When the Commission exercises its power, it enjoys wide discretion because it has to ensure that free competition and state aid are reconciled [SIDE v Commission, T‑348/04]. Moreover, the Commission may even change its interpretation of Article 107(2) or (3) without being bound by earlier decisions [Freistaat Sachsen v Commission, C-57/00P; Regione autonoma della Sardegna, T-171/02].
EU law is very clear that all aid is incompatible with the internal market unless it achieves an objective that cannot otherwise be achieved under free market conditions. No aid may be granted, even if it is consistent with one of the objectives of Article 107(3)(a) to (d), if it is not necessary for achieving that objective [Regione autonoma della Sardegna, T-171/02; Italy v Commission, T-211/05; SIDE v Commission, T‑348/04]. If aid is unnecessary, it necessarily affects trade to an extent that it is contrary to the common interest.
When national officials waste their own money, in fact they cause a bigger distortion of competition. Other things being equal, an undertaking is attracted to the location where it can receive the largest amount of aid. In reality, wasting of money in one Member State imposes a cost on another. The latter can reduce this cost by offering more money itself. The purpose of state aid control is precisely to prevent this kind of subsidy race.
Do you know we also publish a journal on State aid?
The European State Aid Law Quarterly is available online and in print, and our subscribers benefit from a reduced price for our events.
Competition is distorted not only by explicit policies that subsidise firms, but also by weak administrative procedures that fail to ensure that subsidies are the smallest possible for any given specific objective. A subsidy has the same impact on competition irrespective of whether it is granted intentionally or unintentionally.
The need to secure that competition is not distorted fully justifies the view of the Commission that Member States should not grant aid that is not necessary and has no incentive effect. Anything that goes beyond what is necessary is wasteful.
In fact, it is in the interest of any Member State not to waste money. During ten years of EStALI conferences, I have heard many times national officials arguing that state aid ceilings should be higher. They want the possibility to grant larger amounts of amount. This is understandable and may even be justified. The Commission has singularly failed to explain how it determines the various state aid ceilings. Perhaps the optimum amount of aid is too little or too much. We simply do not have convincing evidence either way.
But in these ten years, I have not heard at all any reasonable explanation why it would be in the Member States’ interest to waste their money. I have often wondered whether those national officials who berate the Commission would also stand with the same confidence in front of their own taxpayers and declare that they have the right to waste their money. How long would they remain in office or out of jail?