Compliance with Regulation 651/2014: The Consequences of Failure to Publish an Aid Measure*

Member States must publish the aid measures they adopt on the basis of the GBER. Failure to publish prevents them from being exempted from notification and renders any aid illegal.



On 21 July 2016, the Court of Justice delivered a judgment in response to a request for a preliminary ruling in case C-493/14, Dilly’s Wellnesshotel v Finanzamt Linz.[1] An Austrian court asked for guidance on how to assess the legality of an aid measure that had been adopted on the basis of the previous General Block Exemption Regulation – Regulation 800/2008. Although the judgment concerned a regulation that is no longer in force, it raises important questions on the obligations of Member States that may arise from the current GBER – Regulation 651/2014.

The main points of the judgment

Dilly’s Wellnesshotel applied for aid, in the form of energy tax rebates, that it believed it was entitled to under an Austrian aid measure that had been implemented supposedly in compliance with Regulation 800/2008. Because its application was refused, it initiated proceedings before a national court.

The referring Austrian court had doubts as to the conformity of the Austrian measure with Regulation 800/2008 because:

“(26) First, the national legislation contains no reference to Regulation No 800/2008, or the publication reference in the Official Journal of the European Union. Secondly, although Article 9(1) of that regulation provides that a summary of the information regarding the aid measure at issue is to be forwarded to the Commission within 20 working days ‘following the entry into force of an aid scheme’, in the present case the summary was forwarded out of time. Thirdly, the referring court points out that the text of the aid scheme at issue was not published on the Internet in accordance with Article 9(2) of Regulation No 800/2008, since the Internet address notified to the Commission did not — and still does not — enable access to the text concerned.”


The Austrian government explained that the omission was later corrected with proper publication of the relevant information while the necessary summary sheet was sent to the Commission under Regulation 651/2014.

The response of the Court of Justice was that the ex post remedy “(44) […] cannot, in any event, compensate for the failure to refer to Regulation No 800/2008 in the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings for the period concerned.”

The Court had no difficulty concluding that the Austrian measure in question could not benefit from the exemption from notification provided by Regulation 800/2008. In other words, because of what appeared to be a formality, the aid that was granted by that measure was illegal and therefore actionable before national courts.

What about Regulation 651/2014?

The current GBER does not lay down the same obligations as the previous GBER. Article 3 of Regulation 651/2014 states the following:

“Article 3: Conditions for exemption

Aid schemes, individual aid granted under aid schemes and ad hoc aid […] shall be exempted from the notification requirement […] provided that such aid fulfils all the conditions laid down in Chapter I of this Regulation, as well as the specific conditions for the relevant category of aid laid down in Chapter III of this Regulation.”

By contrast, Article 3 of Regulation 800/2008 contained the additional requirement for inclusion in aid measures of references to that Regulation and the Official Journal:

“Article 3: Conditions for exemption

  1. Aid schemes fulfilling all the conditions […] shall be exempt from the notification requirement […] provided that […] the scheme contains an express reference to this Regulation, by citing its title and publication reference in the Official Journal of the European Union.
  2. Individual aid […] shall be exempt from the notification requirement […] provided that […] the individual aid measure contains an express reference to the relevant provisions of this Regulation, by citing the relevant provisions, the title of this Regulation and its publication reference in the Official Journal of the European Union.”

Does this mean that Member States need not bother to refer to Regulation 651/2014? I think this would be the wrong conclusion for the following three reasons.

First, the Court of Justice observed in its judgment that:

“(50) […] an express reference to Regulation No 800/2008 in a given aid measure enables the recipients, and their competitors, to understand the reasons why that measure may be implemented even though it was not notified to the Commission or authorised by it. Such a reference thereby enables not only the Commission to review, but also third parties to be informed of, the proposed aid measures, so that they may exercise their procedural rights.”

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.


It is a well-established principle in the case law that aid beneficiaries should know whether the aid they receive is legally granted or not. If the aid is not granted in full compliance with the relevant rules, it will be illegal and therefore the beneficiaries will have to pay interest over the amount they receive, even if later on the Commission declares the aid to be compatible with the internal market. The interest that has to be paid covers the whole period of illegality which is the period from the date of the granting of the aid until the date the Commission finds it to be compatible.

Moreover, a broader principle of EU law is that Member States may not, through their actions, deprive EU rules from their effectiveness. Since Article 108(3) TFEU, which requires notification of all aid, is intended to protect individual rights [and above all, the rights of competitors] and enable the Commission to exercise its powers of control of State aid, Member States whose aid measures do not contain references to the GBER weaken the effectiveness of Article 108(3).


The second reason is that the current GBER contains a number of provisions that in essence are similar to Article 3 of the previous GBER. In particular, Article 9 of Regulation 651/2014 requires that:

“Article 9: Publication and information

1. The Member State concerned shall ensure the publication on a comprehensive State aid website, at national or regional level of:

(a) the summary information referred to in Article 11 in the standardised format laid down in Annex II or a link providing access to it;

(b) the full text of each aid measure, as referred to in Article 11 or a link providing access to the full text;”

Article 11 stipulates that:

“Article 11: Reporting Member States […] shall transmit to the Commission:

(a) via the Commission’s electronic notification system, the summary information about each aid measure exempted under this Regulation in the standardised format laid down in Annex II, together with a link providing access to the full text of the aid measure, including its amendments, within 20 working days following its entry into force;”

Member States have to inform the Commission and publish both the information that they send to the Commission and the text of the aid measure.

Annex II includes the form that has to be filled by Member States. The form mentions, among other things, the registry number given to the measure by the Commission [i.e. SA.xxxxx] and the relevant articles of Regulation 651/2014.

In other words, both aid recipients and competitors will know the legal basis of the aid measure.

The third reason is that it is good administrative practice that aid measures are transparent. Member States should explicitly tell aid beneficiaries the GBER provisions on the basis of which the aid is granted. Not only will there be more transparency and the recipients will also be in a position to check that the granting authority did not make any mistake, but ultimately, in the case of error, they will not be able to argue afterwards that they thought the aid was granted correctly and refuse to return it. They will share part of the responsibility.

Retroactive application of Regulation 651/2014?

As was mentioned earlier, Austria explained in court that it had belatedly informed the Commission about its aid measure under Regulation 651/2014. Indeed Article 58 of Regulation 651/2014 allows it.

“Article 58: Transitional provisions

1. This Regulation shall apply to individual aid granted before its entry into force, if the aid fulfils all the conditions laid down in this Regulation, with the exception of Article 9.”

Article 58 appears to provide a “get-out-of-jail-free” card. This is only partly true. Any aid granted before the current GBER came into force becomes legal only from the date the Commission is informed about it. The Court of Justice in the Dilly’s Wellnesshotel case also mentioned Austria’s failure to inform the Commission within 20 days of implementing the aid measure.

Therefore, the conclusion that can be inferred is that illegal measures which in principle comply with the provisions of the GBER can be turned into legal as of the date when the Commission is informed, but, given the Court’s views in paragraph 44 of its judgment, the illegality that existed before the Commission is informed cannot be eliminated ex post. Illegal aid remains illegal despite any corrective action that may be taken later on.


* I am grateful to Stephen Moore for comments and useful discussion on the implications of the judgment.

[1] The full text of the judgment can be accessed at:


Visit our Youtube channel and listen to Alexander Rose talking about “What is GBER and how to use it?“:



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.

Hinterlasse eine Antwort

Zusammenhängende Posts

01. Nov 2022
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides

Research Organisations, their Primary Objectives and their Shareholders

A research organisation is not required to reinvest any revenue it may generate into its non-economic activities. The fact that the shareholders of a research entity are profit seeking has no decisive impact on its classification as a research organisation. Introduction As governments push universities to engage in more collaborative research with industry, the question increasingly arises where to draw […]
30. Aug 2022
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides

Support for Research & Innovation in the Context of the Temporary Framework

Introduction The Temporary Framework [TF] that was introduced in March 2020 expired on 30 June 2022. However, two provisions of the TF remain in force until 31 December 2022. They are investment support for sustainable recovery [section 3.13 of the TF] and solvency support [section 3.14 of the TF]. In the former case, individual aid must be granted before 1 […]
12. Jul 2022
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides

State Guarantees without State Aid

Introduction State guarantees may constitute State aid if they are not priced at market rates. A properly priced guarantee reflects the risk assumed by the public authority that issues it and the collateral, if any, that the beneficiary undertaking can pledge. The State aid that is embedded in a guarantee that is priced below the relevant market rate is operating […]
26. Apr 2022
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides

Member States Must Recover of their Own Initiative Illegally Granted Aid

Aid granted illegal must be recovered by the granting authority without any need for a prior Commission decision ordering recovery. The amount of recovered aid may be limited to that which is in excess of what is allowed by the GBER. Introduction It is a well-established principle in the case law that a “prudent market operator” is responsible to check […]
09. Mrz 2022
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides

The Concept of “Undertaking in Difficulty” and Evidential Requirements

The “subscribed share capital” of a company includes the capital that is already paid and any future amount that shareholders have irrevocably committed to pay. Introduction Undertakings in difficulty may not receive any kind of aid except aid to compensate for damage caused by a natural disaster or exceptional occurrence and, under strict conditions, rescue and/or restructuring aid. In most […]
03. Nov 2020
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides

The Concept of SME, Indirect Control by Public Bodies and New Problems for Public Universities and Research Organisations

I am grateful to Peter Staviczky for comments on an earlier draft. A company that is owned by more than 25% by public bodies is not considered to be an SME, regardless of whether those public bodies actually exercise direct or indirect control. A public university can be a public body. Temporary Framework Update: Number of approved and published covid-19 […]
06. Okt 2020
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides

Member States Beware: Compliance with the GBER and the SME Criteria has just Become more Difficult

I am grateful to Péter Staviczky for comments on an earlier draft of this article. I am solely responsible for its contents. The European Commission retains its sole right to assess the compatibility of aid granted on the basis of the GBER. Criteria defined in national law need not be taken into account by the Commission. The SME status has […]
14. Jul 2020
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides

2019 Competition Report

The Annual Competition Report is a useful document, but it should provide more information on the results of the ex post evaluations and ex post monitoring. Update on Temporary Framework: Number of approved and published COVID-19 measures, as of 10 July 2020: 202* Legal basis: Article 107(2)(b): 20; Article 107(3)(b): 171; Article 107(3)(c): 17 Six Member States have implemented 11 […]
11. Jun 2020
Guest State Aid Blog von Erika Szyszczak

When State Aid Gets Political

We are happy to receive a guest comment on the EU – UK post-Brexit trade negotiations from Professor Emerita, Erika Szyszczak, who is a Fellow of UKTPO at the University of Sussex. This is a longer version of an earlier Blog published on the UKTPO website. Control over State aid is a stumbling block for the future of an EU […]
02. Jun 2020
State Aid Uncovered von Phedon Nicolaides
euro coins

i) Investor-State Arbitration ii) Recovery of Incompatible State Aid iii) State Aid Scoreboard 2019

Member States abolish bilateral investment treaties between themselves. When the Commission orders recovery of incompatible State aid, interest has to be added to the recoverable amount for the whole period of illegality regardless of any national limitation rules. In 2018, Member States granted EUR 121 billion to industry and services, EUR 6.3 billion to agriculture and EUR 50 billion to […]