Search
Contact
02.04.2014 | KPMG Law Insights

EU State Aid Law: New Draft Communication on State Aid

Dear Readers,

Shortly before the European elections, our focus this time is once again on EU state aid and subsidy law.

Exciting times are coming for the research and development landscape: The EU Commission has issued a draft communication on state aid, especially for R&D&I projects. This draft is cause for celebration, as the Commission is now defining and concretizing numerous terms and funding instruments from the various EU funds in a cross-regulatory manner, thus creating greater legal certainty.

In addition, the ECJ has commented on the binding of national courts to opinions of the EU Commission and clarified that national courts are not bound by subsequently issued opinions of the Commission when implementing decisions of the EU Commission, but must take them into account in accordance with the principle of loyal cooperation.

We wish you an exciting read!

Your Public Sector Team at KPMG Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH

Mathias Oberndörfer Dr. Anke Empting

On January 28, 2014, the EU Commission published a draft of a new communication. This primarily serves to clarify and concretize terminology and funding instruments in the various EU communications, including the EU Framework for Research, Development and Innovation (R&D&I). The new EU framework is scheduled to enter into force on July 01, 2014.

Current EU framework partially unclear

The EU framework for state aid already contains, in its current version, provisions on the assessment by Member States of the financing of important projects of common European interest. When this will be the case, however, currently depends on the respective individual decision of the EU Commission and can therefore not be reliably determined in advance by the funding agencies at the level of the individual EU member states.

The new Communication aims to remedy this situation by first extending the scope to all sectors of the economy. It also explains the criteria that the Commission will apply in its EU state aid assessment of these projects. Finally, the communication contains provisions for the procedural treatment of such projects. Exceptions to eligibility relate, among other things, to aid measures that restrict the possibility of exploiting research results in other EU member states.

Examples of the new compatibility criteria

In order to reduce the administrative burden and to facilitate the assessment of the financing of such projects by the Member States, the draft Communication provides for the possibility that the Member States concerned jointly notify the project to the Commission for approval. With the adoption of the new Communication, the provisions contained in the EU Framework on State aid for the above projects will be replaced. The draft notice is currently in the consultation process. Comments can be submitted to the EU Commission until February 28, 2014.

EU State Aid Law: No Binding of National Courts on Subsequent Statements by the EU Commission

In its ruling of February 13, 2014, the European Court of Justice ruled that national courts are not bound by subsequent Commission opinions when implementing decisions of the EU Commission. However, national courts are required to take into account these subsequent opinions on the unlawfulness of measures in accordance with the principle of loyal cooperation.

The case to be decided concerned a grant of state subsidies by the member state Italy to users of digital television. Users who bought or rented equipment due to the switchover to digital transmission of television signals were to receive subsidies. Following complaints from two competitors, the EU Commission declared the Italian subsidy scheme in the budget laws to be incompatible with the internal market and demanded that Italy recover the aid, including accrued interest, from the beneficiaries.

Subsequent correction of the amount to be repaid by the beneficiary of the aid

The method used by Italy to determine the beneficiary users and the specific amount to be recovered in each case has been approved by the EU Commission. In response to a payment order issued by the Italian authorities in 2009, the company concerned paid the repayment amount originally set, including interest, but appealed to the Tribunale civile di Roma as the competent national court, claiming that the assessment criteria set out in the EU Commission’s decision and the calculations carried out to determine the additional profits generated by the aid were incorrect.

The Italian court therefore addressed the ECJ with the question of whether it is bound by opinions issued by the EU Commission at a later date on the exact amount to be recovered from a specific beneficiary.

According to the ECJ, the implementation of state aid control methods is the responsibility of the EU Commission on the one hand and the national courts on the other, with the former having exclusive jurisdiction to assess the compatibility of aid with the internal market. Such a decision is therefore also binding on national courts. On the other hand, the EU Commission is not obliged to determine the exact amount of the reimbursement when ordering the repayment of unlawfully granted aid. Accordingly, the national court in the underlying case is also not bound by a subsequent opinion of the EU Commission on the amount of the refund.

Obligation of national courts to take Commission opinions into account

However, the ECJ emphasizes in its judgment that national courts must take all appropriate measures to fulfill the obligations under Union law. In case of doubt or significant difficulties in connection with the assessment of the amount of aid, the national court is obliged to turn to the EU Commission.

As far as the calculation of the actual recovery is concerned, the national court may also come to the conclusion that no repayments have to be made – provided that the EU Commission has neither commented on the group of beneficiaries nor on the aid to be reimbursed. However, this is only permissible if the national court, on the one hand, does not question the validity of the decision or the obligation to reimburse the aid as such. On the other hand, the calculations made specifically on the basis of all the facts come to the conclusion that the amount of repayment is equal to zero.

Explore #more

28.11.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law Guest article Expert forum on employment law: Between theory and practice: The EU Blue Card and the right to short-term mobility within the EU

Nowadays, not only employees but also employers want to create more attractive working conditions. For some time now, so-called workstations / work-from-anywhere programs or other…

26.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

EU deforestation regulation forces companies to act

Anyone who trades in or uses the raw materials soy, oil palm, cattle, coffee, cocoa, rubber and wood and certain products made from them should…

25.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Special infrastructure assets: how the administration manages to implement projects quickly

The special infrastructure fund creates the opportunity to catch up on years of investment backlog. There is a need for urgency. Defence capability, economic growth…

21.11.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law Interview in Real Estate I Haufe: Substitute building materials: “Secondary is not second class”

The Substitute Building Materials Ordinance is intended to harmonize the circular economy in construction, but legal uncertainty and bureaucracy are holding it back. How can…

21.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Residential construction turbo: more living space on existing properties

Since October 30, 2025, new regulations on the creation of living space have been in force in the German Building Code (BauGB). At the heart…

19.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

New Packaging Implementation Act tightens obligations for companies

With a new Packaging Implementation Act (VerpackDG), German law is to be adapted to the EU Packaging Regulation. The Federal Ministry for the Environment…

18.11.2025 | In the media

KPMG Law Statement in the FAZ on the subject of deepfakes

Fraudsters can easily falsify invoices or even act as company bosses. Companies can defend themselves against this, but there are no miracle weapons against AI…

17.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Video surveillance in rental properties: What should landlords be aware of?

Video surveillance of rented properties is only possible under strict legal conditions. More and more owners want to keep an eye on and secure their…

13.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

Implementing AI in the legal department – these are the success factors

Artificial intelligence (AI) only benefits the legal department if it is implemented correctly. The technology promises to automate time-consuming routine work and fundamentally improve the…

13.11.2025 | KPMG Law Insights

First omnibus package to relax CSDDD, CSRD and EU taxonomy obligations

On November 13, 2025, the EU Parliament voted on its negotiating position regarding the so-called omnibus package, which provides for a relaxation of the CSRD,…

Contact

Mathias Oberndörfer

Managing Partner
Geschäftsführer KPMG Law
Bereichsvorstand Öffentlicher Sektor KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft

Theodor-Heuss-Straße 5
70174 Stuttgart

Tel.: +49 711 781923410
moberndoerfer@kpmg-law.com

© 2024 KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, associated with KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a public limited company under German law and a member of the global KPMG organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a Private English Company Limited by Guarantee. All rights reserved. For more details on the structure of KPMG’s global organisation, please visit https://home.kpmg/governance.

 KPMG International does not provide services to clients. No member firm is authorised to bind or contract KPMG International or any other member firm to any third party, just as KPMG International is not authorised to bind or contract any other member firm.

Scroll