scholarly journals A review of the pre and post COVID–19 State aid rules in the area of R&D&I

2020 ◽  
Vol 175 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-116
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Gil ◽  

This contribution aims to bring clarity about the existing R&D&I State aid rules, being focused on R&D&I tax incentives as a form of State aid. Even if they may fall into the scope of art. 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), a justification for their compatibility with the internal market can be found on art. 107(3) TFEU. Thus, the author explores both the GBER and the R&D&I Framework to determine the criteria for the compatibility of R&D&I tax incentives. Finally, as the Commission has approved temporary State aid rules for R&D related to COVID–19, a special reference to the temporary measures and its relationship with the existing State aid rules in the area of R&D&I will be made.

Author(s):  
Ramón Terol Gómez

1. Introducción: la problemática compatibilidad de la financiación pública del deporte (fútbol) profesional con el régimen de ayudas de Estado de la Unión Europea. 2. Referencia a las previsiones del Derecho de la Unión Europea sobre ayudas de Estado. 2.1. La regulación de los artículos 107 a 109 TFUE. 2.2. La referencia al deporte del Reglamento (UE) 2015/1588, del Consejo, de 13 de julio de 2015, sobre la aplicación de los artículos 107 y 108 del TFUE a determinadas categorías de ayudas estatales horizontales. 2.3. La financiación de infraestructuras deportivas en el Reglamento (UE) № 651/2014, de la Comisin, de 17 de junio de 2014, por el que se declaran determinadas categorías de ayudas compatibles con el mercado interior en aplicación de los artículos 107 y 108 TFUE.  1. Introduction: the problematic compatibility of public financing of professional sports (football) withthe State aid scheme of the European Union. 2. Reference to the provisions of European Union Law on State aid. 2.1. The regulation of articles 107 to 109 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). 2.2. The reference to the sport of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1588 of 13 July 2015 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU to certain categories of horizontal state aid. 2.3. The financing of sports infrastructures in Commission Regulation (EU) № 651/2014 of 17 June 2014, declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 TFEU.


2021 ◽  
pp. 397-409
Author(s):  
Stefan Šokinjov ◽  

According to Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1588 of 13 th July 2015 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of horizontal State aid the Commission may declare state aid for research&development and innovation compatible with the internal market and are not subject to the notification requirement of Article 108(3) TFEU. Authorized by mentioned Regulation, Commission adopted Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty and stipulated conditions under which state aid for research&development and innovation is exempted from the notification requirement. It does not mean that state aid which does not fulfill prescribed conditions is forbidden. State aid which does not fulfill envisaged conditions can be considered compatible with the internal market if after notification to the Commission it assessing it separately establishes that it satisfies each of the following criteria: contribution to a well-defined objective of common interest; need for State intervention; appropriateness of the aid measure; incentive effect; proportionality of the aid (aid limited to the minimum); avoidance of undue negative effects on competition and trade between Member States and transparency of aid


2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (14) ◽  
pp. 145-157
Author(s):  
Virág Blazsek

The bank bailouts following the global financial crisis of 2008 have been subject to prior approval of the European Commission (EC), the competition authority of the European Union. The EC was reluctant to reject rescue efforts directed at failing banks and so it consistently approved all such requests submitted by Member States. Out of the top twenty European banks, the EC authorized State aid to at least twelve entities. In this context, the paper outlines the gradually changing interpretation of EU State aid rules, the “temporary and extraordinary rules” introduced starting from late 2008, and the extension of the “no-State aid” category. The above shifts show that the EC itself deflected from relevant EU laws in order to systemically rescue important banks in Europe and restore their financial stability. The paper argues that bank bailouts and bank rescue packages by the State have led to different effects on market structures and consumer welfare in the Eurozone and non-Eurozone areas, mostly the Eastern segments of the European Union. As such, it is argued that they are inconsistent with the European common market. Although the EC tried to minimize the distortion of competition created as a result of the aforementioned case law primarily through the application of the principle of exceptionality and different compensation measures, these efforts have been at least partially unsuccessful. Massive State aid packages, the preferential treatment of the largest, or systemically important, banks through EU State aid mechanisms – almost none of which are Central and Eastern European (CEE) – may have led to the distortion of competition on the common market. That is so mainly because of the prioritization of the stability of the financial sector and the Euro. The paper argues that State aid for failing banks may have had important positive effects in the short run, such as the promotion of the stability of the banking system and the Euro. In the longrun however, it has contributed to the unprecedented sovereign indebtedness in Europe, and contributed to an increased economic and political instability of the EU, particularly in its most vulnerable CEE segment.


Author(s):  
Ivana Domljan ◽  
Vjekoslav Domljan

An effective innovation system provides rules and procedures that nurture ideas, research, and increase in knowledge, resulting in new goods/services, new production or organisational processes, or new marketing techniques, and hence is a major source of technological progress does not exist in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In order for Bosnia and Herzegovina to increase and strengthen the commercialization of research and innovativeness of companies, it is necessary to (1) increase investments in R&D at least to the norm of the African Union (1% of GDP), as the European Union norm (3% of GDP) is too high, and (2) design and implement policy measures aimed at stimulating the research and development capacities of the business sector (through tax incentives for staff and capital engagement) to strengthen the activities of commercialization of research and development and links between universities and business companies (e.g., to establish a program for the establishment of technology and innovation centres [one per region]).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document