The EU Commission finds that Finnish measures which benefited a pharmacy are not State aid because they were an exercise of regulatory functions for which a fee does not have to be demanded (Yliopiston Apteekki Oy)

Article published on StateAidHub:, republished in e-Competitions with the courtesy of the author. 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.

The Puzzle of the State Acting as a Regulator* When the state exercises its regulatory tasks, it does not have to demand fees and therefore it does not forgo potential state resources. Introduction A few weeks ago the Commission considered whether the regulatory actions of the state fell within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU. In decision SA.42028 concerning aid to Yliopiston Apteekki Oy in Finland, the Commission examined whether an exemption from a rule imposing a limit on the maximum number of pharmacies that could be operated by the same person could constitute State aid. Yliopiston Apteekki Oy is a pharmacy owned by the University of Helsinki [hereinafter UHP]. A complainant alleged that UHP paid a lower licence fee and benefitted from a tax refund. In Finland there is a

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.