0   ( p r e - ) n o t i f i c a t i o n s , 
30 complaints, 40 monitor ing cases and 10 recover y cases; 

 ο inter views with case handlers and case managers of 10 dif-
ferent u nits of  Comp et it ion DG , wi th  k ey  st af f o f Compe ti-
tion DG’s horizontal units, as well as with the Commission’s 
Le g al  S er vice  and  t he S ec retar iat- G e n eral; 

 ο rev ie w  of k ey m anagement doc um e nt s;

 ο anal yt ical  te sts. 

15.   A l t h o u g h   t h e   Co u r t   h a s   n o t   a u d i t e d   t h e   s y s t e m s   a t   M e m b e r 
S t a t e   l e ve l,   i t   h a s   c a r r i e d   o u t   i n fo r m a t i o n   v i s i t s   t o   4 4   p u b l i c 
and pr ivate sec tor stakeholders in eight M ember States 10. The 
opinions of these stakeholders were only used as an additional 
s o u rce   o f   i n fo r m at i o n   i f   t h e y   we re   s h a re d   by   a   l a rg e   n u m b e r 
of  the m.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

OBSERVATIONS

15

I D E N T I F Y I N G 	 R E L E VA N T 	 S TAT E 	 A I D 	 C A S E S	

16.  

The Treat y  o b lig es  M emb er  States   to  n oti fy   all   pl an ne d  St ate 
aid measures to the Commission. The Cour t examined whether 
the  cu r rent  sys tem  o f n ot if icat ion s,  complai nts  an d ex officio 
inquiries gives sufficient assurance that the Commission deals 
wit h a l l imp o r t ant  State aid case s.  Paragraph s 1 7  to 3 3  exa m-
i n e   w h e t h e r   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   d o e s   e n o u g h   t o   ve r i f y   w h e t h e r 
Member States fulfil their obligations under the State aid rules 
a n d   to   ra i s e   M e m b e r   St ate s’  awa re n e s s   o f   t h e i r   o b l i g at i o n   to 
not ify  st ate aid.

I N S U F F I C I E N T 	 CO M M I S S I O N 	 C H E C K S 	TO 	 E N S U R E 	 M E M B E R	
S TAT E S 	 A R E 	 CO M P LY I N G 	W I T H 	T H E I R 	 O B L I G AT I O N 	TO	
N OT I F Y 	 S TAT E 	 A I D

t h e  c o m m i s s i o n  h a s  n o t  m a d e  f u l l  u s e  o f  p u b l i c l y  a v a i l a b l e 
i n f o r m a t i o n 

17. 	

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   d o e s   n o t   h a v e   a   s p e c i f i c   l e g a l   b a s i s   t o   r e -
quire M ember States to provide it with information to identify 
the main aid- granting authorities, the internal organisation at 
M ember  State  level  or  the  applicable  notification  and  control 
p ro ce d u re s   i n   M e m b e r   S t ate s.   N e i t h e r   d o e s   i t   h ave   a   s p e c i f i c 
l e g a l   b a s i s   t o   m a k e   a ny   s e c t o r   o r   M e m b e r   S t a t e   e n q u i r i e s   t o 
identify potentially unlawful State aid. However, the Commis -
s i o n   h a s   n o t   m a d e   f u l l   u s e   o f   t h e   i n fo r m at i o n   t h at   i s   p u b l i c l y 
available  with  a  view  to  assessing  the  r isk  of  non-notification 
o f   a i d.   I t   t h e re fo re   h a s   n o t   i d e nt i f i e d   c ate g o r i e s   o f   a i d   m e a s-
ures  for  which  the  r isk  of  non-notification  is  par ticular ly  high 
e i t h e r   b e c a u s e   o f   t h e   i n h e re n t   r i s k   o f   t h e   m e a s u re s   o r   we a k-
nesses in the control systems put in place by the Member State. 

18. 	

The risk of non-notification is par ticularly high for rescue and 
r e s t r u c t u r i n g   a i d ,   t a x   m e a s u r e s   a n d   t h e   s a l e   o f   l a n d   b e l o w 
mar ket   p r ice,   wh ich   has   l ed  to  s eve ral  com plai nt s.  The   r is k  is 
als o hig he r fo r aid granted  by  re gion al  an d loc al g over n me nt 
bodies, which  onl y  occ asio nally  grant  State a id a nd  th ere fore 
have a l imited k now l edg e of State  ai d r ule s.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

16

19. 	

20. 	

m o n i t o r i n g  o f  b l o c k- e x e m p t e d  m e a s u r e s  i s  l i m i t e d 

 In 1998 the Council enabled the Commission to adopt so- called 
Block Exemption Regulations (BERs) for State aid 11. With these 
regulations, the Commission can declare specific categories of 
State aid compatible with the Treat y if they fulfil cer tain con -
d i t i o n s,   t h u s   e xe m p t i n g   t h e m   f ro m   t h e   re q u i re m e n t   o f   p r i o r 
not ific at io n and Co mmissio n approval. 

Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   i nt ro d u ce d   b l o c k   exe m p t i o n s   i n   s e ve ra l 
areas, including State aid for training, employment, R  & D and 
e n v i r o n m e n t a l   p r o t e c t i o n .   I n   2 0 0 8   t h e s e   b l o c k   e x e m p t i o n s 
w e r e   g r o u p e d   i n   o n e   G e n e r a l   B l o c k   E x e m p t i o n   R e g u l a t i o n 
(GB ER ) 12.   I n  l ine   w ith  th e  b asic  pr inc iple s  se t   out  i n  t he   State 
aid Ac tion Programme (SAAP) (see paragraph 6), the GBER sig -
nificantly increased the scope of the BERs, both in terms of the 
t y pe s  o f  aid  and  in  ter ms  of  the   max im um   amounts   involve d. 
Since 2007, the number of block- exempted measures exceeds 
the  num be r o f notific atio ns  ( see  Fi gu re  4) .

11  Council Regulation (EC) 
No 994/98 of 7 May 1998 on the 

application of Articles 92 and 

93 of the Treaty establishing the 

European Community to certain 

categories of horizontal State aid 

(OJ L 142, 14.5.1998, p. 1).

12  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 (General block 

exemption Regulation)  

(OJ L 214, 9.8.2008, p. 3).

F I G U R E 	 4

THE	TREND	IN	TH E	NUMBER	OF	NOTIFIC ATION 	AND 	BLOCK-E XEMPTION	
MEASURES

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

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

avg. 2000-05

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Number of notifications received

Number of block-exempted measures

Source: European Commission.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

 
 
17

21. 	

22. 	

 The Commission has recognised the increasing impor tance of 
ex post monitoring, as more and more measures are exempted 
from ex ante notification 13. However, its monitor ing ac tivit y is 
l i m i t e d   t o   a   y e a r l y   d e s k   r e v i e w   o f   1 5   a p p r o v e d   a i d   s c h e m e s 
plus 15 block- exempted measures, selec ted judgmentally. This 
c a n   o n l y   gi ve   a n   i m p re s s i o n   o f   t h e   re s p e c t   o f   t h e   co n d i t i o n s 
s e t   by   t h e   G B E R   a n d   by   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   d e c i s i o n s   a p p rov i n g 
aid  sc hemes 14.

The Commission’s 2008 monitor ing exercise found significant 
problems in 3 of the 30 cases examined. Fur thermore the use -
f u l n e s s   o f   t h i s   e xe rc i s e   w a s   l i m i te d   b e c a u s e   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n 
wa s  u nabl e  to   c heck   th e  individ ua l  grants   un de r   s ome  of   t he 
sel ec ted  sche mes  as  no   aid  had  yet   bee n   gra nte d.   I t  als o  h ad 
d i f f i c u l t i e s   i n   o b t a i n i n g   t h e   re q u e s t e d   i n fo r m a t i o n   f ro m   t h e 
M e mb er St ate s. 

13  See European Commission, 
Report on Competition 

Policy 2009 (http://ec.europa.

eu/competition/publications/

annual_report/2009/en.pdf).

14  As a comparison, in 2009, 
almost 1 000 block exemption 

measures were notified to the 

Commission ex post and more 

than 200 schemes were notified 

ex ante.

15  Commission Regulation 
(EC) No 1998/2006 of 

15 December 2006 on the 

application of Article 87 and 88 

of the Treaty to de minimis aid 

(OJ L 379, 28.12.2006, p. 5).

t h e  c o m m i s s i o n  d o e s  n o t  m o n i t o r  w h e t h e r  t h e  c e i l i n g  f o r  d e 
m i n i m i s  a i d  i s  c o m p l i e d  w i t h

23.  

T h e   d e   m i n i m i s   r e g u l a t i o n 1 5  h a s   i n t r o d u c e d   a   c e i l i n g   o f 
200 000 euro below which it is considered that aid does not af-
fec t trade bet ween M ember States or does not distor t compe -
tit ion  an d is t herefore not  consi de red  to con st it ute  St ate  aid. 
T h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a ve   w e l c o m e d   a n d   g r a d u a l l y   i n c r e a s e d 
the  us e o f t he de  minimis aid  rules, whic h allow aid measure s 
to  be  imp lem ented more q uick ly. 

24.   M e mb er St ates, w hen granting de minim is  aid, should in for m 
t h e   e n te r p r i s e   c o n ce r n e d   o f   t h e   d e   m i n i m i s   c h a r a c te r   o f   t h e 
aid,  re qu est  full   infor m atio n  from  th e  e nte r pr i s e  about   ot h er 
de  minimis   aid  receive d  d ur in g  th e  las t  th re e  ye ar s   an d   c are -
f u l l y   c h e c k   t h a t   t h e   c e i l i n g   w i l l   n o t   b e   e xce e d e d.   R e s p e c t   o f 
the ceiling may also be ensured by means of a central register, 
but ver y  few M emb er St ates  have  on e. 

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

18

25.   Al t h o u g h   M e m b e r   S t ate s   a re   re q u i re d   to   re co rd   a n d   co m p i l e 
all the information regarding the application of the de minimis 
Regulation and to provide this information to the Commission 
on written request, in prac tice the Commission does not moni-
tor t he  resp ec t of the con dition s  for  grant in g  de min imis aid. 
S e ve ra l   a i d - gra n to r s   d e c l a re d   t h a t   t h e   re s p e c t   o f   t h e   ce i l i n g 
of de  minimis aid  is ve r y difficult to chec k an d th at th ey  have 
no  cl ear idea if th e ceil in g is ge n erall y  res pe c te d  or  not.

16  When the Member State 
believes that a planned measure 

does not constitute State aid, but 

is not fully sure and would like 

the Commission to decide on it.

t h e  c o m m i s s i o n  d o e s  n o t  s y s t e m a t i c a l l y  t r y  t o  d e t e c t  u n n o t i f i e d 
a i d  m e a s u r e s

26.  

T h e   d e t e c t i o n   o f   S t a t e   a i d   m e a s u r e s   t h a t   s h o u l d   h a v e   b e e n 
n o t i f i e d   b y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   b u t   we re   n o t ,   i s   m a i n l y   b a s e d   o n 
c o m p l a i n t s   a n d   e x   o f f i c i o   e n q u i r i e s   ( s e e   p a r a g r a p h   9 ) .   T h e 
C o m m i s s i o n   o n l y   r e c e n t l y   s t a r t e d   t o   r e c o r d   e x   o f f i c i o   c a s e s 
s e p a r a t e l y   f r o m   c o m p l a i n t s .   T h e   n u m b e r   o f   e x   o f f i c i o   c a s e s 
(3 5  in  2009  and  18   in   2 01 0)   is   m uch   s mall er   th an   th e   n umbe r 
of  com pl aint s (arou nd  4 00  in 2 00 9 ).

27.   A l t h o u g h   s o m e   p o t e n t i a l   n e w   S t a t e   a i d   c a s e s   a r e   p i c k e d   u p 
t h r o u g h   a   r e v i e w   o f   t h e   p r e s s ,   r e s u l t i n g   i n   e x   o f f i c i o   c a s e s , 
t h i s   h a s   n o t   b e co m e   s t a n d a rd   p ra c t i ce.   I n d e e d,   t h e   Co m m i s-
s i o n’s   l i m i t e d   m o n i t o r i n g   o f   a i d   s c h e m e s   a n d   b l o c k   e x e m p -
t i o n   m e a s u re s   ( s e e   p a r a g r a p h   1 9   t o   2 2 )   c o n s t i t u t e s   t h e   o n l y 
s y s t e m a t i c   e x   o f f i c i o   a c t i v i t y   c u r r e n t l y   b e i n g   u n d e r t a k e n   i n 
the  St ate a id  area. The Comm is sion  i ts el f h as  re cogn is ed th at 
relying on complaints and litigation at national level is insuf-
ficient to ensure that Member States fully respec t their obliga-
t i o n   to   n o t i f y   St ate   a i d,   a n d   t h at   a ny   f u r t h e r   s te p s   to   re d u ce 
the  nu mb er o f n ot if ication s sh oul d be compe ns ate d by  ot h er 
contro l  mec hanisms.

28.  

The complexity of the concept of State aid makes it difficult for 
Member States to decide whether a measure constitutes State 
aid and needs to be notified to the Commission. Identifying if 
ce r tain   ta x  mea su res   are  State  a id  or   n ot  is   par ti c ula r ly   d if fi -
cult. This explains why about 5 % of the notifications are made 
fo r   r e a s o n s   o f   l e g a l   c e r t a i n t y   o n l y. 1 6  A s   t h e   C o u r t   o f   J u s t i c e 
o f   t h e   Eu ro p e a n   U n i o n   i nte r p re t s   t h e   co n ce p t   o f   S t ate   a i d   i n 
a   w i d e   w ay,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   co n s i d e r s   i t   h a s   l i t t l e   m a rgi n   to 
decid e t hat  a measu re d oes  not con s ti tute State  ai d. 

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

19

29.  

30.  

 I f  th e  Co mmissio n  decides   followi ng   a  complai nt  or   an   ex  of-
f i c i o   e n q u i r y,   t h a t   t h e   m e a s u r e   c o n s t i t u t e s   c o m p a t i b l e   a i d , 
t h e   a b s e n ce   o f   n o t i f i c at i o n   ( o r   l ate   n o t i f i c at i o n )   h a s   n o   co n -
sequences for the Member State or for the beneficiaries. I f the 
Co mm issio n de cides that  incompati ble aid  h as  be en  granted, 
the beneficiaries have to reimburse the aid with interest, as if 
the y had received a l o an ( see para gra ph  6 8 ).

The Commission does not check if the aid measures for which 
the notification was withdrawn, but which seemed prima facie 
to constitute State aid, were abandoned or implemented with-
out Commission approval. In the latter case the measure would 
constitute unlawful State aid, for which the Commission could 
open an ex officio case. Likewise for notified aid measures for 
whic h t he Co mmissio n is s ued a n e g ati ve d eci si on.

T H E 	 CO M M I S S I O N 	 I S 	 N OT 	 P R O AC T I V E 	 E N O U G H 	 I N	
R A I S I N G 	 M E M B E R 	 S TAT E S’	 AWA R E N E S S 	 O F 	T H E I R	
O B L I G AT I O N S 	TO 	 N OT I F Y 	 S TAT E 	 A I D

t h e  n e t w o r k  o f  c o u n t r y  c o n t a c t  p o i n t s  c r e a t e d   b y  t h e  c o m m i s s i o n 
m e t  w i t h  l i t t l e  s u c c e s s

31.  

 I n   2 0 0 6   C o m p e t i t i o n   D G   d e c i d e d   t o   c r e a t e   c o u n t r y   c o n t a c t 
points in t he Co mmiss ion . These  of fi cia ls ( on e for  ea ch  coun-
tr y)  are   t he   firs t  ‘ent r y  p o int ’  into  Com pe t it ion   DG . The ir   t ask 
i s   l i m i te d   to   p rov i d i n g   i n fo r m a l,   n o n - b i n d i n g   p ra c t i c a l   g u i d -
an ce to  M e mb er St ates  outs ide th e  contex t of  pe nd in g  c as es. 
H owe ve r,   m o s t   M e m b e r   St ate s’  a i d - gra nt i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   h ave 
n e ve r   co n t a c te d   t h e i r   co u n t r y   co n t a c t   p o i n t ,   e i t h e r   b e c a u s e 
they were not aware of their existence or because they did not 
fee l t he  n eed. 

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

20

m o s t  s t a k e h o l d e r s  w o u l d  w e l c o m e  a  m o r e   p r o a c t i v e  r o l e   o f  t h e 
c o m m i s s i o n 

32.  

Stakeholders in seven of the eight Member States visited stat-
ed that they would welcome a more proac tive role of the Com-
miss ion  in  o ne   o r  mo re  of  the  follow in g   are as,   wh i c h  war rant 
fur t her cons id eratio n by th e Commi ss ion: 

 ο Awareness-raising among potential aid- grantors about the 

no t ificatio n du t y.

 ο The  promotion  of  best  prac tices  about  the  design  of  effec -
t i ve   a i d   m e a s u re s   t h a t   a re   c o m p l i a n t   w i t h   E U   c o m p e t i t i o n 
rules.

 ο More guidance about exactly which information needs to be 
provided for different types of notification in order to allow 
t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   t o   c o n c l u d e   t h a t   t h e   n o t i f i c a t i o n   i s   c o m-
p l e t e.  T h e   s t a n d a r d i s a t i o n   o f   t h e   n o t i f i c a t i o n   fo r m   i n   t h e 
elec tronic SANI system has only par tly solved this problem.

 ο The publication of a separate, regularly updated frequently 
as ked  qu est ion s ( FAQ) sec tion on  th e compe ti ti on we bs ite 
o f t he Eu rop ean Co mmission .

 ο A   h e l p d e s k   f u n c t i o n   to   p rov i d e   i n fo r m a t i o n   a b o u t   t h e   i n-

te r p ret atio n o f g uidel ines. 

a c c o r d i n g  t o  s o m e  s t a k e h o l d e r s,  t h e  c o m m i s s i o n’s  g u i d e l i n e s  a r e 
t o o  c o m p l i c a t e d

33.  

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   g u i d e l i n e s   a r e   g e n e r a l l y   w e l c o m e d   b y   t h e 
s t a k e h o l d e r s .   W h i l s t   t h e s e   g u i d e l i n e s   h a v e   i n c r e a s e d   t h e 
p re d i c t a b i l i t y   o f   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n’s   S t a te   a i d   d e c i s i o n s,   s o m e 
s t a k e h o l d e r s   c o n s i d e r   t h e m   t o o   c o m p l i c a t e d ,   i n s u f f i c i e n t l y 
c l e a r   a n d   l e av i n g   to o   m u c h   ro o m   fo r   i n te r p re t a t i o n ,   c a u s i n g 
lega l  uncer t aint y.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

21

C A S E 	 H A N D L I N G	

34.  

The Procedural R egulation, the B est Prac tice Code (see Box 1) 
a n d   Co m p e t i t i o n   D G ’s   i n t e r n a l   M a n u a l   o f   Pro c e d u re s   s e t   t h e 
rules gover ning the handling of notifications, complaints and 
recover y case s.  The Co ur t examin e d w he th e r  t he  Commi ss ion 
h a s   a d e q u ate   m a n a g e m e nt   s t r u c t u re s   a n d   p ro ce d u re s   fo r   e f-
fec tive  hand ling  of t he State aid  c as es  wi th i n  th e  de adli ne s.

B O X 	 1

KEY	FEATU RES	OF	THE	BEST	PR AC TICE	COD E	ADOPTED	IN	2009

 ο  In cases which are particularly novel, technically complex, sensitive, or urgent, the Commission 

will offer mutually agreed planning to the notifying Member State.

 ο The Commission will endeavour to group requests for information during the preliminary exami-
nation phase. In principle, there will therefore only be one comprehensive information request, 
normally to be sent within 4–6 weeks after the date of notification.

 ο Publication of the decision to open the formal investigation procedure within two months.

 ο Stricter enforcement of the time limits given to Member States and to interested parties to 

submit comments.

 ο The Commission will use its best endeavours to investigate a complaint within an indicative 

time frame of 12 months from its receipt.

 ο Member States and the complainants will systematically be kept informed of the closure or 

other processing of a complaint.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

22

35.  

36.  

T H E 	 CO M M I S S I O N 	 I S 	 H A M P E R E D 	 BY 	 A 	 L AC K 	 O F	 	
R E L I A B L E 	 M A N AG E M E N T 	 I N F O R M AT I O N 	 A N D	
O R G A N I S AT I O N A L 	 P R O B L E M S	

c o m p e t i t i o n  d g ’s   s t a t e  a i d  p r o c e d u r e s   a r e   g e n e r a l l y  c l e a r  a n d 
w e l l   r e s p e c t e d

Th e M anu al of  Procedures  is t he  mai n re fe re nce  d oc um e nt  on 
case -handling procedures and is available on Competition DG’s 
int ran et.  I t   is  reg ul ar l y   u p dated  an d  s taf f   are  in for med   a bout 
the   up dates   by  e -mail s.  I t  cover s   mos t  of   t he   m ain   ac t iv it ie s, 
p ro v i d i n g   c l e a r   g u i d a n c e   a s   we l l   a s   s t a n d a rd   t e m p l a t e s.  Th e 
manual is generally well respec ted by the case handlers, with 
few exceptions concerning the respect of procedural deadlines 
( s e e   p a r a g r a p h   4 8 )   a n d   t h e   u p l o a d i n g   o f   d o c u m e n t s   i n   I S I S 
(see  p aragra ph 41) .

t h e  n u m b e r,  c o m p l e x i t y  a n d  p r i o r i t i s a t i o n  o f  c a s e s  p o s e  p r o b l e m s 

S t a t e   a i d   c a s e s   r e q u i r e   c a r e f u l   a n d   d e t a i l e d   a n a l y s i s   o f   a i d 
proposals which can be complicated and of considerable eco -
nomic significance. I n some cases they can involve matters as 
co m p l ex   a s   l a rg e   a e ro n a u t i c s   p ro j e c t s   o r   b a n k   re s t r u c t u r i n g. 
On  averag e,  each  officer   ac ts  as  c a se   h an dl er   for   seven   cases 
and as case assistant for seven others. The resources available 
f o r   o t h e r   a c t i v i t i e s   s u c h   a s   e x   o f f i c i o   e n q u i r i e s ,   m o n i t o r i n g 
ac tivities, initiatives to increase best-prac tice shar ing among 
the  M e mb er St ates, etc. are cons eq ue ntly  l im ited.

37.   One of the goals of a reorganisation of Competition DG in 2007 
wa s to  incre ase the DG’s  ab ilit y  to make more efficient  us e  o f 
its  reso u rces t hro ugh a mo re flex ible  all oc ati on of h uman  re -
sources bet ween units and direc torates, mak ing it possible to 
include in the case team a case handler or case assistant from 
a   d i f fe re nt   u n i t .   H owe ve r,   e xce p t   d u r i n g   t h e   i n i t i a l   s t a g e s   o f 
the   finan cial  c r is is,   the  t ime  s pent  by   c as e  h an dle r s   on   c as es 
managed by other units has remained limited to a few percent 
of  the ir to t al wor k ing time.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

23

38.  

Since December 2009 new State aid cases are divided into t wo 
priority categories on the basis of two main criteria, precedent 
val u e and en forcement p r io r it y : 

17  According to Competition DG 
indicators for State aid, less than 

6 % of the new State aid cases in 

Q2 2010 are Priority 1 whereas 

 ο Pr i o r i t y   1   c a s e s   a re   t h o s e   re g a rd e d   a s   e s s e n t i a l   to   e n s u re 

82 % are Priority 2.

ef fec tive State  aid  co ntro l; 

 ο Pr ior it y 2 case s are al l t he c ases  wh ic h  are  n ot  pr i or it y  1 .

39.   A l t h o u g h   t h e   p r i o r i t y   1   c a s e s   g e t   m o r e   r e s o u r c e s   a n d   m o r e 
m a n a g e m e n t   a t t e n t i o n ,   t h e y   d o   n o t   n e c e s s a r i l y   g e t   s o l v e d 
quick ly as they are likely to be the most complex cases. As the 
case  handl ers wo r k  on  seve ral c as e s s imult an eous ly  and  h ave 
to respec t legal deadlines for all notifications, they sometimes 
have to  pu t aside a p r io r it y 1  ca se  to wor k  on  a l owe r pr ior it y 
n o t i f i c a t i o n   i n s t e a d .   C a s e   h a n d l e r s   c o n s i d e r   t h a t   t h e y   n e e d 
fur ther guidance on allocating their work ing time between the 
priority 2 cases which represent the majority of the work load 17. 

40.  

In order to ensure an optimal allocation of resources, the man-
a g e m e n t   n e e d s   a cc u ra te   i n fo r m a t i o n   o n   t h e   re s o u rce s   av a i l-
abl e and t he wor k lo ad o n h and t h rough out t h e org an is ati on . 
I n   2 0 0 9   C o m p e t i t i o n   D G   h a s   a c c o r d i n g l y   i n t r o d u c e d   a   t i m e 
r e p o r t i n g   p i l o t   p r o j e c t ,   c a l l e d   P E T R A .   T h i s   t o o l   a l l o w s   c a s e 
handlers to book their work ing time to the different cases they 
wo r k   o n .   Pa r t i c i p at i o n   i s   vo l u nt a r y   a n d   p a r t i a l,   w h i c h   m e a n s 
that at present, the repor ts based on PE TRA are only indicative 
and Competition DG still has no tool showing the full pic ture . 

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

24

i n  g e n e r a l  t h e  c a s e - h a n d l i n g  i t- s y s t e m s  m e e t  u s e r  r e q u i r e m e n t s

41.  

I S I S   i s   u s e d   t o   m a n a g e   a n d   m o n i t o r   a l l   S t a t e   a i d   c a s e s .   I t   i s 
a   u s e f u l   t o o l   fo r   s t o r i n g   t h e   i n fo r m a t i o n   n e e d e d   fo r   t h e   d e -
c i s i o n - m a k i n g   p u r p o s e s,   a s   we l l   a s   fo r   m o n i to r i n g   d e a d l i n e s 
an d p l anning  the wo r k . A  nu mbe r  of re por t s  ca n be  produce d 
fro m the  s ys tem,  fo r examp l e a back l og of  c as es,  st atis t ics  on 
durat io n, etc. H owever,  t here are  som e wea k n es se s: 

18  Notice from the Commission 
on a simplified procedure for 

treatment of certain types of State 

Aid (OJ C 136, 16.6.2009, p. 3).

 ο U n t i l   N o v e m b e r   2 0 1 0 ,   t h e   i n v e s t i g a t i o n   o f   o n e   n o t i f i c a -
t i o n   o r   c o m p l a i n t   w a s   o f t e n   s p l i t   i n t o   s e ve r a l   p ro c e d u re s 
( s e e   Fi g u r e s   2   a n d   3 ) ,   e a c h   w i t h   a   d i f fe re n t   i d e nt i f i c at i o n 
nu mb er,   mak ing   it   imp os s ible  to  as se ss   t h e  total  d urati on 
o f ha ndling  a no tific atio n or  a com plaint.

 ο T h e   a s s o c i a t e d   p r o c e d u r e s   w e r e   n o t   a l w a y s   c l e a r l y   i n d i -
cated in ISIS mak ing it time - consuming and difficult to get 
a c le ar ove r v ie w  of  t he com plete   c ase.

 ο I n   a d d i t i o n ,   fo r   3 0  %   o f   t h e   c a s e s   r e v i e w e d   b y   t h e   C o u r t , 
s o m e   d o c u m e n t s ,   s u c h   a s   m i n u t e s   o f   m e e t i n g s ,   e - m a i l s , 
r e c o r d s   o f   p h o n e   c a l l s   o r   c o n f e r e n c e   c a l l s ,   w e r e   m i s s i n g 
f ro m   I S I S   a n d / o r   t h e y   h a d   n o t   b e e n   re gi s te re d   i n   a   t i m e l y 
man ner. 

N E W 	 P R O C E D U R E S 	 F O R 	 M A N AG I N G 	 N OT I F I C AT I O N S	
H AV E 	 N OT 	 R E S O LV E D 	T H E 	 P R O B L E M 	 O F 	T I M E L I N E S S 	 A N D	
C U M B E R S O M E N E S S	

42.  

I n   2 0 0 9 ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s s u e d   a  ‘ S i m p l i f i c a t i o n   Pa c k a g e’, 
c o n s i s t i n g   o f   a   S i m p l i f i e d   P r o c e d u r e 1 8  ( s e e   p a r a g r a p h s   5 9 
t o   6 0 )   a n d   B e s t   P r a c t i c e   C o d e   ( B P C )   ( s e e   p a r a g r a p h   3 4   a n d 
B ox   1 )   f o r   t h e   c o n d u c t   o f   S t a t e   a i d   c o n t r o l   p r o c e d u r e s .   T h e 
m a i n   o b j e c t i v e   o f   t h e   B P C   w a s  ‘ t o   p r o v i d e   g u i d a n c e   o n   t h e 
d a y - t o - d a y   c o n d u c t   o f   S t a t e   a i d   p ro c e d u re s,   t h e re b y   fo s t e r -
i n g   a   s p i r i t   o f   b e t te r   co o p e rat i o n   a n d   m u t u a l   u n d e r s t a n d i n g 
b e t we e n   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n ,   M e m b e r   S t a t e   a u t h o r i t i e s   a n d   t h e 
lega l  and bu sines s  commun it y.’ 

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

25

43.   As   fo re s e e n   i n   t h e   B P C ,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   a l s o   e n co u ra g e d 
M ember  States  to  enter  as  ear ly  as  possible  into  pre -notifica -
tion contacts outside the Simplified Procedure. Pre -notification 
contacts aim to improve the quality of the notifications by clar-
i f y i n g   t h e   re m a i n i n g   q u e s t i o n s   o r   t h e   i n fo r m a t i o n   w h i c h   t h e 
Commission needs to take a decision. Even if some aid grantors 
q u e s t i o n   i t s   u s e f u l n e s s,   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   p re - n o t i f i c at i o n   c a s e s 
has increased considerably in 2009–10 (see Figure 5).

t h e  p r e l i m i n a r y  i n v e s t i g a t i o n  o f  m a n y  n o t i f i c a t i o n s  t a k e s   
a   l o n g  t i m e

44.  

The information provided by the Member State in the notifica-
tio n sh o uld b e su ffic ient l y exhaus ti ve to e n able  th e  Comm is-
sion to decide without the need for fur ther information. I f the 
n o t i f i c a t i o n   i s   i n c o m p l e t e,   C o m p e t i t i o n   D G   s e n d s   a   r e q u e s t 
fo r   co m p l e m e nt a r y   i n fo r m at i o n ,   a s k i n g   t h e   M e m b e r   S t ate   to 
reply within 20 wor k ing days. The M ember State has the r ight 
to  ask  fo r an ex tensio n o f this  tim e l imi t. 

F I G U R E 	 5

THE	TREND	IN	TH E	NUMBER	OF	PRE-NOTIFIC ATION S	AND 	NOTIFIC ATIONS

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

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

avg. 2000-05

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Number of notifications

Number of pre-notifications

Source: European Commission.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

 
 
19  Source: Competition DG, State 
aid indicators, section IV.10.b. 

Competition DG’s timeliness 

indicators reports the duration 

between the opening and the 

closure of decided cases by year 

of opening and are therefore 

overly flattering for recent 

years as still undecided cases, 

which have by definition long 

durations, are excluded.

26

45.  

Th e   ave ra g e   t i m e   to   t a k e   a   d e c i s i o n   i n c re a s e d   b e t we e n   2 0 0 5 
and 2008. 19 I n 2007–08, for 40 % of the notifications it took six 
or more months to make a decision. This percentage dropped 
significantly in 2009, but this is par tly explained by the finan-
cial crisis cases which have been handled par ticularly fast due 
to  the ir u rgent n atu re. 

46.  

The duration of the preliminary investigation is mainly deter -
mined  by  three el emen ts:

 ο the number of requests for information (REQ) sent by the Com-

mission to the Member State;

 ο the time taken by the Member State to reply to the REQ;

 ο the time taken by the Commission to either take a decision or 

send another REQ (maximum two months).

Fo r  o ne t hir d of t he not ific ation s in  th e s ampl e the  C om mi ss io n 
sends  tw o or  mo re r eques t s f or in f orm ati on

47.   As   s t ate d   i n   t h e   M a n u a l   o f   Pro ce d u re s,   t h e   c a s e   te a m   s h o u l d 
ende avo u r  to  grou p   req ues ts  for   in for mat ion   d ur in g   t h e  pre -
liminar y investigation phase. In principle, there should be only 
o n e   c o m p re h e n s i ve   i n fo r m a t i o n   re q u e s t   d u r i n g   t h e   p re l i m i -
nar y investigation phase, normally to be sent within 4–6 weeks 
after the date of notification. One fur ther request can be made 
i n   e xc e p t i o n a l ,   d u l y   j u s t i f i e d   c a s e s .   H o w e v e r,   i n   2 8  %   o f   t h e 
c a s e s   s a m p l e d   w h e re   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   fo r m a l l y   a s k e d   fo r 
fur t her infor matio n,  t hree o r more  R E Qs  we re  se nt. 

 Requests for information are often sent close to the legal deadline

48.  

The REQs were sent by the Commission on average 50 days fol -
lowing the notification or the latest submission of information 
from the Member State. As many REQs need to be translated and 
c a s e   h a n d l e r s   a re   m a n a gi n g   t h e   d e a d l i n e s   o f   s e ve ra l   c a s e s   s i -
multaneously, some REQs are only sent just before the 2-month 
d e a d l i n e   e x p i r e s .   I n   4   o f   t h e   4 3   n o t i f i e d   c a s e s   r e v i e w e d ,   t h e 
legal two -month deadline for the Commission to send a request 
for information or to make a decision (either to approve the aid 
or to launch a for mal investigation) has been exceeded. 

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

 
 
27

Member States frequently do not reply within the deadline set by 
the Com m iss io n

49.  

The  l a rg e  vo lu me  and   t he  complexi t y   an d   d et ail   of   th e  que s-
tions sent by the Commission make it challenging for the Mem-
be r St ate to  rep l y w it hin 20 wor k in g  days.  Th e  adm in is trat ive 
s t r u c t u re   o f   a   M e m b e r   St ate   c a n   a l s o   c a u s e   f u r t h e r   d e l ays   i n 
r e p l y i n g   t o   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n .   Fo r   e x a m p l e ,   t h o s e   w i t h   a   d e -
c e n t r a l i s e d   a d m i n i s t r a t i o n   h ave   a   re p o r t i n g   s t r u c t u re   w h i c h 
invo l ves seve ral l evels  of auth or i t y t h rough  wh i ch th e re pli es 
mus t  be  chann el l ed. 

20  Concerning the years 2008 
and 2009 the figures are 

inconclusive as there are still 

several undecided cases.

21  Article 7(6) of the Procedural 
Regulation

50.   Based on the sample of notifications reviewed by the Cour t, the 
average time taken for the M ember State to provide the infor -
mation  was  33  wor k ing  days.  For  40 %  of  the  notified  cases  in 
the sample, the M ember States did not provide the requested 
i n fo r m a t i o n   o n   t i m e,   n e i t h e r   w i t h i n   t h e   2 0   wo r k i n g   d ay s   n o r 
within the revised timetable agreed with the Commission. 

51.  

52.  

t h e  f o r m a l  i n v e s t i g a t i o n  p r o c e d u r e   i s  a l s o  l e n g t h y

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   o b l i g e d   t o   o p e n   a   f o r m a l   i n v e s t i g a t i o n 
p r o c e d u r e   w h e n e v e r   i t   h a s   s e r i o u s   d i f f i c u l t i e s   o r   d o u b t s   i n 
determining the compatibility of the aid with the internal mar -
ket and/or difficulties of a procedural nature in obtaining the 
necessar y information. For more than half of the cases notified 
in  2005–0 8 it  too k  mo re  than  six mont hs  to  t ake  a d ec i s ion  to 
op en  a for mal  p rocedu re 20.

The  Commission  should  as  far  as  possible  endeavour  to  adopt 
a  decision  for  notified  cases  within  18  months  from  the  open-
i n g   o f   t h e   f o r m a l   i n v e s t i g a t i o n   p r o c e d u r e 2 1.   T h e   n u m b e r   o f 
c a s e s   e x c e e d i n g   t h e   r e c o m m e n d e d   d u r a t i o n   o f   1 8   m o n t h s 
i s   3 8  %   ( 9 / 2 4 )   f o r   f o r m a l   i n v e s t i g a t i o n   p r o c e d u r e s   l a u n c h e d  
in 2005, 13 % (4/31) in 2006, 33 % (9/27) in 2007 and 18 % (3/17) 
i n   2 0 0 8 .  Wh e n   a l s o   t a k i n g   i nto   a cco u nt   t h e   p re l i m i n a r y   i nve s-
t i g a t i o n ,   t h e   t o t a l   d u r a t i o n   b e t we e n   t h e   n o t i f i c a t i o n   a n d   t h e 
Commission decision in these cases exceeded 2 years.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

	
28

53.  

54.  

S t a k e h o l d e r s   i n   a l l   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   v i s i t e d   s a i d   t h a t   t h e   c a s e 
h a n d l i n g   p r o c e d u r e s   t a k e   t o o   l o n g .   M o s t   p r o b l e m a t i c   a r e 
i n d i v i d u a l   a i d   p r o j e c t s,   e s p e c i a l l y   t h o s e   w h i c h   t h e   Co m m i s -
s i o n   s u b m i t s   to   a n   i n - d e p t h   e co n o m i c   a s s e s s m e nt   ( s e e   p a ra -
grap hs  55 to  56). This c an have n e g ati ve  ef fe c ts  for  th e M e m-
b e r   S t a t e s   s u c h   a s   d e l a y i n g   n a t i o n a l   l e g i s l a t i o n   o r   t h e   r i s k 
o f   l o s i n g   p o te n t i a l   i nve s to r s.  Th e re   a re   o f te n   c h a n g e s   i n   t h e 
composition of the Commission case teams which may fur ther 
del ay p ro ced ures.

t h e  u s e  o f  m u t u a l l y  a g r e e d  p l a n n i n g  h a s  b e e n  l i m i t e d  s o  f a r

I n S eptember 2009, the B est Prac tices Code introduced Mutu -
a l l y   Agre e d   Pl a n n i n g   ( MA P ) .  Th e   M e m b e r   St ate   a n d   t h e   Co m-
m i s s i o n   c a n   m u t u a l l y   a g re e   o n   t h e   p r i o r i t y   t re a t m e n t   o f   t h e 
case, on the infor mation to be provided by the M ember State, 
o n   t h e   l i k e l y   fo r m   a n d   t h e   d u r a t i o n   o f   t h e   a s s e s s m e n t   m a d e 
b y   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n .   I n   re t u r n   fo r   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e’s   e f fo r t s 
in providing all the necessar y information in a timely manner, 
the Commission will endeavour to respect the mutually agreed 
time frame when investigating the case. No indications of MAP 
we re foun d for  any o f th e cases  re v ie we d d ur in g  t he  audi t. 

t h e  n e w   r e f i n e d  e c o n o m i c  a p p r o a c h  i s  i n s u f f i c i e n t l y  c l e a r  t o  t h e 
s t a k e h o l d e r s 

55.  

T h e   n e w   a r c h i t e c t u r e   s e t   o u t   i n   t h e   2 0 0 5   S A A P   ( s e e   p a r a -
g r a p h   6 )   i s   b a s e d   o n   a  ‘ 3 - s t r e a m   s y s t e m’ :   b l o c k   e x e m p t i o n , 
s t a n d a r d   a s s e s s m e n t   a n d   d e t a i l e d   a s s e s s m e n t .   I n   p r i n c i p l e , 
State aid measures notified to the Commission are to be scru-
tinis ed  ap pl ying  a  s t andard  ass ess me nt.   D et ail ed   a ss es sme nt 
app l ies  to a smal l  numb er  o f spe c if i c c as es  (e. g.  cer tai n larg e 
inves tm ent p rojec ts ).

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

29

56.  

57.  

58.  

59.  

Such detailed assessment may include a refined economic ana
lysis 22, designed to provide the Commission with a robust ana
lysis of the likely economic impac t of a State aid. This focuses 
on a ‘balancing test ’. ‘ The assessment of the compatibility of an 
aid is fundamentally about balancing its negative effec ts with 
i t s   p o s i t i ve   e f fe c t s   i n   te r m s   o f   a   co nt r i b u t i o n   to   t h e   a c h i e ve -
ment of well- defined objec tives of common interest.’  23 

T h e s e   n e w   a r r a n g e m e n t s   h a v e ,   h o w e v e r,   r a i s e d   c o n c e r n s 
am o ng  st ake ho l ders,  w ho have var i ed  v ie ws  on  t h e ef fec t ive -
n e s s   o f   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n’s   re f i n e d   e c o n o m i c   a p p r o a c h .   S o m e 
b e l i e v e d   t h a t   i t   o n l y   p r o l o n g s   t h e   a p p r o v a l   p r o c e d u r e   a n d 
creates more uncer tainty, whilst others found it a positive way 
to examine the real impac t of the proposed measure and were 
disap p ointed  that the Co mmiss ion  di d  not  use  i t m ore. 

22  The staff working paper 
‘Common principles for an 

economic assessment of the 

compatibility of State aid 

under Article 87.3 EC-Treaty’, 

6 May 2009 explains the 

methodology used by the 

Commission in examining cases 

submitted to a refined economic 

analysis (http://ec.europa.eu/

competition/state_aid/reform/

reform.html).

23  Paragraph 9 of the Common 
principles for an economic 

assessment of the compatibility 

of State aid under Article 87.3 

EC-Treaty.

The Commission carried out a public consultation on this issue 
in 2009 and published the results of this exercise in early 2011. 
H owe ve r,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   n o t   ye t   re s p o n d e d   to   t h e   co n -
ce r ns a bo u t the  refined econ om ic approac h  ex pres se d in  t hi s 
consu ltatio n. Succes sfu l o perati on of the  st ate  ai d regime re -
q u i r e s   a   h i g h   d e g r e e   o f   m u t u a l   u n d e r s t a n d i n g   b e t w e e n   t h e 
Co mm issio n and  s takeh older s in  M embe r  State s.

t h e  s i m p l i f i e d  p r o c e d u r e  i n t r o d u c e d  i n  2009  w a s  l i t t l e  u s e d  s o  f a r

 A Simplified Procedure (SP) was introduced ‘to examine within 
an accelerated timeframe cer tain types of State suppor t meas -
u r e s   w h i c h   o n l y   r e q u i r e   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   t o   v e r i f y   t h a t   t h e 
m e a s u r e   i s   i n   a c c o r d a n c e   w i t h   e x i s t i n g   r u l e s   a n d   p r a c t i c e s 
wit ho ut   exercisin g  any  disc retiona r y   powe r s’.  Thi s  m ay  prove 
to be a useful initiative but it is difficult to judge its effec tive -
ne ss  as  it has been  l it tl e us ed so f ar. 

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

30

60.  

In  2 010,   the  SP   was   u sed  fo r  21   c a se s.   Th is   is   l es s  t han   4  %  of 
the total number of notifications received. Its limited use can 
be  asc ribe d to  th e f ol l o w ing fac tor s :

 ο The  Com mis sio n res er ves  t he r ight  to re ve r t  to th e  n or ma l 
p ro ce d u re   i f   o n e   o f   t h e   s a fe g u a rd s / exc l u s i o n s   fo re s e e n   i n 
t he N ot ice o n S imp lified Proce dure  applie s;

 ο M emb e r  State s  are  rel u c tant   to  us e  SP   be c aus e,  unli k e   for 
normal notifications, a summar y of the notification is pub -
lished on the Commission website, which gives the possibil-
it y for  inte re ste d p ar ties to s ubm it  o bse r vati ons ;

 ο The  st r ic t  co ndit io ns  for applic at io n of  th e S P;

 ο The SP only applies to straightfor ward notified cases, which 
are u su all y ap p roved w ithin  six mont h s  i n th e  n or m al pro -
ced ure any way ;

 ο T h e   S P   m u s t   b e   p re c e d e d   by   c o m p u l s o r y   p re - n o t i f i c a t i o n 

(PN ) cont ac t s. 

CO M P L A I N T S 	 CO N T I N U E 	TO 	TA K E 	 A 	 LO N G 	T I M E 	TO	
R E S O LV E 	 A N D 	T H E 	 P R O C E D U R E 	 I S 	 N OT 	T R A N S PA R E N T

61.   Competitors or other interested par ties who believe that a cer-
t a i n   m e a s u re   co n s t i t u te s   S t a te   a i d   c a n   co m p l a i n   to   t h e   Co m-
m i s s i o n .   A   co m p l a i nt   fo r m   i s   ava i l a b l e   o n   t h e   Eu ro p e a n   Co m -
mission’s  website  and  can  either  be  filled  in  online  or  sent  by 
p o s t ,   m a k i n g   i t   re l a t i ve l y   e a s y   t o   l o d g e   a   c o m p l a i n t .   S e ve r a l 
complaints fall outside the remit of Competition DG’s compe -
tence and are either closed af ter a limited examination of the 
co m p l a i n t   o r   t ra n s fe r re d   to   a n o t h e r   D G   s u c h   a s  Ta x a t i o n   a n d 
Customs Union DG. S ome complaints received and handled by 
Competition DG are not motivated by concerns about potential 
distor tion of competition, but by e.g. environmental concerns.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

31

62.  

 Both the number of complaints received and the stock of pend-
ing  complaints  have  r isen  steadily  dur ing  the  per iod  2006–10 
( s e e   F i g u r e   6 ) .   H a l f   w e r e   p e n d i n g   f o r   m o r e   t h a n   o n e   y e a r 2 4, 
a l m o s t   a   q u a r t e r   fo r   m o re   t h a n   t wo   ye a r s   a n d   a   fe w   e ve n   fo r 
more  than  five  years. The  back log  is  par ticular ly  impor tant  in 
the area of transpor t. These cases were taken over by Competi-
tion DG from Energy and Transpor t DG in ear ly 2010 following 
the reorganisation of the Commissioners’ por tfolios.

63.  

There are no legally binding deadlines for complaint handling 
whereas for notifications stric t deadlines apply. Never theless, 
A r t i c l e   1 0   o f   t h e   Pro ce d u ra l   R e g u l at i o n   o b l i g e s   t h e   Co m m i s -
sio n to  examine  t he co mp l aints  ‘ wit h out  de lay ’. 

64.   Non-priority complaints are often dealt with at times when the 
responsible case handler does not have more urgent wor k . As 
a result, both the preliminar y and the formal investigation can 
take a long time. Ten cases 25 out of the 30 complaints reviewed 
by  the   Co ur t   were  not   dec ided  or   clos ed   wi th in   t wo  yea r s.   I n 
several cases no ac tion was taken for more than a year. Half of 
all CP cases are not decided within one year 26 and the majority 
o f   fo r m a l   i nv e s t i g a t i o n   p r o c e d u r e s   a l s o   t a k e   m o r e   t h a n   o n e 
ye a r.   Co m p l a i n a n t s   h ave   t h e   p o s s i b i l i t y   t o   b r i n g   t h e   c a s e   t o 
t h e   Co u r t   o f   J u s t i c e   o f   t h e   Eu ro p e a n   U n i o n   fo r   f a i l u re   to   a c t 
(Ar t icl e  2 65  T FE U),  b ut o nl y  in  a few case s  h ave t h ey  d one  s o. 

24  Compared to 192 on 
1.1.2008, 233 on 1.1.2009 and 

270 on 30.10.2010, showing a 

continuous increase.

25  This number can still increase 
as some cases are still pending.

26  Source: Commission Indicators 
for State aid. These statistics 

actually underestimate the time 

needed to examine a complaint, 

as some CP cases are closed 

either by transferring the case 

to another DG or by opening a 

formal investigation procedure. 

In both scenarios the closure of 

the CP case is not the end of the 

procedure from the point of view 

of the complainant.

F I G U R E 	 6

INCREASING 	NUMBER	OF	COMPL AIN TS	

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

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Pending complaints at year-end

Complaints received

CP cases pending for more than one year

Source: European Commission.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

 
 
32

65.  

66.  

67.  

 I n   s ix  cases   in  t he  Cou r t ’s   s am ple  of   3 0   com plai nts,   th e   Com-
miss ion  did  n ot   for ward  the  com plai nt   wit h in   t wo  month s  to 
the  M emb er State w ith a request  for  in for mati on . I n 1 1  c as e s, 
the  M emb er St ate and /o r th e compl ain ant were  n ot in for m ed 
a b o u t   t h e   p r o g r e s s   o f   t h e   c a s e   f o r   m o r e   t h a n   o n e   y e a r.   I n 
s i x   c a s e s   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e   a n d / o r   t h e   c o m p l a i n a n t   w a s   n o t 
i n fo r m e d   a b o u t   t h e   c l o s u re   o f   t h e   c a s e,   c a u s i n g   l e g a l   u n ce r-
t a i n t y   a s   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   d o   n o t   k n o w   i f   t h e y   a r e   a l l o w e d   t o 
contin ue  grantin g the aid o r n ot.

27  COM(2010) 282 final of 
3 June 2010 — Report from 

the Commission — Report 

on Competition Policy 2009, 

SEC(2010) 666. 

Th e   l a te   o p e n i n g   o r   l a c k   o f   o p e n i n g   o f   t h e   fo r m a l   i nve s t i g a -
tion procedure also reduces the transparenc y of the procedure 
as  th ird p ar tie s are o nly  info r me d about  t he  cas e  an d g e t th e 
o p p o r t u n i t y   to   co m m e nt   a f te r   t h e   p u b l i c at i o n   i n   t h e   O f f i c i a l 
Jou r n al  o f the  dec ision to o pen a for ma l i nves ti gati on proce -
d u r e   ( t w o   t o   s i x   m o n t h s   a f t e r   t h e   d e c i s i o n   h a s   b e e n   t a k e n ) . 
Pu b l i c a t i o n   i s   o f te n   d e l aye d   by   t h e   re q u i re m e n t   to   t r a n s l a te 
t h e   d e c i s i o n   i n   a l l   o f f i c i a l   E U   l a n g u a g e s   a n d   b y   t h e   n e e d   t o 
pro du ce a non - co nfidential  versi on  of  th e  de cis ion. 

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   t r i e s   t o   c l o s e   u n f o u n d e d   c o m p l a i n t   c a s e s 
without an official Commission decision taken by the College. 
I f the Commission is of the opinion that there are insufficient 
ele me nt s  to  s up po r t   the  existen ce  of   un lawf ul  ai d,   a  le tter   i s 
s e n t   to   t h e   co m p l a i n a n t .  Th e   co m p l a i n a n t   m ay   o n   t h a t   b a s i s 
decide not to pursue his complaint, which will then be deemed 
to have been withdrawn. Only for a minority of complaints has 
suc h  a  l et ter  b een   sent  w ith in   1 2   month s  af te r   th e  com plaint 
wa s l o dg ed.

E N F O R C E M E N T 	 O F 	 R E CO V E R Y 	 D E C I S I O N S	

68.   R e c o v e r y   o f   u n l a w f u l   S t a t e   a i d   h a s   n o t   b e e n   c o n c e i v e d   a s 
p e n a l t y,   b u t   a s   a   m e a n s   to   re s to re   t h e   s i t u a t i o n   p re v i o u s   to 
t h e   gra nt i n g   o f   t h e   i l l e g a l   a n d   u n l aw f u l   a i d ’. 2 7 Th i s   o b j e c t i ve 
is obtained once the aid (plus interest) is repaid by the recipi-
e n t   w h o   e n j o y e d   a n   a d v a n t a g e   o v e r   i t s   c o m p e t i t o r s   o n   t h e 
m a r k e t.  Th e   M e m b e r   St ate   m u s t   t a k e   a l l   n e ce s s a r y   m e a s u re s 
to recover the aid from the beneficiar y in accordance with its 
n at i o n a l   p ro ce d u re s.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

33

69.  

E f fe c t i v e   e n fo r c e m e n t   o f   S t a t e   a i d   r e c o v e r y   d e c i s i o n s   i s   e s -
sential for the credibilit y of the Commission’s State aid polic y, 
a n d   i t   i s   c o n s i d e re d   a s   a   p r i o r i t y   u n d e r   t h e   S t a t e   A i d   Ac t i o n 
Plan  (SAA P) (see p aragrap h 6 ). 

t h e  c o m m i s s i o n  h a s  h a l v e d  t h e  n u m b e r  o f  a c t i v e  p e n d i n g  r e c o v e r y 
c a s e s  s i n c e  2005

Since 2003, recover y decisions have been followed up by a spe -
cialised team. The Commission managed to reduce the number 
of  ac t ive  pe nding  recover y c ases  f rom a h i g h of  9 4  at th e  en d 
of  2005 to 41 at  t he end  of 2 01 0  ( se e Fi gu re  7) .

The number of pending recover y cases continued its downward 
t r e n d   i n   2 0 0 8 – 1 0 ,   a l b e i t   a t   a   s l o w e r   p a c e.  T h i s   i s   d u e   t o   t h e 
‘prov isio nal  clo su re’ of 1 3 recove r y  c as e s 28.

70.  

71.  

28  Since July 2008, 
the Commission provisionally 

closes ‘recovery cases for which 

the Member State has adopted 

all the necessary measures 

available in its national system, 

but recovery cannot be 

considered as fully executed. 

Provisionally closed recovery 

cases can be reopened, in 

particular when the judgment 

on which the provisional closure 

was based is overruled.

F I G U R E 	 7

THE	TREND	IN	TH E	NUMBER	OF	PEN DING	RECOVERY 	C ASE S

s
e
s
a
c
y
r
e
v
o
c
e
r

f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

100

80

60

40

20

0

June 
2004

Dec 
2004

June 
2005

Dec 
2005

June 
2006

Dec 
2006

June 
2007

Dec 
2007

June 
2008

Dec 
2008

June 
2009

Dec 
2009

June 
2010

Dec 
2010

Pending active recovery cases

Provisionally closed recovery cases

Source: European Commission.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

 
 
 
29  Some of those procedures 
include more than one Court 

case.

34

72.  

73.  

e n f o r c e m e n t  o f  m a n y  r e c o v e r y   d e c i s i o n s  t a k e s  t o o  l o n g

Fe w   Co m m i s s i o n   re cove r y   d e c i s i o n s   a re   e xe c u te d   w i t h i n   t h e 
fo u r   m o n t h s   d e a d l i n e   s e t   by   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n .   M o s t   re cove r y 
d e c i s i o n s   a r e   r e f e r r e d   t o   t h e   C o u r t   o f   J u s t i c e   e i t h e r   b y   t h e 
M e m b e r   S t ate   a n d / o r   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r y   ( a c t i o n   fo r   a n n u l m e n t ) 
a n d / o r   b y   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   ( a c t i o n   fo r   n o n - c o m p l i a n c e   w i t h 
Commission decision). Since 2005, the Commission has filed a 
Cour t ac tion against several Member States which failed to im-
plement a recover y decision. Since 2009, the Commission has 
als o  lau nche d  six  inf r ingement  proced ure s 29  aga in st  M ember 
States  w ho  have  n ot  taken th e n e ce ss ar y me as ures  to comply 
with the judgment of the Cour t of Justice, ask ing it to impose 
a f ine  or p enal t y.

S o m e   o l d   r e c o v e r y   c a s e s   a r e   p e n d i n g   fo r   1 0   t o   2 0   y e a r s   b e -
c a u s e   o f   t h e   l e n g t hy   p ro ce d u re s   b e fo re   b o t h   n at i o n a l   co u r t s 
(M ember State versus beneficiar y) and Cour t of Justice of the 
Eu ro p e a n   U n i o n   (Co m m i s s i o n   ve r s u s   M e m b e r   S t a t e ) .  T h e   av-
e ra g e   a g e   o f   t h e   4 1   p e n d i n g   re cove r y   c a s e s   i n   J u l y   2 0 1 0   wa s 
almost five years. Four teen of them are pending for 10 or more 
ye a r s.   S e ve ra l   o t h e r   p rov i s i o n a l l y   c l o s e d   c a s e s   a re   a l s o   m o re 
t h a n   1 0   ye a r s   o l d.  T h e   Co m m i s s i o n’s   e n fo rc e m e n t   o b j e c t i ve, 
to close or bring to Cour t the recover y cases within t wo years, 
wa s m et in 2008– 10  in  onl y about  h alf  of  th e  case s. The  t re n d 
has improved dur ing this per iod (from 28  % in the first half of 
20 08 to  57 % in  th e seco nd half of  2 0 10) .

74.   A n o t h e r   r e a s o n   f o r   t h e   l e n g t h y   r e c o v e r y   p r o c e d u r e s   i s   t h e 
d i f f i c u l t y   to   i d e nt i f y   a l l   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   o f   a i d   s c h e m e s   a n d   t h e 
e x a c t   a m o u n t   o f   t h e   a i d   t o   b e   re c ove re d.  Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   i s 
not   l eg all y  required  to   fix  th e  exac t   am ount  to  be  recove re d, 
but usually specifies the method to be used by Member States 
to calculate the amounts to be recovered. Some Member States 
wo ul d  wel co me more hel p  from  th e  Com mis s ion  in  e st abli sh-
in g t he  amou nt to  b e recovered.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

35

P R O M P T 	 R E AC T I O N 	 BY 	T H E 	 CO M M I S S I O N 	TO	 	
T H E 	 F I N A N C I A L 	 C R I S I S	

t h e  a p p r o v a l  p r o c e d u r e   w a s  r a p i d

75.   Urge nt  c r isis c ases  have b een h an dl ed  much  f as te r  t han  non -
crisis cases by relying on less formal correspondence with the 
Member States and more informal exchange of information by 
p h o n e   c a l l s   a n d   e - m a i l s.   M a ny   M e m b e r   S t a te s   a l s o   a c c e p t e d 
to receive correspondence and decisions in English (language 
wa iver)  in  o rder   to   sp eed  up   th e  proce dure   an d  ben e fi ciar ie s 
w e r e   i n v o l v e d   m o r e   c l o s e l y   i n   t h e   p r o c e d u r e .   S e v e r a l   c a s e s 
we re so l ved wit hin d ays.

76.   While the additional wor k load was initially absor bed through 
over t ime, Co mp etitio n D G  mana ge d to more  t h an  double  th e 
number of case handlers dealing with aid to the financial sec -
tor in  2009 by  creat ing a Finan cial  Cr is is  Task  Force.

77.  

78.  

t h e  c o m m i s s i o n  i s s u e d  s p e c i f i c  g u i d a n c e  f o r  c r i s i s- r e l a t e d   
a i d  m e a s u r e s 

I n   re s p o n s e   to   t h e   u rg e n c y   o f   t h e   s i t u at i o n ,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n 
quick ly adopted specific guidance on State aid to the financial 
sector 30, complementing the existing Rescue and Restructuring 
Guid el ines 31.  This g u id ance  was welcomed by M e mbe r  St ate s, 
b u t   t h e r e   w a s   a l s o   s o m e   c r i t i c i s m   c o n c e r n i n g   t h e   r o o m   f o r 
inte r p retat io n o f cer tain con dition s.

 The Commission’s rapid response and pragmatic attitude con -
t r i b u t e d   t o   a v o i d i n g   t h e   b a n k r u p t c y   o f   a n y   m a j o r   f i n a n c i a l 
institution headquar tered in the EU. The system of provisional 
a p p r o v a l   o f   t h e   a i d   fo r   a   p e r i o d   o f   s i x   m o n t h s,   m a d e   i t   p o s -
sib le   to  give  aid   qu ick ly   an d  legal ly,   ret ain i ng   t he   pos si bili t y 
to  examine  t he case in more det ail  later.

30   Communications from 
the Commission on:  

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, p. 8); 

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, p. 2); 

The treatment of impaired asset 

in the Community banking 

sector (OJ C 72, 26.3.2009, p. 1); 

The return to viability and the 

assessment of restructuring 

measures in the financial sector 

in the current crisis under 

the State aid rules (OJ C 195, 

19.8.2009, p. 9).

31   Communication from the 
Commission — Community 

Guidelines on State aid for 

rescuing and restructuring  

firms in difficulty (OJ C 244, 

1.10.2004, p. 2).

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

36

t h e  c o m m i s s i o n  s o u g h t  t o  p r e s e r v e   a  l e v e l   p l a y i n g  f i e l d 

79.  

To prevent financial institutions from using the aid to strength-
en th eir mar ket  p os ition to  th e det r i me nt  of compe ti tor s, t h e 
Co mm issio n  had   to  loo k  into  th e   cond it ion s   und er   wh ic h   t h e 
aid was provided to the banks. I n cer tain cases, this led to the 
d i ve s t m e n t   o f   c e r t a i n   a c t i v i t i e s   a n d / o r   e n d i n g   c e r t a i n   p r a c -
tices (for instance a price -leadership ban). Member States and 
aid beneficiaries are required to submit periodic (mostly quar-
ter ly  o r  biannu al ) imp l ementation  re por t s.

80.   C o m p e t i t i o n   D G ’s   Fi n a n c i a l   C r i s i s  Ta s k   Fo r c e   c l o s e l y   fo l l o w s 
u p   t h e   d e c i s i o n s   i n   t h e   m a i n   re s c u e   a n d   re s t r u c t u r i n g   c a s e s 
of  finan cia l inst itu tions. I n  some of t he se  c ase s, s low or  i na d -
equate implementation of the conditions or the commitments 
g i v e n   w a s   n o t e d ,   b u t   t h e s e   a n o m a l i e s   w e r e   b r o u g h t   t o   t h e 
at tenti on of  t he  M emb er State con ce r n e d a nd  fol lowe d up by 
Co mp et it ion DG’s  ser vices. 

32  Temporary Community 
framework for State aid 

measures to support access 

to finance in the current 

financial and economic crisis 

(OJ C 83, 7.4.2009, p. 1); as 

further amended by (OJ C 261, 

31.10.2009, p. 2), and (OJ C 303, 

15.12.2009, p. 6). 

33  Which is not included in 
the statistics as de minimis  

aid is considered not to be aid 

according to the definition of 

Article 107(1) TFEU. 

t h e  u p t a k e  o f  t h e  t e m p o r a r y  f r a m e w o r k   i n t e n d e d  t o  f a c i l i t a t e  a i d 
t o  t h e  r e a l   e c o n o m y  w a s  l i m i t e d

81.   As  p ar t o f the  Eu ro p ean Eco nomi c  R ecove r y Pla n,  on  1 9  Ja nu-
a r y   2 0 0 9   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a p p r o v e d   a  Te m p o r a r y   Fr a m e w o r k 
( TF) 32  ( see   B ox   2)  to   give  M e mbe r  States  add itio nal   poss i bili-
t i e s   t o   a d d r e s s   t h e   e f fe c t s   o f   t h e   c r e d i t   s q u e e z e   o n   t h e   r e a l 
economy and to maintain continuit y in the companies’ access 
to fina nce.  Wit h t he excep tion  of  t he  pos si bil it y  to grant  li m -
ited amounts of up to 500 000 euro as compatible aid 33, which 
wa s wel co med by mo st M e mber State s,  an d ai d i n t he  for m  of 
guarante es, the  upt ake o f the TF was  lim ited. 

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

37

82.   M o st  p o ssib il ities  p rovided by  th e  T F were  on ly  us e d by  a  mi-
nority of Member States and moreover Member States granted 
in 2009 only 2,7  % of the approved volume of the TF schemes. 
O n e   o f   t h e   r e a s o n s   w a s   t h a t   t h e   d u r a t i o n   o f   t h e   T F   w a s   t o o 
s h o r t   ( l e s s   t h a n   t w o   y e a r s,   u n t i l   t h e   e n d   o f   D e c e m b e r   2 0 1 0 ) 
to allow M ember States to elaborate, approve and implement 
aid  me asures  under t he TF. 

83.   On 1 D ecemb er  20 10 , th e Com mis si on  prolon g ed  th e T F unt il 
31 D ecember 2011, but with str ic ter conditions and a gradual 
phasing- out. Since 1 Januar y 2011, ever y bank requiring State 
suppor t (in the form of capital or impaired asset measures) has 
to  su bm it  a rest ruc t ur ing p l an to  th e  Comm is si on.

B O X 	 2

THE	TEMPOR ARY	FR AME WORK

As announced in its European Economic Recovery Plan, the Commission introduced a number of 
temporary measures to allow Member States to address the exceptional difficulties of companies 
to obtain finance. The TF allows Member States to grant, under certain conditions and until the 
end of 2010:

(a)  Grants of limited amounts of up to 500 000 euro per company over a period of three years;

(b) State guarantees for loans at a reduced premium;

(c)  Subsidised loans, in particular for the production of green products;

(d) Risk capital aid to 2,5 million euro per SME per year.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

38

M O N I TO R I N G 	 BY 	T H E 	 CO M M I S S I O N	

84.  

The Commission publishes each year a State aid Scoreboard as-
sessing the progress made towards reaching the Lisbon objec-
tives of less and more targeted State aid and also assesses the 
im p ac t  o f it s State aid  co ntrol on  an  ad  h oc bas is. Paragraph s 
85 to 95 assess whether the data collec ted by the Commission 
i s   re l i a b l e   a n d   e x h a u s t i ve,   a s   we l l   a s   w h e t h e r   t h e   i m p a c t   a s -
ses sme nt  car r ied o ut  by t he Com mi ss ion  i s  suf fi c ie nt.

34  Set by the Implementing 
Regulation No 794/2004.

85. 	

86. 	

T H E 	 S TAT E 	 A I D 	 D ATA 	 P R O V I D E D 	 BY 	T H E 	 M E M B E R 	 S TAT E S	
I S 	 I N CO M P L E T E 	 A N D 	 I N S U F F I C I E N T LY 	 R E L I A B L E

t h e r e  a r e  p r o b l e m s  i n  o b t a i n i n g  s t a t e  a i d  d a t a  f r o m  m e m b e r  s t a t e s 

In the first quar ter of the year, the Commission sends a spread-
sheet to the Member States, for completion with the figures of 
t h e   a c t u a l   St ate   a i d   ex p e n d i t u re   fo r   e a c h   o f   t h e   l i s te d   m e a s -
ures granted during the previous year. The data received from 
the  M emb er States  are o f var yin g quali t y  an d  th e  S coreboa rd 
team (see paragraph 90) spends a lot of time check ing the data 
an d ad din g missing  amounts. M ost  st ak e h olde r s cons id er  t h e 
cu r rent  S core board p ro cedu re a s  ver y  re source - inten s ive. 

 Several stakeholders repor ted problems in obtaining data from 
regional and local public authorities, as in most Member States 
the State aid coordination body in the national or federal M in-
ist r y  d oe s  no t   h ave  any  control  or   s uper v is or y   auth or i t y   ove r 
regio nal   or  lo c al   g over n ment s.  As   a  res ul t,   th e   State   a id   dat a 
provided by the Member States and used by the Commission is 
likely to be incomplete, but the Commission’s State aid Score -
board  doe s no t co nt ain any res er vat ion s.

87. 	 M a ny   M e m b e r   St ate s   a re   l ate   i n   p rov i d i n g   t h e   d at a ,   b u t   o n l y 
o n e   i n f r i n g e m e n t   p r o c e d u r e   h a s   b e e n   l a u n c h e d   f o r   n o t   r e -
s p e c t i n g   t h e   d e a d l i n e   s o   f a r 3 4.   O n e   o f   t h e   m a i n   p r o b l e m s   i s 
t h at   t h e   ce nt ra l   St ate   a i d   co o rd i n at i o n   u n i t   ( i f   a ny )   d o e s   n o t 
have a n eff ic ient centralis ed sys te m m ak in g  it  poss ible  to d i-
rec tly produce the data requested by the Commission, but has 
to  ob t ain it  from a l arge nu mber   of  aid - grant in g  auth or i ti es.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

39

s e v e r a l   t y p e s  o f  a i d  a r e   e x c l u d e d  f r o m   t h e  s t a t e  a i d  s t a t i s t i c s 

88. 	

The Scoreboard covers State aid as defined under Ar ticle 107(1) 
TFEU granted by M ember States dur ing the repor ted year (see 
paragraphs 3 to 4). This definition is nar rower than the defini-
tion used by most M ember States in their national repor ts. 

35  COM(2010) 701 final.

89. 	 Aid  to  t he rail ways  sec tor is excl ud ed,  e ven  th ough  more  an d 
mo re   natio nal   rail way  m ar kets  have   be en   ope n ed   up  to  com-
petition. As one of the most impor tant aid-receiving sec tors is 
excluded, the State aid data provided to and published by the 
Commission cannot be considered complete. The Autumn 2010 
S t a t e   A i d   S c o r e b o a r d   fo r   t h e   f i r s t   t i m e   m e n t i o n s   t h a t   a i d   t o 
rail ways  is  repo r ted  by  M ember   State s  to  amount  to  3 3 , 1   bi l-
lion euro or 0,3 % of EU-27 GDP in 2009, but it does not include 
aid  to  rail ways in its  tot al s  for  la ck  of  compa ra ble  data 35.

t h e  c a l c u l a t i o n  m e t h o d  f o r  s o m e  t y p e s  o f  a i d  i s  q u e s t i o n a b l e

90.   After having received the spreadsheets completed by the Mem-
ber States, the Scoreboard team of Competition DG carries out 
a   s e r i e s   o f   c h e c k s   to   d e te c t   p o te n t i a l   a n o m a l i e s,   i n c l u d i n g   a 
co m p a r i s o n   o f   t h e   d at a   p rov i d e d   by   t h e   M e m b e r   S t ate s   w i t h 
the  ap proved b udg et and p revious  year s’ amounts. 

91.   H o we ve r,   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   e n c o u n t e r   d i f f i c u l t i e s   i n   p ro v i d i n g 
t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w i t h   r e l i a b l e   b u d g e t   e s t i m a t e s   i n   t h e   S A N I 
n o t i f i c at i o n .   I n   m a ny   c a s e s   i t   i s   u n k n ow n   h ow   s u cce s s f u l   t h e 
m e a s u re   w i l l   b e.   S o m e   a i d - gr a n t o r s   s ys te m a t i c a l l y   i n p u t   t h e 
e x p e c t e d   e x p e n d i t u r e   f o r   t h e   f i r s t   y e a r   o n l y,   i n s t e a d   o f   t h e 
budget for the entire period as requested by the Commission. 

92.  

The method used by the Commission to calculate the value of 
s o m e   t y p e s   o f   a i d,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   a i d   to   t h e   f i n a n c i a l   s e c to r,   i s 
s o m e w h a t   a r b i t r a r y.   Fo r   t a x   m e a s u r e s,   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   o f t e n 
provide b ud get  es timates as it  is  n ot fea sible to ca lculate t he 
real amount because of the complexit y of the legal framework 
an d t he l arge n umb er of b en eficia r i es. 

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

40

s o m e  c h a n g e s  i n  t h e  d e f i n i t i o n  o f  s t a t e  a i d  h a m p e r  t h e 
c o m p a r a b i l i t y  o f  t h e  s t a t i s t i c s  o v e r   t i m e

93.  

The comparabilit y of the data bet ween different years suffers 
from changes in the legislation and in the presentation of the 
f i g u re s.   Fo r   e x a m p l e,   t h e   grow i n g   i m p o r t a n c e   o f   a n d   t h e   i n -
creases in the ceiling 36 for de minimis aid, introduced a down-
ward bias in the evolution of the State aid figures repor ted by 
M ember States, mak ing comparison bet ween successive years 
mo re  dif ficul t.

T H E 	 N U M B E R 	 O F 	 E X 	 A N T E 	 E VA LUAT I O N S 	 H A S 	 B E E N	
L I M I T E D 	 A N D 	T H E 	 CO M M I S S I O N 	 D O E S 	 N OT 	 H AV E 	 A N	 	
E X 	 P O S T 	 E VA LUAT I O N 	 F U N C T I O N	

94.  

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n’s   g u i d e l i n e s   r e q u i r e   a n   e x   a n t e   i m p a c t   a s -
ses sme nt  ‘for  t he  mos t  imp o r tant   Com mi ss ion   i ni ti ati ve s   an d 
t h o s e   w h i c h   w i l l   h ave   t h e   m o s t   f a r- re a c h i n g   i m p a c t s’.   B y   t h e 
end of 2010, a number were in the pipeline and t wo had been 
final ised 37.

95.   An Evaluation Unit was created as par t of the 2007 reorganisa-
t i o n   o f   Co m p e t i t i o n   D G   b u t   d i s s o l ve d   o n e   ye a r   l ate r   w i t h o u t 
h av i n g   d o n e   a ny   s i gn i f i c a nt   wo r k   i n   t h e   d o m a i n   o f   St ate   a i d. 
I n  201 0  Co mp et it ion   DG  l au nc h ed   a   proje c t  to  de vel op  a n ‘ ex 
p o s t   a s s e s s m e n t ’  f u n c t i o n   t o   e v a l u a t e   t h e   a c t u a l   i m p a c t   o f 
Competition DG’s existing policies in the relevant markets and 
to lear n from past exper iences. B y the end of 2010 the ex post 
as s essm ent  fun c tion was n ot ye t ope rati on al. 

36  Initially set at 100 000 euro 
Commission Regulation (EC)  

No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 

on the application of Articles 87 

and 88 of the EC Treaty to de 

minimis aid (OJ L 10,13.1.2001, 

p. 30), increased to 200 000 euro 

as from 2007 (by Commission 

Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006, 

see above). De minimis aid is 

considered not to constitute 

State aid and most Member 

States do not collect any data 

on it.

37  Commission staff working 
document — Impact 

assessment accompanying 

the Communication from the 

Commission on the application 

of State aid rules to public 

service broadcasting,  

SEC(2009) 893 and Summary 

SEC(2009) 892.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS

41

T H E 	 CO M M I S S I O N 	 H A S 	 I N S U F F I C I E N T	
A S S U R A N C E 	T H AT 	 I T 	 D E A L S 	W I T H 	 A L L	
R E L E VA N T 	 S TAT E 	 A I D 	 C A S E S	

96.   M os t M e mbe r States’ s ys tems do  no t prov i de  suff i ci ent  assu r-
a n ce   t h at   t h e   d u t y   to   n o t i f y   St ate   a i d   i s   re s p e c te d.   Al t h o u g h 
the Commission has taken some steps to enhance the coopera-
t i o n   w i t h   M e m b e r   St ate s   re g a rd i n g   t h e i r   n o t i f i c at i o n   o b l i g a -
tion, these have not been sufficient. There are some occasional 
ex o ff icio  enqu ir ies, b ut  th e Com mi ss ion  d oes  not  d o e noug h 
to detec t cases that should have been notified, mainly relying 
on complaints by third par ties. Legally it cannot systematically 
re v i e w   M e m b e r   S t a te s’  p ro ce d u re s   to   e n s u re   t h e i r   re l i a b i l i t y 
a n d   i t s   m o n i to r i n g   a c t i v i t i e s   a re   l i m i te d.   As   a   re s u l t,   t h e re   i s 
a r is k o f St ate  aid go ing u ndetec ted.

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 1

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   r e v i e w   t h e   a l l o c a t i o n   a n d   u s e   o f 
the resources devote d to it s management of St ate aid, with 
a v i ew  to:

(a) adopting a more proac tive stance in its relationship with 
M e m b e r St ate s an d m ak in g m o re  e f f o r t s  to r ais e aw are -
n e s s   a b o u t   St a t e   a i d   r u l e s   b y   s p r e a d i n g   b e s t   p r a c t i c e s 
an d  gi v in g  m o re p r a c ti c al gui dan ce; 

(b)  s t e p p i n g   u p   i t s   m o n i t o r i n g   a c t i v i t i e s ,   b o t h   i n   t e r m s   o f 

s amp l e si z e an d o f s co p e;

(c) o rg anisin g  i t s  e x  o f f i ci o   e n quir i e s  in   a   m o re   s y s te m ati c 

an d  t arg e te d w ay  to  d e te c t  ill e g al  ai d .

S TAT E 	 A I D 	 P R O C E D U R E S ,	 I N 	 PA R T I C U L A R 	 F O R	
CO M P L A I N T S ,	 S T I L L 	TA K E 	 A 	 LO N G 	T I M E 	 A N D	
L AC K 	T R A N S PA R E N C Y	

97.   Al t h o u g h   m a ny   o f   t h e   o p e rat i o n a l   e l e m e nt s   o f   t h e   c a s e   h a n -
d l i n g   a r e   w e l l   m a n a g e d   a n d   t h e   f i n a n c i a l   c r i s i s   c a s e s   w e r e 
h a n d l e d   q u i c k l y,   t h e   a p p r o v a l   p r o c e d u r e   f o r   m a n y   n o t i f i e d 
S t a t e   a i d   m e a s u r e s   r e m a i n s   l e n g t h y.   C o m p l a i n t   h a n d l i n g   i s 
p a r t i c u l a r l y   p r o b l e m a t i c .   T h e   c o m b i n a t i o n   o f   a n   i n c r e a s i n g 
num be r o f co mp l aint s, l eng thy proce dure s a nd  th e  low pr ior-
it y  given to  many  com p laints, h as  led  to a growin g  bac k l og.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

42

98.  

T h e   l o n g   d u r a t i o n   o f   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n’s   i nv e s t i g a t i o n   p r o c e -
dures and the lack of information given to stakeholders about 
the  p ro gress du r ing  the co u rse of  th e  proce dure  lea d to le g al 
unce r t aint y.

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 2

(a) W i t h   a   v i e w   t o   i n c r e a s i n g   t r a n s p a r e n c y   a n d   s p e e d i n g 
u p   t h e   d e c i s i o n   p r o c e s s ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   m a k e 
a b in din g co mm i t m e nt to cl os e th e p re lim in ar y inve s ti -
g a t i o n   b y   e i t h e r   t a k i n g   a   d e c i s i o n   o r   o p e n i n g   a   f o r m a l 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n   p r o c e d u r e   w i t h i n   o n e   y e a r   a f t e r   h a v i n g 
re ce i ve d  th e ini tial  n oti f i c ati o n .

(b)  T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   m i n i m i s e   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   R e -
qu e s t s  f o r  I nf o r m ati o n  s e nt  to  M e m b e r   St ate s   an d  lim i t 
th e m to  th os e s tr i c tl y n e e d e d f o r  i t s  d e cisi o n - m ak in g .

(c) In order to provide more legal cer taint y to all stakehold -
er s, the Commission should deal s wif tly with unfounde d 
co mp l aint s .

(d) T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   p e r i o d i c a l l y   i n f o r m   t h e   c o m -
p l a i n a n t ,   t h e   M e m b e r   St a t e   a n d   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r y   a b o u t 
the pro gress (or lack of progress) of each case and ab out 
th e o u tco m e o f th e inve s ti g ati o n . 

(e)  T h e  Co mm issi o n sh o u l d co nsi d e r  w h e th e r  th e re are  any 
l e ss o ns   i t   co ul d  l e ar n   f ro m  i t s  h an d lin g   o f  th e   f in an cial 
cr isis to imp rove  i t s  n o r m al wo r k in g  m e th o ds .

(f )  T h e Co mmissio n sh o ul d imp l em ent an enhan ce d s ys te m 
o f   t i m e   r e co r d i n g   a n d   m a n a g e m e nt   r e p o r t i n g   to   e f f e c-
t i ve l y   m o n i to r   t h e   t i m e   sp e nt   o n   e a c h   o f   t h e   c as e s   a n d 
th e wo r k l o a d of ea ch c as e han dl e r s o as to o p tim is e th e 
us e o f re s o urce s .

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

43

T H E 	 CO M M I S S I O N 	 D O E S 	 N OT 	 A S S E S S 	T H E	 	
E X 	 P O S T 	 I M PAC T 	 O F 	 I T S 	 S TAT E 	 A I D 	 CO N T R O L	
I N 	 A 	 CO M P R E H E N S I V E 	WAY

99.  

100. 

T h e   Co m m i s s i o n’s   a t t e m p t s   t o   m o n i t o r   S t a t e   a i d   c o n t r o l   a r e 
ha mp ered  by  unrel iab l e  data.   I t s  mai n  repor ti n g  tool,  t h e  bi-
a n n u a l   S t a t e   a i d   S c o re b o a rd,   h a s   s e ve r a l   s h o r t c o m i n g s :   l a c k 
of completeness, insufficient reliabilit y and comparabilit y, as 
we ll  as  l ate avai lab il it y of th e data.

I n  add it io n,  excep t  fo r  a  few  ad   hoc   s tud ie s,   th e   Co m mis s ion 
has not yet assessed the ex post impac t of its State aid control 
ac tiv ities o n Eu ro p e’s eco no my.

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 3

(a) T h e Co mmissio n sh o ul d imp rove th e e f f icie n c y an d re li -

ab ili t y o f i t s  d at a g ath e r in g p ro ce ss . 

(b)  T h e  Co mm issi o n sh o u l d re gular l y  ass e ss  th e  e x p ost im -
p a c t  o f St ate  ai d  an d o f St ate ai d co nt ro l o n  co m p ani e s , 
m ar ke t s an d th e  ove r all  e co n o my.

Th i s   R e p o r t   wa s   a d o p te d   by   C h a m b e r   I V,   h e a d e d   by   M r   I g o r s 
LU D B O R Ž S ,   M e m b e r   o f   t h e   Co u r t   o f   Au d i to r s,   i n   Lu xe m b o u rg 
at  its  me eting  o f 25  O c tob e r 20 1 1 .

Fo r  th e  Co u r t  o f  Audi to rs

Víto r  M anue l  da  S I LVA   C A L D E I R A
Presi de nt

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

 
44

A N N E X

K E Y 	 R U L E S 	 G O V E R N I N G 	T H E 	 CO M M I S S I O N ’S 	 S TAT E 	 A I D 	 CO N T R O L

1.	

2.	

A R T I C L E 	107	T F E U 	 ( E X 	 A R T I C L E 	 8 7	T E C )	

S a v e   a s   o t h e r w i s e   p r o v i d e d   i n   t h e  Tr e a t i e s ,   a ny   a i d   g r a n t e d   b y   a   M e m b e r   S t a t e 
o r t hrou gh  St ate res ou rces in  any for m  what so eve r  w hic h  d istor t s or  t h reatens to 
distor t competition by favouring cer tain under tak ings or the produc tion of cer tain 
g o od s s hal l, in s o f ar  as it affec t s t rade  bet we e n M e mbe r  St ate s,  be  in com patib le 
w ith  the  inte r nal  mar ket. 

T he fo l l ow ing  shal l  b e c ompatible wit h  t he  i nt er n al  mar k e t :

(a) a i d   h av i n g   a   s o c i a l   c h a ra c te r,   gra nte d   to   i n d i v i d u a l   co n s u m e r s,   p rov i d e d   t h at 
such aid is granted without discrimination related to the origin of the produc ts 
co ncer ned; 

(b) a i d   t o   m a k e   g o o d   t h e   d a m a g e   c a u s e d   by   n a t u r a l   d i s a s t e r s   o r   e xc e p t i o n a l   o c -

cu r re nces; 

(c ) aid granted to the economy of cer tain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany 
a f fe c te d   by   t h e   d i v i s i o n   o f   G e r m a ny,   i n   s o   f a r   a s   s u c h   a i d   i s   re q u i re d   i n   o rd e r 
t o   c o m p e n s a t e   fo r   t h e   e c o n o m i c   d i s a d v a n t a g e s   c a u s e d   b y   t h a t   d i v i s i o n .   Fi ve 
ye a r s   a f te r   t h e   e nt r y   i nto   fo rce   o f   t h e  Tre at y   o f   L i s b o n ,   t h e   Co u n c i l,   a c t i n g   o n 
a p ro po s al fro m the  Commissio n,  may  ad opt  a  de c is i on  re pe alin g  t hi s  point. 

3.	

T he fo l l ow ing  may  be con sidered t o  be  c o mpati ble  wi th  t he  i nt e r na l  m ark et: 

(a) aid  to   p romo te   th e  e con omic   developm ent   o f  are as   whe re   th e   st andard   of  li v-
i n g   i s   a b n o r m a l l y   l ow   o r   w h e re   t h e re   i s   s e r i o u s   u n d e re m p l oy m e nt,   a n d   o f   t h e 
r e g i o n s   r e f e r r e d   t o   i n   A r t i c l e   3 4 9 ,   i n   v i e w   o f   t h e i r   s t r u c t u r a l ,   e c o n o m i c   a n d 
so cia l  sit uatio n; 

(b) a i d   t o   p r o m o t e   t h e   e xe c u t i o n   o f   a n   i m p o r t a n t   p r o j e c t   o f   c o m m o n   E u r o p e a n 
interest or to remedy a ser ious distur bance in the economy of a M ember State;

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

	
45

(c) aid to facilitate the development of cer tain economic ac tivities or of cer tain economic 
area s, w here su ch aid does n ot a dve r s ely  af fec t  trad ing  con dit io ns to a n ex te nt con -
t rar y to  th e co mmo n interest ; 

(d ) a i d   t o   p r o m o t e   c u l t u r e   a n d   h e r i t a g e   c o n s e r v a t i o n   w h e r e   s u c h   a i d   d o e s   n o t   a f f e c t 
t rad ing  con ditio ns  and  com pet it ion  in t he  Uni on  to  a n ex te nt  th at  is co nt rar y to the 
co mm on intere st;

(e) such other categor ies of aid as may be specified by decision of the Council on a pro-

p os al  f ro m t he  Co mmiss ion.

A R T I C L E 	108	T F E U 	 ( E X 	 A R T I C L E 	 8 8	T E C )	

The Co mmissio n s hal l,  in co ope rati on w it h M e mbe r  St ates, k e ep  un d er con st a nt  revi ew 
all sys tems o f aid existin g in t hos e State s. I t  sh al l propose  to th e lat ter any ap prop r iate 
measures required by the progressive development or by the func tioning of the internal 
mar ket. 

I f, af ter givin g not ice to t he par tie s  con ce r n ed  to submit  th e ir  com me nt s,  t h e Com mis -
sion finds that aid granted by a State or through State resources is not compatible with 
t h e   i n te r n a l   m a r k e t   h av i n g   re g a rd   to   A r t i c l e   1 0 7 ,   o r   t h a t   s u c h   a i d   i s   b e i n g   m i s u s e d,   i t 
shal l   dec ide  t hat   t he  State   con ce r n ed   s h all  abol is h  or   alter   s uc h   a id   wi t hi n   a  per i od  of 
time  to  b e de te r mined by th e Com mi ss ion.

I f the State concerned does not comply with this decision within the prescribed time, the 
Commission or any other interested State may, in derogation from the provisions of Ar ti-
cles 258 and 259, refer the matter to the Cour t of Justice of the European Union direc t.

1.	

2.	

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

 
46

O n   a p p l i c at i o n   by   a   M e m b e r   St ate,   t h e   Co u n c i l   m ay,   a c t i n g   u n a n i m o u s l y,   d e c i d e 
that aid which that State is granting or intends to grant shall be considered to be 
co mp atib le  w ith  th e inter n al ma r k e t,  i n  de rog ati on  from  th e prov isio ns  of  Ar ticle 
107 o r fro m the  reg ulations  provi de d fo r  i n Ar t ic le  10 9,  if  suc h  a dec i sio n is  jus ti -
fie d by  exce pt ional circumst ance s.  I f,  as  reg ards  th e a id in  que st io n,  t h e Co mmis -
sio n has  a lread y init iated th e procedure  prov ide d fo r  in t he  f ir s t  su bpa ragrap h of 
t his  p aragraph,  the  fac t   t hat   t he   St ate  co nce r ne d  has  m ade   i ts   app lic at ion   to  the 
Co u n c i l   s h a l l   h ave   t h e   e f fe c t   o f   s u s p e n d i n g   t h at   p ro ce d u re   u nt i l   t h e   Co u n c i l   h a s 
ma de it s att it ude k nown. 

If, however, the Council has not made its attitude k nown within three months of the 
said application being made, the Commission shall give its decision on the case. 

3.	

4.	

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h a l l   b e   i n fo r m e d ,   i n   s u f f i c i e n t   t i m e   t o   e n a b l e   i t   t o   s u b m i t   i t s 
co mm ents,  o f  any   p l ans  to  grant  or   alte r   a id.   I f   i t  co nsi de r s  t hat   any   su c h  plan  is 
not compatible with the internal market having regard to Ar ticle 107, it shall with-
o u t   d e l ay   i n i t i a te   t h e   p ro ce d u re   p rov i d e d   fo r   i n   p a r a gr a p h   2 .  Th e   M e m b e r   S t a te 
concerned shall not put its proposed measures into effec t until this procedure has 
res ul ted  in  a  f inal  dec ision.

The Commission may adopt regulations relating to the categories of State aid that 
t h e   Co u n c i l   h a s,   p u r s u a nt   to   Ar t i c l e   1 0 9 ,   d e te r m i n e d   m ay   b e   exe m p te d   f ro m   t h e 
p ro cedure  provided for  by  paragraph  3  o f t hi s  Ar ti cl e.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

 
 
4747

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

EXECUTIVE	SUMMARY

I .
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   re c a l l s   t h e   i m p o r t a nt   ro l e 
o f   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a n d   t h e   Tr e a t y   o b l i g a -
t i o n   w h i c h   i s   i n c u m b e nt   o n   t h e m   to   n o t i f y 
p l a n n e d   S t a t e   a i d   m e a s u r e s .   A s   a l r e a d y 
c l a r i f i e d   i n   t h e   2 0 0 5   S t a t e   A i d   A c t i o n 
P l a n 1,   b e t t e r   g o v e r n a n c e   i s   a   r e s p o n s i b i l -
i t y   s h a r e d   w i t h   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   ( s e e   s e c -
t i o n   I I I - 1 ,   p a r a g r a p h s   4 8   a n d   f o l l o w i n g ) . 
Any   i m p rove m e nt s   i n   t h e   St ate   a i d   co nt ro l 
p ro c e s s   w i l l   d e p e n d   o n   g o o d   c o o p e r a t i o n 
with  th e M ember  States. 

I II .	 first 	 ind ent
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   a c t i ve l y   a d d re s s e s   p o te n -
t i a l l y   u n l aw f u l   a i d   t h ro u g h   a   co m b i n a t i o n 
o f   f o l l o w i n g   u p   o n   c o m p l a i n t s ,   e x   o f f i -
c i o   c a s e s   a n d   e x   p o s t   c o n t r o l .   A   v i g o r o u s 
re cove r y   p o l i c y   a c t s   a s   a   f u r t h e r   d e te r re nt 
aga inst  unlawful aid.

H owe ve r,   e n fo rc i n g   t h e   l e g a l i t y   o f   a i d   ( i . e. 
o b s e r v i n g   t h e   s t a n d s t i l l   a n d   n o t i f i c a t i o n 
o b l i g a t i o n )   i s   m a i n l y   t h e   re s p o n s i b i l i t y   o f 
n ation al  cour ts.

I II .	 seco nd 	 ind ent
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   c a n n o t   i m p rove   St ate   a i d 
r u l e s   a n d   p r a c t i c e   w i t h o u t   t h e   e f f e c t i v e 
involveme nt  of M em ber  St ates.

Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   re co gn i s e s   t h at   t h e   d u ra -
t i o n   o f   S t a t e   a i d   c a s e s   m a y   s o m e t i m e s 
t a k e   a   l o n g   t i m e .   T h e   2 0 0 8   g e n e r a l   b l o c k 
e x e m p t i o n   r e g u l a t i o n ,   w h i c h   e n t a i l s   a 
m o v e   a w a y   f r o m   n o t i f i c a t i o n s - b a s e d   e x 
ante  control, already considerably reduced 
t h e   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   b u r d e n .   I n   2 0 0 9 ,   t h e 
Co m m i s s i o n   a l s o   a d o p te d   a   s i m p l i f i c a t i o n 
p a c k a g e   fo r   S t a t e   a i d   w i t h   a   B e s t   Pr a c t i c e 
C o d e   a n d   a   S i m p l i f i e d   P r o c e d u r e   N o t i c e . 
B o t h   a i m   a t   i m p r o v i n g   t h e   e f f e c t i v e n e s s , 
t r a n s p a r e n c y   a n d   p r e d i c t a b i l i t y   o f   S t a t e 
aid procedures.

State aid action plan — Less and better targeted State aid: a 

1 
roadmap for State aid reform 2005–09 (COM(2005) 107 final.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

48

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

III.	th ird	inde nt
Evolving case law has tightened the condi-
t i o n s   i n   w h i c h   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   c a n   c l o s e 
complaints. The ver y large number of com-
p l a i n t s ,   t h e   l i m i t e d   i n fo r m a t i o n   p r o v i d e d 
i n   m a n y   c o m p l a i n t   s u b m i s s i o n s   a n d   t h e 
l e g a l   re q u i re m e n t   t o   t a k e   d e c i s i o n s   l e a d s 
t o   l o n g   d e l a y s   i n   s o m e   c a s e s .   H e r e ,   t o o , 
th e Commis sion is  reliant on go o d  cooper-
at i o n   w i t h   M e m b e r   S t ate s   i n   o rd e r   to   p ro -
vide infor matio n.

I V.	first 	 ind ent
The Commission welcomes and suppor ts the 
recommendation to increase advocac y, mon-
itor ing ac tivities and ex officio inquir ies. 

The Commission has made significant effor ts 
t o   i m p r o v e   t h r o u g h p u t   ( t h e   t o t a l   s t o c k   o f 
c a s e s   w a s   b a c k   a t   t h e   p r e - c r i s i s   l e v e l   o f 
s l i g ht l y   ove r   1  0 0 0   c a s e s   at   t h e   e n d   o f   2 0 1 0 
and was fur ther reduced to slightly over 900 
at the end of July 2011).

The B est Prac tice Code has increased trans -
p a r e n c y   a n d   p r e d i c t a b i l i t y   i n   t h e   c o m -
plaints handling process.

III.	four th	inde nt
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   f i n d i n g 
from European Cour t of Auditors regarding 
t h e   C o m m i s s i o n’s   p r o m p t   r e a c t i o n   t o   t h e 
finan cial c r isis.

III.	fi f th	inde nt
T h e   i m p a c t   o f   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n’s   S t a t e   a i d 
control can only be assessed in the light of 
the Treat y provisions on compatibilit y, but 
n o t   a s   re g a rd s   t h e   ove ra l l  ‘p o s i t i ve’  i m p a c t 
of  State  aid  on   the  Eu ropean  eco no my  a nd 
consumer welfare, which — given the state 
o f   t h e   s c i e n c e   o f   e c o n o m i c s   —   w o u l d   b e 
f r a u g h t   w i t h   m a j o r   m e t h o d o l o g i c a l   d i f f i -
culties in any  e vent.

T h e   a c t i o n s   o f   t h e   E u r o p e a n   C o m m i s s i o n 
i n   t h e   f i e l d   o f   St ate   a i d   co nt ro l   i n   t h e   e co -
n o m i c   a n d   f i n a n c i a l   c r i s i s   h a v e   b e e n   t h e 
subjec t of an ex tensive review by both the 
E u r o p e a n   C o m m i s s i o n   a n d   C o p e n h a g e n 
E c o n o m i c s ,   w h i c h   h a s   b e e n   s u b m i t t e d   t o 
th e Eu rop ean Pa r l iament.

N e v e r t h e l e s s ,   t h e   i n f l u x   o f   n e w   c a s e s 
a n d   t h e   d e v e l o p m e n t s   i n   t h e   c a s e - l a w 
r e g a r d i n g   t h e   p r o c e s s i n g   o f   c o m p l a i n t s 
a n d   c e r t a i n   c o n s t r a i n t s   ( o b l i g a t o r y   w o r k , 
re s o u rc e s )   h a ve   b e e n   s u c h   a s   t o   n o t   a l l o w 
the Commission to make a more substantial 
r e d u c t i o n   i n   t h e   b a c k l o g   a n d   r e a l l y   f o c u s 
o n   t h e   m o re   d i s to r t i ve / i m p o r t a n t   c a s e s   o r 
ex officio wor k . 

I V.	seco nd 	 ind ent
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   we l co m e s   t h e   re co m m e n-
d a t i o n ,   w h i c h   i s   a l s o   t h e   a i m   p u r s u e d   b y 
t h e   B e s t   Pra c t i ce   Co d e   w h i c h   e nte re d   i nto 
force on 1  S eptem ber 2 009 . 

I V.	t hird 	ind ent
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   we l co m e s   t h e   re co m m e n-
d at i o n .   B y   m e a n s   o f   t h e   2 0 0 9   B e s t   Pra c t i ce 
Co d e   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   a l r e a d y   l i m i t e d 
t h e   n u m b e r   o f   r e q u e s t s   f o r   i n f o r m a t i o n 
a n d   h a s   r e c e n t l y   i n t r o d u c e d   s e n i o r   m a n -
a g e m e n t   c o n t r o l s   o n   m u l t i p l e   i n f o r m a -
t i o n   r e q u e s t s .   N e v e r t h e l e s s ,   t h e   n u m b e r 
o f   i n f o r m a t i o n   r e q u e s t s   a l s o   d e p e n d s   o n 
t h e   q u a l i t y   o f   t h e   i n fo r m at i o n   p rov i d e d   by 
M e m b e r   St ate s   a n d   c a n   t h u s   n o t   s i m p l y   b e 
ascr ibed to th e  Com miss ion.

As   re g a rd s   co m p l a i nt s,   t h e   c a s e - l aw   o f   t h e 
C o u r t   o f   J u s t i c e   o f   t h e   E u r o p e a n   U n i o n 
h a s   a   w i d e   n o t i o n   o f   w h a t   c o n s t i t u t e s   a n 
admis sible  complaint.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

4949

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

OBSERVATIONS

IV.	four th	inde nt
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h i s   r e c o m -
m e n d a t i o n .   S u c h   a   s y s t e m   i s   d u e   t o   b e 
i m p l e m e nte d   f ro m   t h e   b e gi n n i n g   o f   2 0 1 2 . 
O n   a   v o l u n t a r y   b a s i s ,   t i m e   r e c o r d i n g   w a s 
a l re a d y   c a r r i e d   o u t   i n   s o m e   u n i t s   o f   Co m -
pet ition DG .

1 7.
G i v e n   t h e   r e s o u r c e   c o n s t r a i n t s   t h e   C o m -
m i s s i o n   i s   n o t   i n   a   p o s i t i o n   t o   m a k e   f u l l 
u s e   o f   a l l   t h e   i n fo r m a t i o n   av a i l a b l e   i n   t h e 
p u b l i c   d o m a i n .  T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w i l l   c o n -
s i d e r   h ow   a   p ro p o r t i o n ate   re s p o n s e   co u l d 
be provided  in  th is  area.

IV.	fi f th	inde nt
A   f u l l - s c a l e   h o r i z o n t a l   e x   p o s t   a s s e s s m e n t 
o f   t h e   e f fe c t s   o f   St ate   a i d   co nt ro l   wo u l d   b e 
fraught with methodological difficulties and 
would necessar ily remain rather general.

INTRODUCTION

7.
As far as private enforcement is concerned, 
a n d   a l t h o u g h   i t   i s   e a s i e r   t o   l o d g e   a   c o m -
p l a i n t   w i t h   t h e   E u r o p e a n   C o m m i s s i o n 
r a t h e r   t h a n   i n i t i a t e   l e g a l   p r o c e e d i n g s ,   a s 
i n   t h e   o t h e r   c o m p e t i t i o n   f i e l d s ,   p r i v a t e 
l i t i g a t i o n   i s   i n d e e d   u s e d ,   w h i c h   s u g g e s t s 
that the cost of pr ivate enforcement is not 
n e ce s s a r i l y   a   d e te r re nt,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   w h e n 
th ere a re signific ant  f unds at st ak e. 

Th e   t wo   p ro ce d u re s   d o   n o t   h ave   t h e   s a m e 
s co p e :   n at i o n a l   p ro ce e d i n g s   a re   n o t   a b o u t 
incompatible aid, but concer n its illegalit y, 
wh ile  t he  Co mmissio n  cannot   sa n c ti on   t he 
illega lit y o f measu res as s uc h.

1 8.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n’s   o w n   a n a l y s i s   p o i n t s   t o 
h u g e   d i f fe re n c e s   b e t we e n   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 
w i t h   7 3  %   o f   t h e   t o t a l   a n a l y s e d   u n l a w f u l 
a i d   a r i s i n g   i n   f i v e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   ( G e r -
many, I taly, Spain, France and United K ing-
d o m ) .  T h e   d a t a   p o i n t e d   t o   a p p r ox i m a t e l y 
1 0 % of un lawful aid 2.

2 1.
B y   m o v i n g   a w a y   f r o m   a n   e x   a n t e   c o n t r o l 
s ys te m ,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   i s   a c k n ow l e d gi n g 
t h e   n e e d   to   e n h a n ce   i t s   m o n i to r i n g   a c t i v i -
ties. 

T h e   e x p e r i e n c e   g a i n e d   s o   f a r   i n   m o n i t o r -
i n g   w i l l   e n a b l e   t h e   e xe r c i s e   t o   b e   f u r t h e r 
r e f i n e d   i n   t h e   c o m i n g   y e a r s ,   i n t e r   a l i a 
fo c u s i n g   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   o n   m e a s u r e s / M e m -
ber States where problems were identified, 
and also to fur ther refine the rules so as to 
avoid any ambiguit y. I n that contex t, it has 
b e e n   d e c i d e d   t o   i n c r e a s e   t h e   m o n i t o r i n g 
a c t i v i t i e s   s u b s t a n t i a l l y.   T h e   s c o p e   o f   t h e 
2 0 1 1   m o n i t o r i n g   e x e r c i s e   w i l l   d o u b l e   t o 
cove r   3 3  %   o f   a i d   gra nte d   u n d e r   a p p rove d 
a i d   s c h e m e s   o r   b l o c k   e x e m p t i o n   r e g u l a -
t i o n s   i n   2 0 0 9   ( c a l c u l a t e d   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f 
t h e   a i d   e x p e n d i t u r e ,   a s   d e c l a r e d   b y   t h e 
M em ber State s).

Spring scoreboard 2007 update: COM(2007) 347, final, 28 June 

2 
2007.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

50

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

22.
O v e r a l l ,   t h e   2 0 0 8   e x e r c i s e   c o n f i r m s   t h e 
r e s u l t s   o f   e a r l i e r   e x e r c i s e s :   a   m a j o r i t y 
o f   m e a s u r e s   i m p l e m e n t e d   u n d e r   b l o c k 
e x e m p t i o n   r e g u l a t i o n s   o r   a p p r o v e d   a i d 
s c h e m e s   a r e   i n   l i n e   w i t h   t h e   a p p l i c a b l e 
r u l e s.   A   fe w   c a s e s   ra i s e   p ro b l e m s,   b u t   t h i s 
d o e s   n o t   n e c e s s a r i l y   m e a n   t h a t   t h e   a i d 
g r a n t e d   w a s   i n c o m p a t i b l e .   I t   o f t e n   h a p -
p e n s   t h a t   t h e   m e a s u r e   c a n   b e   a p p r o v e d 
o n   a n o t h e r   b a s i s   o r   i s   d e   m i n i m i s .   O n 
4 . 1 2 . 2 0 0 9 ,   s i x   o f   t h e   ( t h e n )   p e n d i n g   m o n i -
tor ing cases  (37  cas es ) were p ro b l e m at ic.

Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   a gre e s   t h at   g o o d   co o p e r-
a t i o n   w i t h   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   i s   e s s e n t i a l   f o r 
a n   e f f i c i e nt   m o n i to r i n g   exe rc i s e.   I t   re gre t s 
t h a t   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   d o   n o t   a l w a y s   p r o -
v i d e   r e l i a b l e   d a t a   o n   t h e   a m o u n t s   o f   a i d 
granted. As a result, it can happen that the 
monitor ing sample includes schemes under 
which  no  aid  was  granted,  which  limits  the 
u s e f u l n e s s   o f   t h e   m o n i to r i n g   exe rc i s e.  Th e 
Co m m i s s i o n   a l s o   re gre t s   t h e   re l u c t a n ce   o f 
M ember States, in cer tain cases, to provide 
infor mation;  this  can  delay  and  complicate 
the compliance check .

24.
Th e   s e r v i ce s   o f   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a re   aw a re 
o f   i n i t i a t i v e s   b y   s o m e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o 
b e g i n   c r e a t i n g   a   c e n t r a l   r e g i s t e r   o n   t h i s 
t ype of  aid an d wel co me suc h in i ti ati ve s.

25.
S i n c e   s u p p o r t   gr a n te d   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   t h e 
d e   m i n i m i s   r u l e   d o e s   n o t   c o n s t i t u t e   S t a t e 
aid  within  t he   m eaning   of  Ar t.10 7 (1)  TFE U, 
i t   i s   n o t   i n c l u d e d   i n   t h e   m o n i t o r i n g   o f 
a p p r o v e d   a n d   b l o c k   e x e m p t e d   s c h e m e s . 
T h e r e   i s   n o   l e g a l   o b l i g a t i o n   t o   m o n i t o r 
n o n - a i d   m e a s u r e s   a n d   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n , 
t h e re fo re,   wo u l d   o n l y   c h e c k   co m p l i a n ce   i n 
the cases of suspicion and complaint. How-
e ve r,   n o   co m p l a i nt s   h ave   b e e n   re ce i ve d   i n 
th is  contex t.

I n   v i e w   o f   i t s   n a t u r e   ( l i m i t e d   a m o u n t   o f 
s u p p o r t ) ,   ve r i f i c a t i o n   t h a t   t h e   d e   m i n i m i s 
r u l e   i s   b e i n g   r e s p e c t e d   c a n n o t   b e   g i v e n 
t h e   s a m e   p r i o r i t y   i n   t h e   c o n t e x t   o f   m o n i -
t o r i n g   a s   c o m p a r e d   t o   m e a s u r e s   u n d e r 
t h e   g e n e ra l   b l o c k   exe m p t i o n   re g u l at i o n   o r 
o t h e r   a i d   m e a s u re s,   w h i c h   m ay   h ave   m o re 
s i g n i f i c a n t   e f f e c t s   o n   c o m p e t i t i o n   a n d 
trade be t ween  M ember State s.

2 7.
I t is ver y hard to identify hither to unk nown 
unlawful aid or to k now how significant the 
p r o b l e m   i s ,   s i n c e   t h e   a i d   i s   b y   d e f i n i t i o n 
n o t   n o t i f i e d   t o   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n .  T h e   Co m -
mission has looked at whether it is possible 
to use national repor ting. However, in most 
c a s e s ,   t h e   d e f i n i t i o n s   o f   p u b l i c   s u p p o r t 
and State aid are quite different and there -
fo re   t h e   re p o r t s   a re   n o t   d i re c t l y   c o m p a r a -
b l e   ( s e e   S p r i n g   s c o r e b o a r d   2 0 0 7   u p d a t e : 
COM(2007) 347, final, 28 June 2007).

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   a l s o   s t e p p e d   u p   i t s 
re cove r y   e f fo r t   ( c re at i o n   o f   d e d i c ate d   u n i t 
w i t h i n   C o m p e t i t i o n   D G )   w h i c h   a c t s   a s   a 
deter re nt  ag ains t grant ing unlaw fu l a i d.

Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   i s   s te p p i n g   u p   i t s   e x   p o s t 
mon itor in g (se e paragraph  2 1 ) .

2 8.
T h e   n o t i o n   o f   a i d   i s   a n   o b j e c t i v e   o n e 
a p p l i e d   u n d e r   t h e   s c r u t i n y   o f   t h e   C o u r t 
o f   J u s t i c e   o f   t h e   E u r o p e a n   U n i o n ,   m e a n -
i n g   t h at   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   n o   m a rgi n   o f 
a p p r e c i a t i o n .   H o w e v e r,   i t   i s   t r u e   t h a t   t h e 
c a s e - l a w   o f   t h e   C o u r t   o n   t h e   c o n c e p t   o f 
a i d   d o e s   n o t   l e ave   m u c h   s co p e   fo r   n o n - a i d 
d e c i s i o n s ,   w h i c h   m a y   e x p l a i n   w h y   t h e r e 
a r e   o n l y   a   s m a l l   n u m b e r   o f   d e c i s i o n s   o f 
t h i s   t y p e .   Fu r t h e r m o r e ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n 
may le ave th e qualificat ion of  th e me as ure 
o p e n ,   i f   t h e   l a t t e r   w o u l d   i n   a n y   e v e n t   b e 
compat ible with  the inter n al  ma r k et.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   i s   n e ve r t h e l e s s   co n s i d e r-
ing updat ing  it s guidance ins trum e nt s.

29.
A c c o r d i n g   t o   t h e   c a s e - l a w   o f   t h e   C o u r t 
o f   J u s t i c e   o f   t h e   E u r o p e a n   U n i o n ,   t h e 
C o m m i s s i o n   c a n n o t   p e n a l i s e   a   M e m b e r 
S t a t e   —   n o r   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r y   —   f o r   f a i l -
i n g   t o   o b s e r v e   t h e   n o t i f i c a t i o n   o b l i g a -
t i o n .   O n l y   n a t i o n a l   c o u r t s   a r e   c o m p e t e n t 
t o   a c t   a g a i n s t   t h e   a b s e n c e   o f   n o t i f i c a t i o n 
o r   l a t e   n o t i f i c a t i o n   ( s e e   e . g .   C o m m i s s i o n 
notice on the enforcement of State aid law 
by   n at i o n a l   co u r t s,   O J   C   8 5 ,   9 . 4 . 2 0 0 9 ,   p.   1 , 
p o i nt s   1 9 f f   a n d   t h e   Co u r t   o f   J u s t i ce   o f   t h e 
European Union judgments quoted therein 
wh ich cla r ify  t he rol e o f nationa l   co ur ts ).

I f   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   d e c i d e s   t h at   i n co m p at i -
ble aid has been granted, the beneficiar ies 
o n l y   h ave   to   re i m b u r s e   t h e   a i d   w i t h   i nte r-
e s t ,   t o   r e s t o r e   t h e   s i t u a t i o n   t h a t   e x i s t e d 
p r i o r   to   t h e   gr a n t i n g   o f   t h e   a i d   ( s e e   p a r a -
graph 68). 

30.
T h e r e   h a v e   b e e n   n o   c o m p l a i n t s   o r   c a s e s 
w h e r e   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   b e c o m e 
a w a r e   o f   a   M e m b e r   S t a t e   w h i c h   h a s   n o t 
r e s p e c t e d   t h e   w i t h d r a w a l   o f   t h e   n o t i f i c a -
t i o n   ( s e e   S p r i n g   s c o re b o a rd   2 0 0 7   u p d a t e : 
COM(20 07) 347,  f inal,  28 J une 20 0 7 ).

5151

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

3 1.
I n t e r n a l   c o o r d i n a t i o n   m e e t i n g s   w i t h   t h e 
C o m p e t i t i o n   c o u n t r y   c o n t a c t   p o i n t s   f o r 
S t a t e   a i d   m a t t e r s   h a v e   s h o w n   t h a t   t h e 
d e m a n d   f ro m   M e m b e r   S t a te s   fo r   t h i s   t y p e 
o f   h e l p   d e s k   r e l a t i n g   t o   n o n   c a s e - r e l a t e d 
wor k is not ver y high. S ome M ember States 
contac ted the contac t points only rarely or 
not at all, although the new M ember States 
h a v e   u s e d   t h e   c o u n t r y   c o n t a c t   p o i n t s 
rather more. The general exper ience is that 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   e i t h e r   c o n t a c t   c a s e   t e a m s 
direc tly or make use of their own channels. 
Al s o   t h e   l a u n c h   o f   t h e   e l e c t ro n i c   n e ws l e t -
ter (which has more than 7 000 subscr ibers 
i n   t h e   m e a n t i m e )   s e e m s   t o   h ave   p ro v i d e d 
M e m b e r   St ate s   w i t h   u s e f u l   i n fo r m at i o n   o n 
St ate   a i d   m at te r s.  Th e   grow i n g   p ra c t i ce   o f 
e n c o u r a g i n g   t h e   h o l d i n g   o f   p r e - n o t i f i c a -
t i o n   m e e t i n g s   h a s   a l s o   r e d u c e d   t h e   n e e d 
for such in for m al contac t points. 

3 2.	first 	 ind ent
T h e   n o t i f i c a t i o n   o b l i g a t i o n   h a s   b e e n   i n 
t h e   T r e a t y   s i n c e   t h e   b e g i n n i n g   a n d   i s 
i n c u m b e n t   o n   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ,   n o t   o n   t h e 
decentralised granting author ities. Central 
a u t h o r i t i e s   a re   t h e re fo re   we l l   awa re   o f   t h e 
n o t i f i c a t i o n   o b l i g a t i o n ,   a l t h o u g h   d e c e n -
t r a l i s e d   g r a n t i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s   a r e   p o s s i b l y 
less  aware.

D G   C o m p e t i t i o n   a l s o   a c t i v e l y   a d v o c a t e s 
t h e   f o l l o w i n g   t h r o u g h   v a r i o u s   c h a n n e l s : 
w o r k s h o p s / t r a i n i n g   o n   h o w   t o   u s e   t h e 
e l e c t r o n i c   n o t i f i c a t i o n   s y s t e m   S A N I ,   c o n -
feren ces in M ember States, etc. 

3 2.	seco nd 	 ind ent
T h e   f u n c t i o n   o f   t h e   g e n e r a l   b l o c k   e xe m p -
t i o n   re g u l at i o n   a n d   t h e   va r i o u s   g u i d e l i n e s 
a n d   n o t i c e s   i s   t o   c l a r i f y   w h e n   a   S t a t e   a i d 
m e a s u r e   i s   c o n s i d e r e d   t o   b e   c o m p a t i b l e . 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   c o n s t a n t l y   s t r i v i n g   t o 
improve  the  q ualit y  of  thes e  tex t s  i n  orde r 
t o   p r o v i d e   b e s t   g u i d a n c e .   B e y o n d   t h i s , 
g i v e n   t h e   g r e a t   v a r i e t y   a c r o s s   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s   a n d   a i d   g r a n t i n g   a u t h o r i t i e s ,   t h e 
Co m m i s s i o n   i s   co n s t ra i n e d   i n   i t s   a b i l i t y   to 
provide  de dicated g uidance.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

52

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

Th e re   i s   a   s e p a ra te   re g u l a r l y   u p d a te d   FAQ 
o n   t h e   d e d i c a t e d   I n t e r n e t   p a g e   o n   t h e 
a p p l i c a t i o n   o f   S t a t e   a i d   r u l e s   t o   S e r v i c e s 
o f   G e n e r a l   E c o n o m i c   I n t e r e s t ,   w h i c h   a l s o 
includes an interac tive infor mation ser vice 
available to an swe r fur th er ques t ion s.

3 2.	fif t h	 ind ent
Help desk func tions have been made availa -
ble  in  the  contex t  of  the  cr isis,  both  for  the 
financial cr isis and for the real economy.

3 3.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   c o n s t a n t l y   s t r i v e s   f o r 
te x t s   t h a t   a re   a s   c l e a r   a s   p o s s i b l e,   b u t   t h e 
i s s u e s   t o   b e   a d d re s s e d   a re   o f t e n   c o m p l e x 
i n   t e r m s   o f   l e g a l   a n d   e c o n o m i c   a n a l y -
s i s   a n d   c a n   t h e r e f o r e   n o t   a l w a y s   b e   c o n -
d e n s e d   i nto   re l at i ve l y   s i m p l e   a n d   s t ra i g ht -
f o r w a r d   r u l e s .   A   d i s t i n c t i o n   s h o u l d   b e 
m a d e   b e t we e n   t h e   d i f fe re nt   t y p e s   o f   r u l e s 
that exist. Cer tain rules like the de minimis 
r u l e   o r   t h e   g e n e ra l   b l o c k   e xe m p t i o n   re g u -
l a t i o n   a r e   s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d   d i r e c t l y   a p p l i -
c a b l e   r u l e s   ( p e r   s e ) ,   w h i c h   a r e   v e s t e d   i n 
e x t e n s i v e   c a s e   p r a c t i c e   a n d   p r o v i d e   c l e a r 
g u i d a n c e ,   w h i l e   f o r   g u i d e l i n e s   o r   f r a m e -
wor ks wh ic h require the  ide nt ifi cati on of a 
common European objec tive and a balance 
b e t we e n   n e g a t i ve   a n d   p o s i t i ve   e f fe c t s   ( a s 
re q u i re d   by   t h e  Tre at y ) ,   i t   i s   m o re   d i f f i c u l t 
to cover all possible scenar ios by means of 
p re c i s e   r u l e s.  Th e   r u l e s   c a n   o n l y   e s t a b l i s h 
th e g eneral pr inc iples to be appli ed.

Fo r   i n s t a n c e,   i n   t h e   c o n t e x t   o f   c o - f u n d e d 
s c h e m e s ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   r e c e n t l y 
a s k e d   M e m b e r   S t a t e s’  M a n a g i n g   A u t h o r i -
t i e s   t o   i n v o l v e   t h e i r   n a t i o n a l   b o d i e s 
r e s p o n s i b l e   f o r   S t a t e   a i d   c o o r d i n a t i o n 
u p f r o n t   i n   t h e   d e s i g n   o f   S t a t e   a i d   m e a s -
u r e s   u n d e r   t h e   o p e r a t i o n a l   P r o g r a m m e s ; 
w h e n   a s k e d,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   w i l l   b e   ava i l-
able to advise t he national b o di e s. 

32.	th ird 	ind ent
T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   i s s u e d   v a r i o u s   d o c u -
m e n t s   t o   a s s i s t   s t a k e h o l d e r s   ( e . g .   H a n d -
b o o k   o n   St ate   a i d   r u l e s   fo r   S M E s ;  Va d e m e -
cum on St ate aid rul es ;  Vademec u m  on th e 
regeneratio n of  dep r ived u r b an  are as ) .

S p e c i f i c a l l y   a s   r e g a r d s   S A N I   ( w h i c h   i s   t h e 
e l e c t r o n i c   n o t i f i c a t i o n   a p p l i c a t i o n ) ,   t h e 
Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   o f fe re d   t r a i n i n g   s e s s i o n s 
t o   a l l   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   o n   h o w   t o   p r e p a r e 
n o t i f i c a t i o n s   a n d   o n   S A N I   i n   p a r t i c u l a r. 
Fu r t h e r m o r e ,   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a v e   a   U s e r 
M a n u a l   f o r   S A N I   a t   t h e i r   d i s p o s a l .   A d d i -
t i o n a l l y,   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a v e   a   c o n t a c t 
p o i n t   i n   D G   C o m p e t i t i o n   f o r   a l l   m a t t e r s 
r e l a t i n g   t o   t h e   p r e p a r a t i o n   o f   a   n o t i f i c a -
tion via SA NI.

A s   p a r t   o f   t h e   r e v i e w   o f   t h e   g u i d e l i n e s , 
t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   w i l l   a l s o   s e e   w h e t h e r   t h e 
c o r r e s p o n d i n g   n o t i f i c a t i o n   f o r m s   c a n   b e 
improved in order to ensure that the infor-
m a t i o n   re q u e s te d   i n   t h e   n o t i f i c a t i o n   fo r m 
g e n e r a l l y   m a k e s   i t   e a s i e r   t o   d r a w   u p   a 
complete not ification.

32.	four t h	ind ent
Fo r   n e a r l y   a l l   n e w   p o l i c y   i n i t i a t i v e s ,   t h e 
Commission has also issued FAQs when the 
tex t  wa s ado pted.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

35.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   f i n d i n g 
from the Europ ean Co u r t o f Aud i to rs.

39.
S i n c e   t h e   b e g i n n i n g   o f   2 0 1 1 ,   b i m o n t h l y 
m e e t i n g s   a r e   h e l d   w i t h   a l l   u n i t s   a n d   s e n -
i o r   m a n a g e m e n t   t o   d i s c u s s   o n   t h e   b a s i s 
o f   a   c a s e   m a n a g e m e n t   p l a n ,   i n c l u d i n g 
ex p e c te d   d e l i ve r i e s   a s   we l l   a s   a c t i ve / i n a c -
t i ve   s t at u s   o f   c a s e s.  Th u s,   a d d i t i o n a l   g u i d -
a n c e   i s   n o w   p r o v i d e d   t o   c a s e   t e a m s   t o 
i d e n t i f y   a n d   m o n i t o r   p r i o r i t i e s,   i n c l u d i n g 
negative  pr io r ities. 

40.
P E T R A ,   w h i c h   w a s   s o   f a r   o n l y   u s e d   o n   a 
v o l u n t a r y   b a s i s   i n   c e r t a i n   u n i t s ,   w i l l   b e 
r o l l e d   o u t   a c r o s s   t h e   e n t i r e   D i r e c t o r a t e -
G e n e r a l ,   i n c l u d i n g   t h e   S t a t e   a i d   n e t w o r k , 
as of  2012.

I t will be complemented by a system meas-
ur ing ex ante wor k load indicators for cases 
( p r e l i m i n a r y   d i s c u s s i o n   i n   t h e   S t a t e   a i d 
M a n a g e m e n t   M e e t i n g   o f   1   J u l y   2 0 1 1   o n 
t h e   p ro v i s i o n a l   re s u l t s )   w h i c h   w i l l   b e   f u r -
ther refined on the basis of the exper ience 
gained. 

T h e r e f o r e ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w i l l   o b t a i n   a n 
accurate pic ture of resources and wor k load.

41.	fi rst	ind ent
S i n c e   N o v e m b e r   2 0 1 0   a   s i n g l e   c a s e   n u m -
b e r i n g   s ys te m   h a s   b e e n   i n   u s e,   re g a rd l e s s 
of t he stag e  of  t he p ro cedure.

41.	th ird 	ind ent
Al l   d o c u m e nt s / co r re s p o n d e n ce   re l at i n g   to 
a   n e w   n o t i f i c at i o n ,   co m p l a i nt   o r   n o n   n o t i-
f i e d   a i d   c a s e   m u s t   b e   r e g i s t e r e d   w i t h   t h e 
Greffe to be par t of the file and to be used 
for the  dec ision.

5353

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

The  d oc uments  identified  by  the   Cour t  are 
u s e f u l   t o   e s t a b l i s h   a   f u l l   t r a i l ,   b u t   t h e i r 
a b s e n c e   d o e s   n o t   c re a t e   l e g a l   d i f f i c u l t i e s 
f o r   t h e   p r o c e d u r e .  T h a t   i s   a l s o   c o n f i r m e d 
b y   t h e   f a c t   t h a t   t h e   G e n e r a l   C o u r t   o r   t h e 
Eu ro p e a n   Co u r t   o f   J u s t i ce   d o   n o t   co n s i d e r 
th e Commission’s case files as in comple te.

4 5.
W h i l e   i t   i s   a c c e p t e d   t h a t   t h e   a v e r a g e 
t i m e   f o r   t a k i n g   a   d e c i s i o n   o n   n o t i f i c a -
t i o n s   i n c re a s e d   b e t we e n   2 0 0 5   a n d   2 0 0 7 ,   i t 
s h o u l d   b e   n o te d   t h at   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   i n fo r -
m a t i o n   s h e e t s   u n d e r   t h e   b l o c k   e xe m p t i o n 
re g u l a t i o n s   i n c re a s e d   f ro m   2 9 1   i n   2 0 0 5   t o 
631 in 2007. There is therefore the mechan -
i c a l   e f fe c t   t h a t   w h e n   t h e   e a s i e s t   c a s e s   a re 
n o   l o n g e r   n o t i f i e d,   t h e   re m a i n i n g   n o t i f i c a -
tions are likely to be more complex. 

T h e   f a c t   t h a t   f i n a n c i a l   c r i s i s   c a s e s   w e r e 
d e a l t   w i t h   v e r y   s w i f t l y   a n d   m a y   h a v e   l e d 
to an improvement of the average duration 
s h o u l d   n o t   o b s c u re   t h e   f a c t   t h a t   t h e   s t a f f 
wo r k i n g   o n   t h e s e   c a s e s   h a d   to   b e   p a r t i a l l y 
r e a s s i g n e d   f r o m   o t h e r   c a s e s   ( w h i c h   t h u s 
received lower  pr ior it y ). 

4 7.
T h e   M a n u a l   o f   Pr o c e d u r e   r e f l e c t s   w h a t   i s 
l a i d   d ow n   i n   t h e   B e s t   Pra c t i ce   Co d e   w h i c h 
entered into force  on  1  S eptem be r  2 0 0 9 .

Th e   2 8  %   i n c l u d e   c a s e s   w h i c h   p re - d ate   t h e 
M a n u a l   o f   P r o c e d u r e / B e s t   P r a c t i c e   C o d e , 
where the rule recommending no more than 
t wo infor mation requests did not yet apply.

W h e n   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   e v a l u a t e d   t h e 
r e s u l t s   i n   S e p t e m b e r   2 0 1 0 ,   f o r   a p p r o x i -
m a t e l y   9 5  %   o f   c l o s e d   c a s e s   t h e r e   w e r e 
n o   m o r e   t h a n   t w o   i n f o r m a t i o n   r e q u e s t s 
n eeded 3.

Fur ther information requests are also of ten 
n e e d e d   i n   v i e w   o f   t h e   r e p l i e s   p r o v i d e d 
b y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   t h e   f i r s t   r e q u e s t   f o r 
in for mation .

3  451 cases were registered in the period under review; within 
that period 312 cases were closed of which only four required more 

than two requests for information.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

54

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

49.
T h e   v o l u m e   a n d   c o m p l e x i t y   o f   t h e   q u e s -
t i o n s   a r e   l i n k e d   t o   t h e   m e a s u r e s   t h e m -
s e l v e s   a n d   t h e   i n f o r m a t i o n   n e e d e d   t o 
a n a l y s e / a p p r o v e   t h e m .   I n   t h a t   r e s p e c t ,   i t 
i s   a l s o   wo r t h   re m e m b e r i n g   t h a t   t h e   Co m -
mission has limited tools to collec t mar ket 
infor matio n o th er than by  q ues t i o n s. 

5 4.
A   fo r m a l   M u t u a l l y   Agre e d   Pl a n n i n g   a s   l a i d 
d o w n   i n   t h e   B e s t   P r a c t i c e s   C o d e   i s   n o t 
legally binding. I t is only an intent to make 
o n e’s   b e s t   e f fo r t s   —   t h e re fo re,   t h e   a d d e d 
v a l u e   c o m p a r e d   t o   a n   i n f o r m a l   a r r a n g e -
ment  is  limited. Th e  latter  also  o ffer s   m ore 
flexibilit y  to M e mbe r States.

5 7.
T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   n o t e s   t h e   b a l a n c e d   re a c-
tion, with some in favour and some cr itical 
of th e refin ed econ omic  approac h .

5 8.
T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   p u b l i s h e d   a   c o m p re -
h e n s i ve   s t a k e h o l d e r s’  s u r ve y   i n   J u l y   2 0 1 0 . 
I t s   r e s u l t s   s h o w   a   b a l a n c e d   v i e w   o n   t h e 
econ om ic approac h.

5 9.
The  Commission  can  agree that th e uptak e 
o f   t h e   s i m p l i f i e d   p ro c e d u r e   f ro m   t h e   s i d e 
o f   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   i s   l i m i t e d   s o   f a r.   H o w -
e v e r,   f o r   t h e   p r o c e d u r e   t o   w o r k ,   M e m b e r 
States h ave to apply  for  it.

6 0.	seco nd 	 ind ent
T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   n o t e s   t h a t   i f   t h i s   r e q u i r e -
ment is one of the cornerstones of a modern 
a n d   t r a n s p a re n t   p ro c e d u re,   t h e   re l u c t a n c e 
o f   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   g o   o u t s i d e   t h e   u s u a l 
bilateral dialogue with the Commission may 
a l s o   c o m p l i c a t e   o t h e r   t r a n s p a r e n c y   p r o c -
e s s e s   p r o p o s e d   b y   t h e   C o u r t ,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r 
a s   f a r   a s   t h e   h a n d l i n g   o f   co m p l a i nt s   i s   co n-
cer ned (see R ecommendation 2). 

51.
T h e   d u r a t i o n   o f   t h e   p r e l i m i n a r y   i n v e s t i -
g a t i o n   d e p e n d s   i n   t h e   f i r s t   p l a c e   o n   t h e 
q u a l i t y   o f   t h e   n o t i f i c a t i o n   b y   t h e   M e m b e r 
States. The Commission must decide within 
t wo   m o nt h s   o f   h av i n g   re ce i ve d   a   co m p l e te 
notification, but there is no requirement to 
o p e n   t h e   f o r m a l   i n v e s t i g a t i o n   p r o c e d u r e 
w i t h i n   s i x   m o n t h s   o f   t h e   i n i t i a l   —   i n c o m -
p l e t e   —   n o t i f i c a t i o n .   T h e   d u r a t i o n   o f   t h e 
i n i t i a l   i n v e s t i g a t i o n   p r o c e d u r e   w i l l   t h u s 
d e p e n d   o n   t h e   co m p l e te n e s s   o f   t h e   i n i t i a l 
n o t i f i c a t i o n ,   t h e   c o m p l e x i t y   o f   t h e   m a t t e r 
a n d   t h e   co o p e rat i o n   b e t we e n   t h e   Co m m i s-
s i o n   a n d   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e .   P r e c i s e l y   i n 
o r d e r   t o   t r y   t o   r e d u c e   t h e   d u r a t i o n   o f   t h e 
p r e l i m i n a r y   i n v e s t i g a t i o n   p h a s e ,   t h e   B e s t 
P r a c t i c e   C o d e   h a s   s u g g e s t e d   h o l d i n g   a 
p re - n o t i f i c at i o n   m e e t i n g   to   a s s e s s,   a m o n g 
o t h e r s,   w h a t   i n fo r m a t i o n   i s   re q u i re d,   w i t h 
a   v i e w   t o   h a v i n g   a   c o m p l e t e   n o t i f i c a t i o n 
a n d   m i n i m i s i n g   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   i n fo r m at i o n 
requests. 

53.
B e t te r   g ove r n a n ce   i n   S t ate   a i d   co nt ro l   i s   a 
shared responsibilit y bet ween the Commis-
s i o n   a n d   t h e   M e m b e r   St ate s.   An   i m p o r t a nt 
cause of these delays is the poor qualit y of 
some notifications from M ember States. 

The Commission has seen no evidence that 
t h e   d u r a t i o n   o f   c a s e   h a n d l i n g   p ro c e d u re s 
h a s   h a d   a n   a d ve r s e   e f fe c t   o n   i nve s t m e n t s 
d e c i s i o n s ,   o t h e r   t h a n   i n   v e r y   e xc e p t i o n a l 
cases. 

Member States have the means to reac t (see 
e.g. Ar t. 5(3) of the Procedural R egulation).

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

5555

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

T h i s   i s   a l s o   c l a r i f i e d   i n   t h e   B e s t   P r a c t i c e 
Code.

6 5.
T h e   s t o c k   o f   c o m p l a i n t s   r e v i e w e d   b y   t h e 
Eu ro p e a n   Co u r t   o f   Au d i to r s   d ate   f ro m   d i f-
ferent  per iod s  —   procedures  in   place  have 
b e e n   re f i n e d   o ve r   t i m e.  T h e   c u r re n t   p ro c -
e s s   i s   l a i d   d ow n   i n   t h e   B e s t   Pr a c t i c e   Co d e 
w h i c h   h a d   a l r e a d y   t r i e d   t o   a d d r e s s   t h e 
l a c u n a e   i d e n t i f i e d   b y   t h e   E u ro p e a n   Co u r t 
o f   A u d i t o r s :   e . g .   a   b e s t   e f f o r t   t o   i n v e s t i -
g ate   a   co m p l a i nt   w i t h i n   a n   i n d i c at i ve   t i m e 
f r a m e   o f   t w e l v e   m o n t h s   f r o m   i t s   r e c e i p t , 
i n fo r m at i o n   a s   to   t h e   p r i o r i t y   gi ve n   to   t h e 
complaint  and  in for mat ion  conce r ni n g  th e 
p ro c e s s i n g   o f   a   c o m p l a i n t   t o   t h e   M e m b e r 
States an d th e  complainants.

A   d e c i s i o n   f i n d i n g   t h at   t h e re   i s   n o   a i d   w i l l 
be add ressed to the M ember State  an d  th e 
c o m p l a i n a n t   o n l y   r e c e i v e s   a   c o p y   o f   t h a t 
dec ision .

6 6.
I t   h a s   t o   b e   e m p h a s i s e d   t h a t   t h i s   i s   n o t 
s p e c i f i c   t o   c o m p l a i n t s ;   f o r   n o t i f i e d   a i d 
c a s e s ,   t o o,   t h e r e   i s   n o r m a l l y   n o   p u b l i c i t y 
p r i o r   to   t h e   o p e n i n g   o f   t h e   fo r m a l   i nve s t i -
gation procedure. Transparenc y only exists 
in  th e contex t  of the s implif ied proced ure. 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a r e   g e n e r a l l y   o p p o s e d   t o 
s u c h   b r o a d   t r a n s p a r e n c y   d u r i n g   t h e   p r e -
l i m i n a r y   i n v e s t i g a t i o n   p h a s e .   T h e   P r o c e -
d u r a l   R e g u l a t i o n   m a k e s   n o   p r o v i s i o n   f o r 
th is eit her.

The requirement to translate in the authen-
t i c   l a n g u a g e   a n d / o r   a l l   l a n g u a g e s   i s   s o m e -
times time consuming, but is also an essen-
tial transparenc y requirement.

T h e   o b l i g a t i o n   o f   p r o f e s s i o n a l   s e c r e c y   i s 
a  Tre at y   o b l i g at i o n .  Th e   n e e d   to   s t r i k e   t h e 
r i g ht   b a l a n ce   b e t we e n   t h i s   o b l i g at i o n   a n d 
t h e   o b l i g a t i o n   t o   g i v e   r e a s o n s   f o r   d e c i -
s i o n s   m ay   s o m e t i m e s   i nvo l ve   l e n g t hy   d i s-
c u s s i o n s ,   b u t   a g a i n   t h i s   s e e m s   t o   b e   a n 
ess ent ial procedural step.

60.	fi f th	ind ent
I n   a d d i t i o n   t o   t h e   f a c t o r s   i d e n t i f i e d   b y 
t h e   E u r o p e a n   C o u r t   o f   A u d i t o r s   f o r   t h e 
l i m i t e d   u p t a k e   o f   t h e   s i m p l i f i e d   p r o c e -
d u r e,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a l s o   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t 
t h e   p o s s i b i l i t i e s   o f fe re d   by   t h e  Te m p o ra r y 
Fr a m e w o r k   a n d   t h e   s p e c i f i c   n e e d s   i t   c o v -
e re d   i n   v i e w   o f   t h e   f i n a n c i a l   c r i s i s   ( i n   p a r-
t i c u l a r   t h e   l i m i t e d   a m o u n t   o f   c o m p a t i b l e 
a i d )   h a s   a f f e c t e d   i t s   p o s s i b l e   u s e .   U n d e r 
the Temporar y framewor k , the Commission 
h a d   c o m m i t t e d   t o   s w i f t   a u t h o r i s a t i o n s   o f 
s u c h   m e a s u r e s ,   g e n e r a l l y   i n   t i m e   p e r i o d s 
shor ter than those possible under the sim -
p l i f i c a t i o n   p a c k a g e ,   a n d   t h e s e   m a y   h a v e 
been used as an al ter nat ive by s o me  M em-
ber States at t hat time.

62.
Given  the  ver y  large  number  of  complaints, 
t h e   l i m i t e d   i n f o r m a t i o n   a v a i l a b l e   i n   m a n y 
c o m p l a i n t   s u b m i s s i o n s ,   c o u p l e d   w i t h   t h e 
limited powers of the Commission to gather 
re l e v a n t   m a r k e t   i n fo r m a t i o n   a n d   t h e   l e g a l 
r e q u i r e m e n t   t o   t a k e   d e c i s i o n s   i n   a l l   c a s e s 
w h e r e   a   c o m p l a i n a n t   w i t h   l e g a l   s t a n d i n g 
insists  on  the  Commission  adopting  a  deci-
sion, leads to long delays in some cases.

N e ve r t h e l e s s,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   a l re a d y 
m a n a g e d ,   b y   a p p l y i n g   a   m o r e   f o c u s s e d 
approach, to considerably reduce the stock 
o f   p e n d i n g   c o m p l a i n t s   b e t w e e n   D e c e m -
ber 2010 (464)  and Ju l y 2011 (40 0 ) . 

63.
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   i s   e n t i t l e d   t o   g i ve   d i f fe r -
e n t   d e g r e e s   o f   p r i o r i t y   t o   t h e   c o m p l a i n t s 
b r o u g h t   b e f o r e   i t   ( B o u y g u e s   T- 4 7 5 / 0 4 ) , 
depending for instance on the scope of the 
a l l e g e d   i n f r i n g e m e nt ,   t h e   s i ze   o f   t h e   b e n -
eficiar y, the economic sec tor concer ned or 
t h e   ex i s te n ce   o f   s i m i l a r   co m p l a i nt s.   I n   t h e 
l i g h t   o f   i t s   w o r k l o a d   a n d   i t s   r i g h t   t o   s e t 
the pr ior ities for investigations, it can thus 
p o s t p o n e   d e a l i n g   w i t h   a   m e a s u re   w h i c h   i s 
not a  pr io r it y.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

56

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

67.
T h e   p r o c e d u r e s   f o r   d e a l i n g   w i t h   c o m -
p l a i n t s   h a v e   b e e n   c l a r i f i e d   t h r o u g h   a 
s e r i e s   o f   r e c e n t   C o u r t   j u d g m e n t s   w h i c h 
i n   p r i n c i p l e   r e q u i r e   a   C o m m i s s i o n   d e c i -
s i o n   f o r   c o m p l a i n t s .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   c a n 
only explain to the complainant why a par-
t i c u l a r   m e a s u r e   i n   t h e i r   p r e l i m i n a r y   v i e w 
d o e s   n o t   c o n c e r n   a l l e g e d   u n l a w f u l   a i d   o r 
e x p l a i n   t h a t   t h e re   i s   i n s u f f i c i e n t   i n fo r m a-
t i o n   t o   e s t a b l i s h   t h e   p r e s e n c e   o f   ( u n l a w -
ful)  St ate aid.

The 12 months per iod has been introduced 
a s   a   re co m m e n d at i o n   by   t h e   B e s t   Pra c t i ce 
C o d e   a n d   c a n   t h u s   n o t   b e   t h e   s t a n d a r d 
fo r   c a s e s   p re - d at i n g   i t s   e nt r y   i nto   fo rce   i n 
S eptembe r 200 9.

68.
T h e   r e c o v e r y   p o l i c y   i s   a l s o   a n   i m p o r t a n t 
i n s t r u m e n t   t o   c u r b   t h e   i l l e g a l   g r a n t i n g 
o f   a i d :   n o n - n o t i f i e d   a i d ,   i f   f o u n d   t o   b e 
i n c o m p a t i b l e,   w i l l   b e   r e c o v e r e d   f r o m   t h e 
beneficiar y. I n order to avoid future liabil -
i t i e s ,   i t   i s   i n   t h e   i n t e r e s t   o f   t h e   b e n e f i c i -
ar y that the aid measure has been notified 
(and approved). An effec tive recover y pol -
i c y   t h u s   h e l p s   t o   m a i n t a i n   t h e   s t a n d s t i l l 
o b l i g at i o n .

73.
As   to   t h e   l o n g   d u rat i o n   o f   re cove r y   p ro ce -
d u re s   ove r a l l,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a gre e s   a n d 
regrets the lack of cooperation on the par t 
o f   c e r t a i n   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a n d   t h e   l e n g t h 
o f   j u d i c i a l   p r o c e d u r e s .   A t   t h e   s a m e   t i m e , 
t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i t s e l f   i s   d o i n g   w h a t   i t 
c a n   t o   s p e e d   t h i n g s   u p,   a s   s h o w n   b y   t h e 
E u r o p e a n   C o u r t   o f   A u d i t o r s ’  f i n d i n g   t h a t 
t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   b e e n   r e a c t i n g   m o r e 
q u i c k l y   i n   r e c e n t   y e a r s   w h e n   i t   c o m e s   t o 
b r i n g i n g   c a s e s   t o   t h e   C o u r t   o f   J u s t i c e   o f 
th e Eu rop ean Unio n. 

74.
W h e n   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   t h e   n e c e s -
s a r y   d a t a   a t   i t s   d i s p o s a l ,   i t   e n d e a v o u r s 
to   q u a n t i f y   t h e   e x a c t   a m o u n t   o f   a i d   to   b e 
re cove re d.

At t he same time, on the basis of the pr in -
c i p l e   o f   f a i r   co o p e ra t i o n ,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n 
p r o v i d e s   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   w i t h   g u i d a n c e , 
a s   n e c e s s a r y,   t o   c a l c u l a t e   t h e   a i d   t o   b e 
re cove re d.

7 5.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   f i n d i n g 
from the European Cour t of Auditors on its 
h andlin g of th e cr isis cases.

7 6.
T h e   a d d i t i o n a l   w o r k l o a d   w a s   a b s o r b e d 
t h ro u g h   a   co m b i n at i o n   o f   ove r t i m e,   t ra n s-
fer of staff from other units and the excep -
t i o n a l   n at u re   o f   t h e   wo r k i n g   co n d i t i o n s   to 
h a n d l e   t h e   c a s e s .   E v e n   i n   t h o s e   c i r c u m -
s t a n c e s ,   t h e   t o t a l   s t o c k   o f   p e n d i n g   c a s e s 
in creas ed conside rably  in  20 0 9–1 0 .

7 7.
Th e   g u i d e l i n e s   s e t   o u t   c l e a r   co n d i t i o n s   fo r 
S t a te   a i d   to   b e   co m p a t i b l e   w i t h   t h e   i n te r-
n a l   m a r k e t .  T h e   p r a c t i c a l   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n 
o f   e a c h   p r i n c i p l e   d e p e n d s   v e r y   m u c h   o n 
t h e   s p e c i f i c i t i e s   o f   t h e   b a n k s   c o n c e r n e d . 
H o we ve r,   i n   e a c h   a n d   e v e r y   r e s t r u c t u r i n g 
case, the assessment of measures has been 
c a r r i e d   o u t   w i t h   p ro p e r   at te nt i o n   to   o t h e r 
c a s e s ,   s o   t h a t   c o n s i s t e n c y   a c r o s s   c a s e s 
a n d   a   l e ve l   p l ay i n g   f i e l d   a c ro s s   b a n k s   a n d 
across M em ber  St ates is  m aintai ne d. 

7 8.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   f i n d i n g 
from t he Europe an Cour t of  Aud i tor s.

8 2.
T h e   Te m p o r a r y   F r a m e w o r k   w a s   u s e d   b y 
a l l   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   e xc e p t   Cy p r u s.  T h e y   a l l 
i nt ro d u ce d   at   l e a s t   o n e,   a n d   i n   m o s t   c a s e s 
b e t we e n   2   a n d   4   s c h e m e s   ( l o a n s,   g u a r a n -
t e e s ,   e x p o r t   c r e d i t ,   c o m p a t i b l e   l i m i t e d 
a m o u n t   o f   a i d ) .  Th e   f a c t   t h a t   t h e y   d i d   n o t 
a l ways   u s e   t h e   b u d g e t   o r i gi n a l l y   p rov i d e d 
fo r   t e n d s   t o   c o n f i r m   t h a t   t h e y   m a d e   c a re -
f u l   u s e   o f   t h e  Te m p o ra r y   Fra m e wo r k   m e a s -
u re s   ( t h e   a p p ro v a l   o f   t h e   s c h e m e   a l l o we d 
t h e m   to   u s e   i t   w h e n   n e e d e d,   w i t h o u t   n e c -
ess ar ily  usin g up  the wh ole bud ge t) .

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

5757

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

8 9.
F o r   t h e   p u r p o s e   o f   t h e   S t a t e   a i d   S c o r e -
b o a r d ,   s u b s i d i e s   t o   r a i l w a y s   a r e   e xc l u d e d 
f r o m   t h e   c a l c u l a t i o n   o f   t h e   t o t a l .   Fo r   t h e 
f i r s t   t i m e,   t h e   Au t u m n   2 0 1 0   u p d ate   o f   t h e 
S c o r e b o a r d   p r o v i d e s   t h e   t o t a l   a m o u n t   o f 
t h e   s u b s i d y   g r a n t e d   t o   r a i l w a y s   i n   a   s e p -
a r a t e   c h a p t e r ;   f r o m   n o w   o n   c o m p a r a b l e 
dat a will t herefore be available. 

9 2.
C o m p e t i t i o n   D G   h a s   r e v i s e d   t h e   m e t h o d 
o f   e s t a b l i s h i n g   t h e  ‘a m o u n t   u s e d ’  f o r   a i d 
m e a s u r e s   t o   t h e   f i n a n c i a l   s e c t o r   a n d   w i l l 
a p p l y   i t   i n   r e s p e c t   o f   t h e   A u t u m n   2 0 1 1 
u p d a t e   o f   t h e   S c o r e b o a r d .   I n   a n y   e v e n t , 
t h e   m e t h o d   u s e d   to   c a l c u l ate   t h e   a i d   co m -
p o n e n t   h a s   b e e n   i n   l i n e   w i t h   t h e   re l e v a n t 
C o m m u n i c a t i o n s ,   e . g .   i m p a i r e d   a s s e t s , 
guarante es.

9 3.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   d o u b t s   t h a t   c o m p a r a b i l -
i t y   o f   d at a   b e t we e n   d i f fe re nt   ye a r s   s u f fe r s 
f r o m   c h a n g e s .   Fi r s t ,   t h e   S t a t e   a i d   r e p o r t -
in g obligat ion , a s laid  down  in  An n ex III of 
Co m m i s s i o n   R e g u l at i o n   ( E C )   N o   7 9 4 / 2 0 0 4 , 
h a s   n o t   c h a n g e d   s i n c e   i t s   i n t r o d u c t i o n 
w i t h   r e s p e c t   t o   i t s   s c o p e   a n d   c o n t e n t 
regarding data that M ember States have to 
provide in their annual repor t. S econd, key 
figures on State aid expenditure have been 
made public in the same way and by apply-
i n g   t h e   s a m e   m e t h o d o l o g y   o f   re fe re n ce   to 
allow dat a com par is on.

9 4.
I n   a c c o r d a n c e   w i t h   t h e   r u l e s   o n   I m p a c t 
Assessment, Competition DG plans to car r y 
o u t   I m p a c t   A s s e s s m e n t s   f o r   a l l   S t a t e   a i d 
p o l i c y   p r o j e c t s .   B y   t h e   e n d   o f   2 0 1 1 ,   f o u r 
S t a t e   a i d   i m p a c t   a s s e s s m e n t s   s h o u l d   b e 
completed, eight in 2 01 2,  and si x in  2 0 1 3 .

T h e   e x c e p t i o n a l   n a t u r e   o f   t h e   Te m p o r a r y 
F r a m e w o r k ,   w h i c h   w a s   b a s e d   o n   A r t i c l e 
107( 3)(b) TF EU ‘ to remedy a ser i o us dis tur-
b a n c e   i n   t h e   e c o n o my   o f   a   M e m b e r   S t a t e’ 
requires a regular evaluation as to whether 
t h e   co n d i t i o n s   o f   a p p l i c at i o n   a re   s t i l l   m e t. 
T h i s   e x p l a i n s   w h y   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w a s 
u n a b l e   t o   a d o p t   a n   o p e n - e n d e d   o r   v e r y 
long running Temp o rar y Framewo r k .

85.
A p a r t   f r o m   t h e   q u a l i t y   i s s u e ,   M e m b e r 
States quite of ten provide incomplete data 
b y   t h e   d e a d l i n e ,   w h i c h   i n   t u r n   r e q u i r e s 
t h e   S c o r e b o a r d   t e a m   t o   t r y   t o   o b t a i n   t h e 
n e c e s s a r y   d a t a   f r o m   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ;   t h i s 
i n v o l v e s   t w o   r o u n d s   o f   q u e s t i o n s   w h i c h 
ta ke over t hree mo nt hs o n avera g e.

86.
M ember States generally do not share with 
t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i n f o r m a t i o n   c o n c e r n i n g 
i s s u e s   a r o u n d   t h e i r   i n t e r n a l   c o l l e c t i o n   o f 
d a t a   f r o m   r e g i o n a l   a n d   l o c a l   a u t h o r i t i e s 
a n d   d a t a   r e l i a b i l i t y.   I n   t h i s   r e s p e c t ,   t h e 
Co m m i s s i o n   re fe r s   t o   t h e   m e t h o d o l o g i c a l 
notes made in the Staff wor k ing document 
a c c o m p a n y i n g   t h e   S t a t e   a i d   S c o r e b o a r d 
A u t u m n   2 0 1 0   u p d a t e ,   w h i c h   o u t l i n e s   t h e 
scope  of t he data co ll ec t io n.

Although the repor ting obligation requires 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   p r o v i d e   a n   e s t i m a t e 
w h e r e   t h e   a c t u a l   e x p e n d i t u r e   c a n n o t   b e 
d e te r m i n e d   i n   t h e   re p o r t i n g   ye a r,   s u c h   a n 
e s t i m a t e   i s   m a d e   o n l y   i n   a   fe w   c a s e s.  Th i s 
i s   a l re a d y   m e nt i o n e d   i n   t h e   co ntex t   o f   t h e 
S coreboard 4.

4  Page 68 in the Staff working document accompanying the 
State aid Scoreboard, Autumn 2010 update 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.

do?uri=SEC:2010:1462:FIN:EN:PDF

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

 
58

REPLY OF THE  
COMMISSION

95.
A   co m p re h e n s i ve   e x   p o s t   e va l u at i o n   o f   t h e 
i m p a c t   o f   t h e   S t a t e   a i d   c o n t ro l   i s   n o t   fe a -
sible  given  the  st ate  o f  th e  s cie nce   of   e co -
nomics and resource limitations. Never the -
less, the Commission will continue to car r y 
o u t   a d   h o c   e va l u at i o n   o f   s p e c i f i c   St ate   a i d 
c o n t r o l   m e a s u r e s   ( e . g .   h t t p : / / e c . e u r o p a .
e u / c o m p e t i t i o n / p u b l i c a t i o n s / r e p o r t s / 
temporar y _st ateaid _ru l es_en. ht m l ).

Recommendatio n	1
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   s h a re s   t h e   o b j e c t i ve   t h a t 
m o r e   a t t e n t i o n   s h o u l d   b e   p a i d   t o   a d v o -
c a c y,   m o n i t o r i n g   a c t i v i t i e s   a n d   e x   o f f i c i o 
i n q u i r i e s .   H o w e v e r,   t h i s   o b j e c t i v e   w o u l d 
have to be balanced against other compet-
i n g   o b j e c t i v e s .   I n   t h i s   c o n t e x t ,   t h e   C o m -
m i s s i o n   wo u l d   l i k e   to   p o i nt   o u t   t h at   t h e re 
i s   a   l e g a l   o b l i g a t i o n   t o   d e a l   w i t h   n o t i f i c a -
tion s an d to follow up on  com plai nts. 

CONCLUSIONS	AND		
RECOMMENDATIONS

96.
Wh i l e   Ar t i c l e   1 0 8 ( 1 )  T F E U   i m p o s e s   a n   o b l i-
gation to keep existing aid measures under 
co n s t a n t   re v i e w,   A r t .   1 0 8 ( 3 )  T F E U   re q u i re s 
t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   t o   a s s e s s   n o t i f i e d   a i d , 
t h e r e   i s   n o   l e g a l   b a s i s   f o r   a   s y s t e m a t i c 
r e v i e w   o f   M e m b e r   S t a t e s’  p r o c e d u r e s   a n d 
control systems other than the pr inciple of 
cooperation enshr ined in Ar ticle 4 TEU. 

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a c t i v e l y   p u r s u e s   u n l a w -
f u l   a i d   t h r o u g h   a   c o m b i n a t i o n   o f   c o m -
p l a i n t s ,   e x   o f f i c i o   c a s e s   a n d   e x   p o s t   c o n -
trol through monitoring of block exempted 
m e a s u re s   a n d   a p p rove d   s c h e m e s.   A   v i g o r-
ous recover y polic y ac ts as a fur ther deter-
rent against  un law ful  aid. 

National cour ts can complement the deter-
r e n t   e f f e c t   b y   p e n a l i s i n g   i l l e g a l i t y   ( i . e . 
non-respec t of the notification obligation).

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   n o   m e a n s   t o   s t e e r 
t h e   o r g a n i s a t i o n a l   s e t - u p   w i t h i n   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s.  T h e   m a i n   t o o l   fo r   c o l l e c t i n g   i n fo r -
m a t i o n   i s   v i a   i n fo r m a t i o n   r e q u e s t s   t o   t h e 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a b o u t   c o n c r e t e   m e a s u r e s . 
G i v e n   t h e s e   c o n s t r a i n t s   t h e r e   i s   i n d e e d 
a   r i s k   t h a t   ( s o m e )   a i d   g o e s   u n d e t e c -
t e d .   H o w e v e r,   p o t e n t i a l   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   a r e 
i n c r e a s i n g l y   a w a r e   o f   t h e   r i s k   t h e y   r u n   i n 
r e c e i v i n g   n o n - n o t i f i e d   a i d ,   a s   t h e i r   a u d i -
t o r s   —   a m o n g s t   o t h e r s   —   p o i n t   t h i s   o u t 
to th em. 

A s   a   w a y   t o   c o p e   w i t h   t h e s e   c h a l l e n g e s ,  
Co m p e t i t i o n   D G   h a s,   s i n ce   2 0 1 1 ,   re v i e we d 
t h e   o p e r a t i o n   o f   t h e   S t a t e   a i d   n e t w o r k   i n 
o r d e r   t o   i n c r e a s e   e f f i c i e n c y.   A   w o r k i n g 
g r o u p   h a s   m a d e   a   n u m b e r   o f   r e c o m m e n -
d a t i o n s   w h i c h   h ave   b e e n   a d o p te d   a n d   a re 
cur rently bein g implemented. 

Recommendatio n	1 	(a)
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   we l co m e s   t h e   re co m m e n-
dat ion.

Recommendatio n	1 	(b)
Th e   s co p e   o f   t h e   2 0 1 1   m o n i to r i n g   exe rc i s e 
w i l l   d o u b l e   t o   c o v e r   3 3  %   o f   a i d   g r a n t e d 
u n d e r   a p p r o v e d   a i d   s c h e m e s   o r   b l o c k 
exempt ion  R egulation  in  200 9 .

Recommendatio n	1 	(c )
I n c r e a s e d   m o n i t o r i n g   w i l l   c o n t r i b u t e   t o 
detec t  illeg al aid.

9 7.
The Commission welcomes the finding that 
m a ny   o f   t h e   o p e r a t i o n a l   e l e m e n t s   o f   c a s e 
h a n d l i n g   a r e   w e l l   m a n a g e d   a n d   t h a t   t h e 
fin ancial c r isis cas es  were h andle d s wif tly.

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   a w a r e   t h a t   c o m p l a i n t 
h a n d l i n g   i s   a   p ro b l e m   a re a   a n d   t h a t   t h e re 
i s   a   co n s i d e ra b l e   b a c k l o g   w h i c h   i s   d i f f i c u l t 
to tack le. The B est Prac tice Code was aimed 
a t   t a c k l i n g   t h e   l a c u n a e   i d e n t i f i e d   b y   t h e 
Eu ro p e a n   Co u r t   o f   Au d i to r s   w i t h i n   t h e   c u r-
rent legislative and procedural framewor k .

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

N e ve r t h e l e s s,   s i n ce   t h e   b e gi n n i n g   o f   2 0 1 1 
C o m p e t i t i o n   D G   h a s   s t a r t e d   a   b a c k l o g 
r e d u c t i o n   e x e r c i s e   w h i c h   h a s   a l r e a d y   l e d 
t o   a   s i g n i f i c a n t   r e d u c t i o n   o f   t h e   n u m b e r 
o f   p e n d i n g   c o m p l a i n t s   ( s e e   a b o v e   p a r a -
graph 62).

Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   a l s o   p o i nt s   to   t h e   c r u c i a l 
r o l e   f o r   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   i n   e n s u r i n g   e f f i -
cient  St ate aid contro l.

98.
The B est Prac tice Code is meant to increase 
t r a n s p a r e n c y   a n d   e n h a n c e   p r e d i c t a b i l i t y. 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w o u l d   a l s o   p o i n t   t o   t h e 
re l u c t a n c e   b y   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   t o   m a k e   u s e 
o f   t h e   s i m p l i f i e d   p ro c e d u re   i n   v i e w   o f   t h e 
transparenc y procedures it implies.

Recomme ndat ion	2	(a )
T h e   c u r r e n t   p r o c e d u r a l   s e t - u p   a l r e a d y 
requires the Commission to decide or open 
the for mal investigation procedure on noti-
f i e d   a i d   w i t h i n   2   m o n t h s   fo l l ow i n g   a   c o m -
plete notification.

Recomme ndat ion	2	(b)
T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a c c e p t s   t h a t   t h e   n u m b e r 
o f   R e q u e s t s   f o r   I n f o r m a t i o n   s h o u l d   b e 
a s   l i m i t e d   a s   p o s s i b l e .   T h i s   p r i n c i p l e   i s 
a l r e a d y   l a i d   d o w n   i n   t h e   B e s t   P r a c t i c e 
C o d e .   C o m p e t i t i o n   D G   h a s   a l s o   p u t   i n 
place contro l  mechanis ms.

Where M ember States provide a comprehen -
s i ve   n o t i f i c a t i o n   ( p o s s i b l y   a f te r   a   p re - n o t i -
f i c a t i o n   c o n t a c t ) ,   n o   i n f o r m a t i o n   r e q u e s t 
w i l l   b e   n e e d e d .   T h e   n u m b e r   o f   i n f o r m a -
tion  requests  depends  on  the  qualit y  of  the 
infor mation provided by M ember States.

5959

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

Recommendatio n	2 	(c )
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   n o t e s   t h i s   r e c o m m e n d a -
tion. However, the case -law of the Cour t of 
J u s t i c e   o f   t h e   E u ro p e a n   U n i o n   h a s   a   w i d e 
n o t i o n   o f   w h a t   c o n s t i t u t e s   a n   a d m i s s i b l e 
complaint.

Recommendatio n	2 	(d )
The Commission accepts this recommenda -
tion  which  is already  laid down in th e  B e st 
Prac t ice Code.

Recommendatio n	2 	(e)
The Commission is already drawing lessons 
f ro m   i t s   h a n d l i n g   o f   f i n a n c i a l   c r i s i s   m e a s -
u r e s .   N e v e r t h e l e s s ,   c e r t a i n   e l e m e n t s   m a y 
not be easily transposable to other sec tors 
of th e econ omy.

Recommendatio n	2 	(f )
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   p l a n s   t o   i m p l e m e n t   f ro m 
e a r l y   2 0 1 2   o n w a r d s   a n   e n h a n c e d   t i m e 
re co rd i n g   s ys te m   ( b u i l d i n g   o n   t h e   e x p e r i -
ence drawn from a voluntar y pilot projec t), 
co m b i n e d   w i t h   a n   e x   a n te   wo r k l o a d   e va l u -
a t i o n ,   w h i c h   w i l l   h e l p   i n   t h e   a l l o c a t i o n   o f 
resources.

1 00 .
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   r e c a l l s   t h a t   i t s   p r i m a r y 
ro l e   i s   t o   p re ve n t   S t a t e   a i d   t h a t   i s   i n c o m -
p a t i b l e   w i t h   t h e  Tre a t y.  T h e   c o m p a t i b i l i t y 
assessment it per for ms already constitutes 
a for m of impac t assessment in the light of 
the objec tives laid down in the Treat y, and 
t a k i n g   a c c o u n t   o f   d i s t o r t i o n s   o f   c o m p e t i-
tion  an d impac t  on  trade. 

A   co m p re h e n s i ve   e x   p o s t   e va l u at i o n   o f   t h e 
i m p a c t   o f   t h e   S t a t e   a i d   c o n t ro l   i s   n o t   fe a -
sible  give n  th e  state  of   t he  sc ie nce   of   e co -
nomics and resource limitations. Never the -
less, the Commission will continue to car r y 
o u t   a d   h o c   e va l u at i o n   o f   s p e c i f i c   St ate   a i d 
c o n t r o l   m e a s u r e s   ( e . g .   h t t p : / / e c . e u r o p a .
e u / c o m p e t i t i o n / p u b l i c a t i o n s / r e p o r t s / 
tempora r y_ stateaid_rules_ en .htm l) .

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

60

Recomme ndat ion	3	(a )
To   f a c i l i t a t e   t h e   d a t a   g a t h e r i n g   a n d   t o 
i n c r e a s e   e f f i c i e n c y,   b o t h   f o r   t h e   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s   a n d   f o r   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n ,   C o m p e -
t i t i o n   D G   h a s   i n t r o d u c e d   a   n e w   c e n t r a l 
d a t a b a s e   a p p l i c a t i o n   b y   w h i c h   g r a n t i n g 
a u t h o r i t i e s   i n   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e   c a n 
d i r e c t l y   e n c o d e   t h e i r   a i d   e x p e n d i t u r e . 
T h e r e   a r e   p l a n s   t o   b r i n g   t h i s   a p p l i c a t i o n , 
called SA RI , into  fu l l op erat ion by  2 0 1 2 .

A s   re g a rd s   re l i a b i l i t y,   i t   i s   re c a l l e d   t h a t   i t 
is the M ember States’ responsibilit y to pro -
v i d e   c o m p l e t e   a n d   a c c u r a t e   d a t a .   I n   t h i s 
re s p e c t,   t h e   o n g o i n g   l e gi s l at i ve   p ro j e c t   to 
a m e n d   t h e   re p o r t i n g   o b l i g at i o n s   fo r   M e m -
b e r   S t a t e s   t a k e s   t h i s   p o i n t   i n t o   a c c o u n t 
a n d   i n c l u d e s   a   s t r o n g e r   w o r d i n g   r e g a r d -
i n g   t h e   c o m p l e t e   a n d   r e l i a b l e   d a t a   w h i c h 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   h a v e   t o   p r o v i d e   i n   t h e i r 
annual re po r t. 

Recomme ndat ion	3	(b)
S ee reply to  p aragrap h 100.

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

61

European Court of Auditors

Special	Report	No	15/2011

Do	the	Commission’s	procedures	ensure	effective	management	of	State	aid	control?

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2011 — 60 pp. — 21 × 29,7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9237-377-1

doi: 10.2865/26852

Special Report No 15/2011 – Do the Commission’s procedures ensure effective management of State aid control?

How	to	obtain	EU	publications

Free	publications:

• 

• 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

at the European Union's representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details 
on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Priced	publications:

• 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced	subscriptions	(e.g.	annual	series	of	the	Official Journal of the European Union	and	reports	
of	cases	before	the	Court	of	Justice	of	the	European	Union):

• 

via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

 
 
Q
J
-
A
B
-
1
1
-
0
1
1
-
E
N

-
C

THE  COMMISSION  HAS  OVERALL  RESPONSIBILITY  FOR  STATE  AID  CONTROL  (ARTICLES 

107-108  TFEU).  EU  MEMBER  STATES  ARE  REQUIRED  TO  NOTIFY  ALL  PLANNED  STATE  AID 

MEASURES TO THE COMMISSION AND TO OBTAIN THE COMMISSION’S APPROVAL BEFORE 

IMPLEMENTING THEM. 

THIS  SPECIAL  REPORT  EXAMINES  WHETHER  THE  COMMISSION’S  PROCEDURES  ENSURE 

EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF STATE AID CONTROL.

THE COURT FOUND THAT THE COMMISSION HAS INSUFFICIENT ASSURANCE THAT IT DEALS 

WITH  ALL  RELEVANT  STATE  AID  CASES.  THERE  IS  NO  LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  A  SYSTEMATIC 

REVIEW  OF  MEMBER  STATES’  PROCEDURES  AND  CONTROL  SYSTEMS  OTHER  THAN  THE 

PRINCIPLE OF COOPERATION. STATE AID PROCEDURES TAKE A LONG TIME. COMPLAINTS IN 

PARTICULAR LACK TRANSPARENCY. IN THE FIELD OF STATE AID CONTROL THE COMMISSION 

REACTED  PROMPTLY TO THE  FINANCIAL  CRISIS.  IT  HAS  NOT YET  ASSESSED THE  EX  POST 

IMPACT OF ITS ACTIVITIES IN A COMPREHENSIVE WAY.

THE COURT MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS WITH AN AIM TO IMPROVING THE COMMISSION’S 

PROCEDURES AND MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS.

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS