Regulatory Measures Are not State aid & Trade Unions Are not “Interested Party”

Regulatory Measures Are not State aid & Trade Unions Are not “Interested Party” - Untitled design 3

Introduction

This article reviews two recent judgments dealing with the concept of state resources and the meaning of “interested party”, respectively.

State resources

On 8 June 2023, the Court of Justice clarified, by its judgment in case C-50/21, Prestige and Limousine SL, that purely regulatory measures may confer and advantage without, however, granting State aid.1

The Court was responding to a request for a preliminary ruling by a Spanish court which was adjudicating a dispute between car-hire companies and the municipality of Barcelona. The municipal authorities had adopted a measure according to which already licensed car-hire companies were required to obtain another licence by the Barcelona authorities before they could legally provide services in the city. In addition, the number of licences for car-hire companies was limited to 1/30th of the number of licences for taxis operating in Barcelona. The municipal authorities claimed that the measure was necessary to reduce pollution and congestion in the city and to maintain the viability of normal taxi services.

The referring Spanish court asked whether the measure constituted State aid and whether it infringed Article 49 TFEU which guarantees the right of establishment.

With respect to the question concerning Article 107(1) TFEU, the Court of Justice replied by examining solely whether there was a transfer of state resources. First, it recalled that “(53) the concept of aid includes not only positive services such as subsidies, but also measures which, in various forms, alleviate the charges which are normally included in an undertaking’s

budget and which, therefore, are not subsidies in the strict sense of the term, are of the same nature and have identical effects”.

“(54) Consequently, for the purposes of establishing the existence of State aid, a sufficiently direct link must be established between, on the one hand, the advantage granted to the recipient and, on the other, a reduction in the State budget, or even a sufficiently concrete economic risk of charges on it”.

“(55) In the present case, suffice it to note that it is in no way apparent […] that the legislation at issue […] involves the commitment of State resources.”

“(56) In particular, first, neither the requirement of an authorisation […] [of] the activity of ride-hailing services in the Barcelona agglomeration nor the limitation of the number of licences for such services to one thirtieth of the taxi service licences issued for that agglomeration appear to imply positive services, such as subsidies, for the benefit of companies providing taxi services or alleviate the charges that normally burden the budget of these companies.”

“(57) Second, those two measures do not appear to lead to a reduction in the State budget or to a sufficiently concrete economic risk of charges on it, which could benefit undertakings providing taxi services.”

Therefore, the Court of Justice concluded that “(58) Article 107(1) TFEU does not preclude legislation applicable to an agglomeration providing, first, that a specific authorisation is required to carry out the activity of ride-hailing services in that agglomeration, in addition to the national authorisation required for the provision of urban and long-distance ride-hailing services, and, second, that the number of licences for such services is limited to one thirtieth of the licences for taxi services issued for that agglomeration, provided that those measures are not such as to involve a commitment of State resources within the meaning of that provision.”

However, the Court went on to find the measure in question incompatible with Article 49 TFEU because it provided protection to taxi companies and because it had only a random link with the objective of reducing pollution and congestion.

The findings of the Court would have been different if the licences were free but tradable or if the municipal authorities charged a fee at market rates for the issuing of the limited number of licences. In the former case, the Court would have probably found that the state lost potential revenue. In the latter case, the analysis would have been more complicated as the case law permits Member States not to charge market rates for permits or licences that are linked to regulatory measures which are applied on the basis of objective criteria.

Interested party

On 7 June 2023, the General Court delivered its judgment in case T-322/22, Unsa Énergie v European Commission.2 Unsa Énergie, a trade union representing employees of Électricité de France [EDF], sought the annulment of the decision of the Commission, which rejected its complaint against authorised France aid measures in the electricity sector. The union argued that the aid measures harmed its interests. The Commission rejected the complaint because it considered that Unsa Energie was not an interested party in the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation 2015/1589

The General Court, first, recalled that under Article 1(h) of Regulation 2015/1589, interested party means any Member State and any person, undertaking or association of undertakings whose interests might be affected by the grant of aid, in particular the beneficiary of the aid, competing undertakings and trade associations. It is, in other words, an indeterminate group of addressees. [paragraph 17 of the judgment]

However, an undertaking which is not in direct competition with the beneficiary of the aid may be classified as an ‘interested party’ within the meaning of Article 1(h) of Regulation 2015/1589, provided that it claims that its interests may be affected by the grant of aid, which requires that undertaking to demonstrate, to the requisite legal standard, that the aid is likely to have a specific impact on its situation. Therefore, the status of ‘interested party’ does not necessarily presuppose a competitive relationship with the beneficiary of the aid. [para 18]

In other words, the General Court did not rule out that trade unions could be regarded as interested party if they could demonstrate that they would be affected by the aid in question and that the aid would have a concrete impact on them. [para 19]

Then the General Court examined the Commission decision which had found the union not to be an interested party on the grounds that it was not a competitor of the beneficiary of the aid. More importantly, the Commission considered that the alleged harm to the interests of the union had no direct or certain link with the aid measure. In particular, the reduction in the staff of EDF did not the result from the aid measure, but from an autonomous decision of EDF. [para 21]

The General Court also examined and rejected other arguments concerning alleged harm to EDF and its market position. The Court viewed those arguments speculative and not capable of proving the alleged harm caused by the French measures in question.

On the basis of the reasoning explained above, the General Court rejected the appeal of Unsa Énergie

Therefore, a person or organisation may object to the granting of State aid for ideological, moral, social or economic reasons, but it does not have standing to bring legal action against Commission decisions if it cannot demonstrate that the aid harms its interests.

Tags

About

Phedon Nicolaides

Dr. Nicolaides was educated in the United States, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. He has a PhD in Economics and a PhD in Law. He is professor at the University of Maastricht and the University of Nicosia. He has published extensively on European integration, competition policy and State aid. He is also on the editorial boards of several journals. Dr. Nicolaides has organised seminars and workshops in many different Member States, and has acted as consultant to several public authorities.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

30. Aug 2024
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides
A State-Owned Company Acts as a Private Investor – Part II - State Aid Uncovered photos 9

A State-Owned Company Acts as a Private Investor – Part II

Part II: Advantage The Commission, first, explained that the “(80) intervention must be considered as a whole, considering the purpose and timing of the various stages in which AMCO’s intervention is to be made, within the context and contents of the second arrangement proposal. Whether or not a transaction is in line with market conditions must be established through a […]
27. Aug 2024
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides
A State-Owned Company Acts as a Private Investor - State Aid Uncovered photos 8

A State-Owned Company Acts as a Private Investor

Introduction When a party to a financial transaction is a company that is owned and controlled by the state, it is difficult to determine whether the transaction is free of State aid. This is because it is not easy to prove that the state had no influence over the decision of the company to carry out that transaction. The Commission […]
06. Aug 2024
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides
The Existence of State Aid Must Be Proven on the Basis of Credible Evidence - State Aid Uncovered photos 5

The Existence of State Aid Must Be Proven on the Basis of Credible Evidence

Introduction This article reviews two cases in which courts found that it had not been proven that all of the criteria of Article 107(1) TFEU had been satisfied. Case I: Not being able to prove that the measure is attributed to a decision of the state With decision 2024/2033, published in OJ L, 29 July 2024, the Commission corrected its […]
02. Jul 2024
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides
Green Energy Certificates - State Aid Uncovered photos 3

Green Energy Certificates

Introduction Certificates that confirm that an undertaking has bought a certain amount of electricity from renewable sources do not normally involve State aid because they are not traded. However, when they are tradeable and are granted by a public authority for free or for a fee that falls below their market value, they normally involve State aid as they confer […]
13. Feb 2024
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides
State Resources, Control and Imputability - State Aid Uncovered photos 1

State Resources, Control and Imputability

Introduction A public measure can be classified as State aid only when it is funded from state resources. Measures funded from the budgets of public authorities are always considered to be supported by state resources. However, measures not funded from state budgets may still be supported by state resources. This is because, rather counterintuitively, the concept of state resources covers […]
09. Jan 2024
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides
National Court May Order Recovery of Illegal Aid that Is Considered Existing Aid - State Aid Uncovered photos

National Court May Order Recovery of Illegal Aid that Is Considered Existing Aid

Introduction The European Commission is required by Regulation 2015/1589 to order recover of State aid that it finds to be incompatible with the internal market. However, it may not order recovery of illegal aid – i.e. non-notified aid – until it assesses its compatibility with the internal market. By contrast, national courts have no competence to assess the compatibility of […]
02. Jan 2024
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides
Selectivity - State Aid Uncovered photos 1

Selectivity

Introduction On 14 December 2023, the Court of Justice, in its judgment in joined cases C-693/21 P and C-698/21 P, EDP España & Naturgy Energy Group v European Commission, faulted the Commission for failing to provide a sufficient explanation why a Spanish measure was selective in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.1 According to the Court of Justice, the Commission […]
24. Jan 2023
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides
State Resources Include all the Resources that Can be Directed by the State for its own Purposes - State Aid Uncovered SM posts 40

State Resources Include all the Resources that Can be Directed by the State for its own Purposes

Introduction On 12 January 2023, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in joined cases C-702/20, DOBELES HES and C-17/21, Sabiedrisko pakalpojumu regulēšanas komisija.[1] A Latvian court requested the Court of Justice to provide a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 107(1) TFEU, Article 108(3) TFEU, Regulation 1407/2013 on de minimis aid and of the procedural Regulation 2015/1589. The […]
20. Dec 2022
by Phedon Nicolaides
Compensation for Damage - State Aid Uncovered SM posts 2

Compensation for Damage

Introduction On 9 November 2022, the General Court followed its previous judgments in cases concerning compensation for damage caused by the covid-19 pandemic to rule, in case T-111/21, Ryanair v European Commission, that Member States were free to choose to whom to grant State aid.[1] Ryanair had sought the annulment of Commission decision SA.55373 concerning damage compensation to Croatia Airlines […]
18. Oct 2022
by Phedon Nicolaides
Public Authorities Acting as Private Investors - State Aid Uncovered SM posts 5

Public Authorities Acting as Private Investors

It is a well-established principle in the case law that when a public authority acts as a private investor, it must disregard all public policy objectives and its obligations as an arm of the state. Many judgments of EU courts and Commission decisions have examined in detail the various elements that underpin the reasoning of a private investor such as […]