Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
Alberto Heimler (Scuola Superiore della Pubblica Amministrazione) and Frederic Jenny (ESSEC Business School) analyze The limitations of European Union control of state aid
ABSTRACT: The European Union (EU) is one of the few jurisdictions in the world that has introduced specific legal provisions for controlling state aid. The treaty provisions are structured in such a way that the Commission is in principle obliged to authorize every single grant of aid. This has proved to be practically impossible, the more so with 27 members of the EU. As a result, the Commission has issued a number of exemption and de minimis rules, for which notification is not required, that suggest that the bulk of state aid is beneficial. In order for state aid policy to become more rigorous, the 2005 State Aid Action Plan rightly enhanced the role of economic analysis. This means rethinking the exemption regulations and the way individual decisions are taken. One important step forward would be to make sure that distortions of competition are noticeable before a state measure is declared incompatible. As a result, at least with respect to individual decisions, EU policy would stop addressing cases where the distortions of competition are minimal. Furthermore, the Commission would stop imposing irrelevant constraints on subsidized forms. This is particularly the case for restructuring aid, where the restoration of the healthiness of the firm is the final objective of the aid. However, even in recent decisions taken as a result of the financial crisis, the Commission uses competition-type considerations only to overcome moral hazard by attaching a number of intrusive conditions to its authorization decisions (prohibition of reducing prices before a competitor does, introduction of capacity or sales caps, merger prohibitions, caps on managers’ salaries, etc.). Very often these conditions reduce, not increase, the probability that these companies restructure successfully. Moral hazard can only be eliminated by not allowing the aid, by limiting the aid to what is strictly necessary, or by making sure that it is a once-and-for-all option, and not by constraining the company from competing.
Featured News
Google and South Carolina Clash Over State Records Demand
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Telefonica Germany Teams Up with Amazon Web Services to Migrate 5G Customers
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Grants $7.4 Million Settlement in Pork Price-Fixing Case
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Wilson Sonsini Bolsters Antitrust and Competition Practice with Key Partner Returns
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
EU to Scrutinize Telecom Italia’s Network Sale to KKR
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI