The EU General Court explains that the fact that undertakings are obliged by law to comply with certain tests does not justify the subsidisation of their costs with public funds (Belgium)

* Article published on State Aid Hub (click here), republished in e-Competitions with the courtesy of the author(s). The original title of this article appears below the e-Competitions title. Authors are welcome to write an alternative article on this case/text, provided they have no relationships with a party or related third party. Article will need e-Competitions Board approval before publication.

Do Free but Compulsory Tests Confer a Selective Advantage?* State aid rules apply to measures which are either harmonised at EU level or are left to the discretion of Member States. The protection of public health is no sufficient reason for removing a public measure from the scope of Article 107(1). The fact that undertakings are obliged by law to comply with certain tests does not justify the subsidisation of their costs with public money. A measure is selective when it does not apply to all undertakings. Introduction This article tackles an issue that often puzzles public officials. It appears reasonable and fair that undertakings, which are compelled by law to follow a certain procedure or undertake a certain test, are also reimbursed for the cost of the compulsory procedure or

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

Quotation

Phedon Nicolaides, The EU General Court explains that the fact that undertakings are obliged by law to comply with certain tests does not justify the subsidisation of their costs with public funds (Belgium), 25 March 2015, e-Competitions SGEI and competition law, Art. N° 73393

Visites 141

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues