Article 263(4) TFEU: Third Party Challenges to State Aid Decisions

gavel

We are happy to welcome back Prof Erika Szyszczak on the State Aid Blog today. She is Professor of Law and Fellow of the UK Trade Policy Observatory at University of Sussex and practising barrister and ADR mediator at Littleton Chambers, Temple, London. Today she shares her views on two cases that shed new light on third party rights to challenge European Commission State aid decisions before the European Courts.

 

The recent Ferracci  and Montessori judgments of the General Court show that even when aggrieved third parties are able to satisfy the strict standing provisions to challenge European Commission decisions, the European Courts are still reluctant to interfere with the Commission’s powers to implement the State aid provisions.The Treaty of Lisbon 2007 attempted to liberalise the narrow rules of standing for natural and legal persons to challenge acts of the EU Institutions. This aim was implemented by amending Article 263(4) TFEU to allow any natural or legal person to institute proceedings against a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures. At face value this new wording eases up on the earlier requirement for an applicant to show, the almost impossible, requirement that a regulatory act is of individual concern according to the Plaumann formula.But there is still the requirement to show the applicant is directly concerned by a measure.

Post-Lisbon applicants have not had much success in satisfying this new element of the standing test. In relation to State aid acts, the CJEU has dismissed the application on various grounds. For example, in Mory the Court found that the decision was not an act of general application. In other cases such as Telefonica,  the Court found that implementing measures were required.


Do you know we also publish a journal on State aid?

EStAL banner
The European State Aid Law Quarterly is available online and in print, and our subscribers benefit from a reduced price for our events.


 

However, on 15 September 2016 the General Court handed down two parallel judgments in the Ferracci and Montessori cases where the new admissibility criteria of Article 263(4) TFEU were found to be satisfied.  These cases are part of a trend seen in Commission investigations of investigating the bright line between economic and non-economic activities, especially where mixed, or hybrid activities are taking place. But the appeal against the Commission decision raises new dimensions on the third party standing to challenge problem in EU law and sheds light on the impossibility defence to the recovery of illegal State aid.

The  challenges to the Commission decision of 2012 in Ferracci and Montessori were brought by competitors who had made the earlier complaints concerning Italian provisions granting  tax exemptions, namely an exemption from the municipal tax on real estate and  a  corporate tax reduction to entities that were seen as  non-commercial entities and as such were deemed not to be carrying out economic activities.

The Commission found that certain tax exemptions did not constitute State aid, but in one instance an exemption was found to constitute unlawful State aid where it related to activities involving real estate and the entities were engaged, in part, in economic activities.

However,  the Commission accepted the argument put forward by the authorities that  the Italian tax register was structured in such a way that it would be impossible to identify  retroactively the nature of the activities that were being carried out at the specific location in order  to determine whether the tax exemption should have applied. Thus, the European Commission did not require recovery of the unlawful State aid.

The competitors made challenges to the findings that there was no State aid present and also to the impossibility of recovery defence where illegal State aid had been found.

In finding that Article 263(4) TFEU was satisfied the General Court held: (1) that the Italian measures were applicable to situations determined objectively with legal effects for general categories of undertakings; the Commission decision was of general application and could be classified as a regulatory act; (2) the European Commission’s decision was final and binding upon Italy:  it did not entail any implementing measures; (3) the applicants could  show that they were directly concerned by the contested decision because of their competitive relationships with the undertakings which were the  beneficiaries of the contested tax exemptions.

But, as is often the case, having opened the door to access the Court, the door was quickly slammed shut in dismissing the substantive grounds of appeal.  The GC confirmed that the Commission could make a finding of impossibility of recovery in the final decision where a Member State had explained the reasons for such a conclusion during the formal investigation.

The Court also dismissed the challenges to the findings that there was no State aid. Particular attention is paid to the legal situation of the ecclesiastic exemptions. The GC placed emphasis upon the formal requirement that under Italian law, ecclesiastical institutions could only retain their status if they did not carry out commercial activities.

The rulings in Ferraci and Montessori are instructive of how the door to the European Courts can be edged open in State aid practice, but they unsurprisingly do not offer up any hope that the European Courts will interfere with the role of the European Commission, especially its discretion to determine what is legally possible and practicable when it comes to recovery of State aid. It is also interesting that the Court was not willing to pursue a broad effects-based approach to the impact of the tax exemptions in what was a competitive market, but was willing to go with up-holding a form-based national approach to determining the line between economic and non-economic activities.

—————————————————–
[Photo credit: Joe Gratz from flickr.com]

 Links

Tags

Über

Erika Szyszczak

Erika Szyszczak is Professor of Law and Fellow of the UK Trade Policy Observatory at University of Sussex and practising barrister and ADR mediator at Littleton Chambers, Temple, London.

Zusammenhängende Posts

17. Dez 2019
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides

Can a Tax (rather than a Tax Exemption) Confer a Selective Advantage?

A tax that is levied at one level of government and does not apply to products and activities at a different level of government need not be selective. Introduction A tax exemption normally confers a selective advantage, unless it is justified by the logic of the tax. Counterintuitively, a tax itself can be selectively advantageous if its scope is too […]
10. Sep 2019
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides

Individually Notified Regional Aid

All individual awards of aid granted to the same project over a three-year period have to be counted together and remain below the maximum allowable aid intensity in relation to the sum of eligible costs. Introduction Hungary operates an aid scheme that offers tax credits to encourage regional investment. The scheme has been implemented on the basis of the GBER […]
30. Jul 2019
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides

The Problem with Turnover Taxes

Economies of scale do not necessarily correlate with ability to pay. Introduction On Thursday, 11 July 2019, France became the first European country to adopt a tax on digital sales. At about the same time, President Donald Trump warned that the US would retaliate with punitive tariffs. The US believes that the tax is aimed at its internet giants such […]
28. Mai 2019
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides

What Happens when Internal Market Rules and State Aid Rules Clash?

A tax refund may not be granted, if it constitutes non-notified State aid.   Introduction   It is a well-established principle that restrictions on internal market rights or freedoms may not be attached to a State aid measure. Indeed, current State aid rules [e.g. GBER, guidelines] explicitly exclude from their scope any aid measure which is inseparably linked to a […]
19. Mrz 2019
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides

Many Tax Rulings Do Not Make a Single Aid Scheme

The autonomy that Member States enjoy in the field of direct taxation must be exercised in compliance with EU State aid law. A State aid measure is considered to be a “scheme” when (a) no further implementing acts are necessary, (b) the granting authority has no discretion in how the measure is applied and (c) the measure defines the eligible […]
08. Jan 2019
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides

Justification of a Tax Exemption

Prevention of excessive taxation may justify tax exemption. Prevention of abuse may justify limits to the tax exemption.   Introduction   A tax exemption may not constitute state aid if it is justified by reasons which are linked to the nature or general scheme of the tax system. This is what the Court of Justice said on 19 December 2018, […]
27. Dez 2016
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides

Funding of the Spanish Public Broadcaster and Hypothecation of Taxes

Tax payers have grounds to object to a tax on the basis of Article 107(1) TFEU only when the tax is “asymmetrical” or when it is “hypothecated” to an aid measure.   Introduction On 10 November 2016, the Court of Justice ruled in case C‑449/14 P, DTS v European Commission.[1] DTS, a Spanish television company, appealed against the judgment of the General […]
15. Dez 2016
Guest State Aid Blog von Dimitrios Kyriazis
Lexxion Seminar

Ever wondered how Lexxion Seminars are like? Read this Summary of „State Aid in Tax Measures“

The following is a summary of the main points that were presented and the issues that were discussed in the seminar on State Aid in Tax Measures that was held by Lexxion in Brussels on 7-8 November 2016. The summary has been prepared for information purposes only and it is not meant to be a precise record of the proceedings […]
02. Jun 2016
Guest State Aid Blog von Erika Ellyne
computer kayboard

Frucona Revisited: Confusing EDF and Placing the Burden of Proof Where it Belongs

We are happy to welcome Erika Ellyne on the State Aid Blog today. She is a lawyer at Van Bael & Bellis law firm where she works on EU competition law matters. Previously she was a researcher at the VUB University and the LSTS research center, where she is still an affiliate. Today she gives her insights on the Frucona […]
29. Dez 2014
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides
airplanes on the airport

Another Measure that Cannot Be Justified by the Logic of the Tax System

The granting of a tax exception is often found to constitute State aid. But the non-levying of a tax may also fall within the scope of Article 107(1). Competitors have more rights when the Commission does not open the formal investigation procedure.   IntroductionOn 25 November 2014, the Court of Justice, in case T-512/11, Ryanair v European Commission, annulled Commission […]