For upwards of thirty years EU and EFTA courts have been using a test for applying the Market Economy Investor Principle (MEIP) 10 determine whether a state intervention amounts 10 granting of an economic advantage 10 a recipient undertaking. If the stale wishes 10 set as a commercial operator, it must comply with the MEIP. Unsurprisingly, the test remains a difficult and controversial legal instrument, and its very existence and credibility have been questioned. This book unravels the nation of the MEIP, analysing its applicability in order 10 clarify doubts and misinterpretations. Such an understanding is crucial because of the negative consequences of the test's misapplication, and also because the ongoing process of opening markets for more competition blurs the distinction between the public and private sectors. The analysis addresses such questions as the following; - What characterizes a 'prudent' investor? - When is it justified to consider a given public investor 'rational' or 'reasonable'? - How should too 'economic' or 'commercial soundness' of state interventions be understood? - What rate of return is required under the MEIP and how is it calculated? - When should the profitability analysis be undertaken and why? The author examines both the theory behind too principle and its practical application, with detailed attention to case law and the Commission's guidelines explaining the test's mechanism. Soo considers the various critiques of the test and concludes with proposals for change. Practitioners, policymakers, and academics will appreciate the great clarification offered of too MEIP - the character of an economic advantage under the MEIP and in aid scenarios, how to determine whether the MEIP is applicable 10 a given state measure, and how 10 apply the test according 10 its various subtypes and to atypical or complex interventions. They will find that too book's systematic analysis goes a long way to ensuring a credible and reliable assessment of the applicability of state aid under Article 107(1) TFEU.

The Market Economy Investor Principle (MEIP) is one of the most fundamental precepts of European state aid law. It is a useful tool at the disposal of the European Commission to assess whether in any given situation state aid might exist. Member states also use it to ensure compliance in funding commercial firms, whether public or private. With continuous clarifications and refinement by numerous Commission text, decisions and the European Court's judgments, it captures the center-spot of state aid assessment practices. But the doctrine has also been severely criticized for its inherent theoretical incoherence as well as complex practical application which sometimes resulted in inconsistent and unpredictable decisions. While government actions are always influenced by public policy objectives and other political factors, is it really practical or effective to compare those with that of private investors on pure commercial criteria? How far is it acceptable to hypothesize the existence of a model 'private investor' that may never exist? Lack of a proper market benchmark sometimes results in providing wider discretion in the hands of the Commission. Is it good for a legal principle to empower an executive body to use it as a political tool? The MEIP would certainly be a better paradigm when it could provide solution to many of such questions. Given the legal uncertainty, inconsistency and unpredictability related with the test, considerable care need to be exercised to ensure that 'not every characteristics of the state is imputed to the private investor, otherwise the MEIP is liable to act as a distorting mirror that flatters the image of the States as an investor.'

A considerable number of State aid decisions have been adopted by the European Commission in the context of the financial crisis and thousands of papers have been written about it. Yet, only twice have the European judges been requested to rule on the legality of those decisions. The first opportunity to give clarifications in that respect arose in case ING. At the heart of the dispute between the Commission and Netherlands State lies the application of the Market Economy Investor Test. The appeal judgment commented upon clarifies that the Commission cannot evade its obligation to assess the economic rationality of an amendment to the repayment terms in the light of the private investor test solely on the ground that the capital injection subject to repayment itself already constitutes State aid. The reasoning unfold by the Court in its judgment - which can be undoubtedly defined as overly concise - confirms however the presence of two trends in European case law. The first is the increasingly clear attempt to “proceduralise” the application of MEIT in order to respond to the lack of legal certainty inherent in the nature of the test itself. The second, which emerges from the most recent jurisprudence, is the gradual shift from the traditional profit-oriented paradigm of private investor to the different model of “reasonable investor”. In those two respects, the ruling must certainly be welcomed by the legal community.

This thesis is concerned with the legal concept of State aid under Article 107(1) TFEU. It was born out of the concern that EU institutions and practitioners alike refer to it as if this concept had been immune to the evolution experienced by the context in which it has been applied: the Internal Market. Against this seemingly static background, the thesis argues that the concept of aid is a 'living instrument' that has been applied in accordance with the main policy priorities of the European Commission, a fact that had been underexplored in the literature and the implications of this connection seldom studied. The thesis also contends, contrary to what has been affirmed before by other authors, that the evolution of this concept has been influenced by the broader advancement of the case-law of the Court of Justice in different periods of the integration process. Thirdly, the thesis submits that the study of the origins of subsidy control in Europe, of the legislative history of today's Article 107(1) TFEU, and of the policy and enforcement considerations that have affected the development of the concept of aid is not only enriching from an intellectual point of view but also useful to decide difficult cases. In this regard, the thesis provides criteria to interpret and discuss cases, e.g. Sloman Neptun, Philip Morris or Azores, beyond the analysis traditionally carried out in this field, too often limited to the compatibility of these cases with the effects-based formula traditionally followed to define aid. Indeed, the emergence of that formula, of the Market Economy Investor Principle test, the Adria-Wien test for selectivity, the ups-and-downs of the De Minimis rule in this field, or the exclusion of regulatory measures from the notion of State resources, cannot be understood only by looking at the economic or even the strictly legal reasoning behind the relevant judgments. Instead, historical, policy and enforcement considerations are useful interpretative tools to fully grasp these developments, a point that this thesis contributes to making.

The recent State Aid Modernization has decentralized the enforcement of State aid law. In particular, under the General Block Exemption Regulation a number of aid schemes do not require the preventive “check” by the European Commission, while national courts play a growing role in private enforcement of State aid law. This insightful book analyzes the enforcement of State aid law in the aftermath of the State Aid Modernization, identifying a number of emerging trends at the national and EU level.

ÔErika Szyszczak and the team have come up trumps with a modern comment on state aid and policy. Thank you!Õ Ð Phillip Taylor MBE and Elizabeth Taylor, The Barrister Magazine ÔThis fine collection of essays demonstrates in a very articulate way why EU State aid law has taken the centre stage of EU law. In eighteen chapters the reader is provided with a fascinating snapshot of the main issues and developments of the law. The key elements of the EU policy are analysed in a critical way often leading to new insights. In addition the book contains a wealth of material greatly facilitating further research.Õ Ð Piet Jan Slot, University of Leiden, The Netherlands ÔEuropean state aid law needs more self-questioning and more intellectual debate. In my view, this Research Handbook is a very valuable contribution to this necessary process. It correctly identifies the most intellectually problematic issues within state aid law and asks the right questions. This may be due to the balance in the excellent selection of contributors, coming both from the academia and from practice. This guarantees, on the one hand, that the questions are relevant in practice and not purely theoretical but also provides, on the other hand, for a rigorous analytical approach when confronting the issues. The result is a fresh and interesting new look to many of the basic issues of state aid law.Õ Ð JosŽ Luis Buendia Sierra, Garrigues, Brussels, Belgium, and KingÕs College London, UK ÔThis Research Handbook provides an in-depth exploration of some of the most difficult and controversial issues in current State aid law and policy. It is unusual in providing not only a legal but also an economic and political science perspective on this rapidly developing area of EU law. The Handbook will be a welcome addition to the shelves of State aid practitioners and academics alike.Õ Ð Kelyn Bacon, Brick Court Chambers, London, UK This timely new Handbook reflects on current issues that confront State aid law and policy in the EU. State aid was a neglected area of competition law until attempts to modernise it became central to the Lisbon process 2000 where the aim was to encourage ÔintelligentÕ State aid by reducing aid to specific sectors and by making better use of aid for horizontal projects central to EU integration concerns. This policy framework has underpinned the new approach to State aid policy in the EU in recent years and informs many of the chapters in this book. Contributions from leading academics, regulators and practising lawyers, discuss topics devoted to modernisation, problems faced by recent enlargements of the EU, the role of State aid in the fiscal crisis and recession, the role of the private market investor test, regional aid, environmental aid and the review of the Altmark ruling. Perspectives on State aid law and policy from the disciplines of economics and political science are also explored in detail. Research Handbook on European State Aid Law will appeal to academics, regulators, national and EU government officials, practitioners and postgraduate students who are involved in State aid law.

This revised and updated Research Handbook on European State Aid Law brings together established academics and practitioners to provide a wide-ranging coverage of the field. Incorporating political science, economics and the law in its analysis, it provides a strong overview of the salient issues in State aid law and policy.