State Guarantees

State Guarantees - Untitled design 14

Introduction

Public authorities often grant guarantees to undertakings so that the latter can borrow commercial loans at lower rates of interest. The 2008 Commission Notice on guarantees sets out four cumulative conditions that create a presumption that a state guarantee is free of State aid:

1. The borrower is not in financial difficulty.

2. The guarantee must be linked to a specific financial transaction, for a fixed maximum amount and limited in time.

3. The guarantee does not cover more than 80% of the outstanding loan.

4. A market-oriented price is paid for the guarantee.

It follows that the first thing that a state guarantor must examine is whether the borrower is not in financial difficulty. This is because an undertaking that is in financial difficulty in the meaning of the Guidelines on State aid for rescue and restructuring has a high probability of going bankrupt with the consequence that the whole loan will not be repaid.

On 12 October 2023, the Court of Justice, in case C-445/22 P, Larko v European Commission, decided that the Greek authorities should have been aware of the financial difficulties encountered by Larko and therefore the guarantee they granted to Larko constituted State aid.1

Larko, a Greek mining company, had appealed against the judgment of the General Court, in case Τ-423/14 RENV, Larko v European Commission, by which the General Court dismissed its action for annulment of Commission decision 2014/539.

Larko had three shareholders. The Greek state held 55.2% of the shares through the Hellenic Republic Asset Development Fund [HRADF]. National Bank of Greece, a private financial

institution, held 33.4% of the shares, and the state-owned Public Power Corporation, the main electricity producer in Greece, held 11.4% of the shares.

In March 2012, HRADF informed the Commission of a plan to privatise Larko. In March 2013, the Commission initiated the formal investigation procedure into the planned privatisation. In March 2014, the Commission adopted the contested decision 2014/539.

The Commission concluded that Larko had received illegal and incompatible aid of about EUR 136 million. The initial appeal of Larko was dismissed by the General Court. However, the Court of Justice found, in case C-244/18 P, Larko v European Commission, that the General Court had committed an error of law, partly annulled the initial judgment and returned the case for its remainder to the General Court.

The Court of Justice held that the General Court erred in its assessment of a 100% state guarantee for a loan of EUR 30 million granted by Greece’s ATE bank. The guarantee was for a term of three years and was provided for a premium of 1% per annum. The General Court wrongly assumed that a private operator in the position of the Greek authorities should have been aware of Larko’s difficulties and would therefore not have granted that guarantee on the same terms. According to the Court of Justice it is the Commission that bears the burden of proving that the conditions for the application of the market economy investor principle [MEIP] did not hold and the General Court had reversed the burden of proof.

When the General Court re-assessed the case, again it dismissed Larko’s action for annulment of Commission decision 2014/539. Larko appealed again and, therefore, this was the second time that the Court of Justice heard the same case.

The obligations and discretion of the Commission

First, the Court of Justice observed that Article 107(1) TFEU does not cover a measure granted in favour of an undertaking through state resources where that undertaking could have obtained the same advantage in circumstances corresponding to the normal market conditions.

Then, it recalled established case law according to which it is for the Commission to adduce evidence of the existence of State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU and, therefore, also to prove that the condition for conferring an advantage on the beneficiaries is satisfied. Where the private investor test is applicable, the burden is on the Commission to prove, taking into account, in particular, the information provided by the Member State concerned, that the conditions for the application of the private operator principle are not satisfied, with the result that the state intervention contains an advantage. The Commission has to carry out an overall assessment taking into account all relevant factors. To that end, the Commission must request the Member State concerned to provide it with all relevant information. [paragraphs 29-31 of the judgment]

Since the Commission does not have direct knowledge of the circumstances in which an investment decision was taken, it must rely, for the purposes of applying the MEIP, to a large extent, on objective and verifiable evidence produced by the Member State. [para 32]

Then the Court stressed that even where the Commission is confronted with an uncooperative Member State which does not provide the Commission with the requested information, the Commission must base its decisions on evidence of a certain reliability and consistency which provides a sufficient basis for concluding that an undertaking has benefited from an advantage constituting State aid. [para 33]

At the same time, the Court explained that it is not for the Commission to seek, on its own initiative and in the absence of any relevant evidence, all the information which might be connected with the case before it, even if such information is in the public domain. [para 34]

Lastly, only the information available and the foreseeable developments at the time when the decision to proceed with the investment was taken are relevant, for the purposes of applying the private investor test. [para 35]

The 2008 Commission Notice on guarantees and the obligations of Member States

Next, the Court of Justice examined how the presence of State aid is detected in state guarantees. It recalled that the Commission circumscribed its discretion by issuing the 2008 Notice on guarantees. Section 3.2 of that Notice sets out the conditions which, if satisfied, are sufficient to establish the absence of State aid. In particular, the borrower must not be in financial difficulty and the guarantee must be remunerated with the payment of a premium that corresponds to the market price. More specifically, section 3.2(d) defines detailed criteria to be used in order to determine whether or not the guarantee premium corresponds to the market price.

However, the Court stressed that the criteria in the 2008 Notice cannot alter the allocation of the burden of proof between the Commission and the Member State. Although those criteria limit the discretion of the Commission, they cannot create obligations for Member States. [para 39]

Were Larko’s financial difficulties known to the Greek authorities?

Larko argued that the Greek authorities were not necessarily aware of its financial difficulties when they granted the guarantee.

The Court of Justice, first, observed that point 3.2(a) of the guarantee Notice requires that the borrower must not be in financial difficulty and refers, for the assessment of that condition, to the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring, which define, in points 9 to 11, the concept of “firm in difficulty”. The Notice, in point 3.2(d), stipulates that it is necessary, inter alia, to take into account “the probability of default of the borrower”. [para 48]

Then, the Court held that since point 3.2(d), unlike point 3.2(a) of the Notice, does not contain any reference to the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring, the possible financial difficulties of the undertaking concerned, need not be assessed by reference to the concept of “firm in difficulty”. [para 49]

I find the statement of the Court in paragraph 49 of the judgment difficult to understand. First of all, section 3.2 of the Notice lays down four cumulative conditions. Even if point 3.2(d) does not refer to firms in difficulty, it must still be applied in conjunction with point 3.2(a). Second, the definition of the concept of the firm in difficulty does not require calculation of the probability of default. It only lays down thresholds such as those concerning capital depletion, high debt level or low liquidity. This means that at any rate, the probability of default has to be calculated even if the borrower is not a firm in difficulty. Of course, a company that is in difficulty need not necessarily go bankrupt. A guarantor may still be willing to provide a guarantee for an appropriately high premium. As the Court has elsewhere held [see C-211/20 P, European Commission v Valencia Club de Fútbol], the methodology in the Notice cannot be applied to firms in difficulty. However, the Notice does not prohibit guarantees for firms in difficulty. Even in such difficult cases, default may not be certain and, therefore, a market operator may still be willing to provide an appropriately priced guarantee.

Next, the Court pointed out that it was not apparent from the judgment in case C-244/18 P, Larko v Commission, that the Court of Justice had considered that there was no evidence to show that the Greek authorities were aware of Larko’s difficulties at the time the guarantee was granted in 2008. That is why, in that judgment, the Court of Justice requested the General Court, when it referred the case back to that court, to ascertain whether there was evidence that the Greek authorities had been or should have been aware of Larko’s difficulties at the time the guarantee was granted. [paras 51-52]

Indeed, the General Court did find that there was ample evidence that Larko had encountered financial difficulties, such as a high debt-to-equity ratio and negative financial results. [para 56]

More importantly, later on in the judgment, the Court of Justice also noted that the fact that the guarantee had been granted in respect of the entire loan should have alerted the Greek authorities that, in accordance with point 3.2(c) of the guarantee Notice, the guarantee could not be presumed to be free of State aid. [para 92] This, of course, does not necessarily mean that the guarantee constituted State aid. But if there was no presumption that it was free of State aid, the Greek authorities should have estimated the premium in a way that it should have reflected the true probability of default.

In relation to establishing a market premium for the guarantee, the Court of Justice observed that the Commission did try to assess the appropriate amount of the premium. The Commission could not find an indication of any reference value for similar guarantee premiums on the market. The Commission had expressly requested the Greek authorities to provide it with all relevant information in order to enable it to assess the adequacy of the 1% premium to remunerate the guarantee that covered 100% of the loan. [para 58]

The Court of Justice also examined a number of other pleas raised by Larko but in the end it dismissed the appeal in its entirety.

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

03. Dec 2024
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides
Compensation for Non-payment of State Aid Can Constitute State Aid - State Aid Uncovered photos 24

Compensation for Non-payment of State Aid Can Constitute State Aid

Introduction A perennial question by aggrieved investors who feel cheated by u-turns in public policy is: “May I claim compensation for damage that I have suffered as a result of non-payment of the State aid that was promised to me?” As a result of recent case law, it is now clear that there are several answers to this question: First, […]
26. Nov 2024
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides
i) Compensation Can Be State Aid ii) Failure to Act - State Aid Uncovered photos 23

i) Compensation Can Be State Aid ii) Failure to Act

Introduction This article reviews two judgments concerning a claim that compensation does not constitute State aid and a complaint that the Commission had failed to act, respectively. The latter case is particularly interesting because it is probably the only judgment in the past decade or two that the Court of Justice has actually upheld a claim that the Commission breached […]
17. Sep 2024
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides
Although Member States Are Free to Determine their Tax Systems, they Must still Conform with State Aid Rules - State Aid Uncovered photos 11

Although Member States Are Free to Determine their Tax Systems, they Must still Conform with State Aid Rules

Introduction On 10 September 2024, the Court of Justice [CJEU] delivered its much anticipated judgment, in case C-465/20 P, Commission v Ireland & Apple. It ruled that Ireland had granted incompatible State aid to Apple through preferential tax rulings.[1] The judgment was the result of an appeal by the Commission against the judgment of the General Court in case T-778/16, Ireland […]
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 […]
18. Jun 2024
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides
Obligations Imposed by the State Cannot Justify Tax Exemptions - State Aid Uncovered photos 18

Obligations Imposed by the State Cannot Justify Tax Exemptions

Introduction Over the past decade or so, the European Commission has found that multiple port operators have benefitted from State aid in the form of tax exemptions. This aid was in all cases found to be incompatible with the internal market, despite the claims of the port operators that the state had imposed on the public service obligations or that […]
04. Jun 2024
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides
Special Tax Treatment for a Major Infrastructure Project - State Aid Uncovered photos 16

Special Tax Treatment for a Major Infrastructure Project

Introduction In April 2013, the Commission received a complaint alleging that State aid had been granted to the Oresund fixed link. The link is a major transport infrastructure project consisting of a bridge, an artificial island and tunnels between Denmark and Sweden. In October 2014, the Commission concluded that the public funding of the hinterland road and rail connections was […]
07. May 2024
State Aid Uncovered by Phedon Nicolaides
Public Procurement and State Aid - State Aid Uncovered photos 2

Public Procurement and State Aid

Introduction A faulty public procurement procedure or the use of discriminatory selection criteria can confer an advantage on the chosen undertaking that may constitute an advantage in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The result will be infringement of both public procurement rules and State aid rules. A recent Commission decision, SA.47650, is instructive on how Member States should design […]