JULY 2013
Legal Focus
73
The EU State Aid Framework and the Legal Risks
Recently the EU launched an investigation into whether a €7 billion guarantee granted by the French government to PSA Peugeot Citroen complied with state aid rules and also ensures its long-term viability. To find out more, we speak to Ursula O’Dwyer, an Irish solicitor and partner with Philip Lee Solicitors, who practices EU State aid law and international trade law in Brussels.
What are your opinions on the EU’s investigation?
Last month the Commission opened an in depth investigation into restructuring plans for the French PSA Peugeot Citroen Group (PSA), consisting of a 7 Billion Euro guarantee to subsidiary Banque PSA Finance (BPF) and grants and repayable advances of Euro 85.9 million. This follows temporary conditional approval in February for an initial tranche of 1.2 billion Euros in guarantees to BPF pending the submission of a restructuring plan for the group. The initial approval was given under a more lenient legal basis used since 2008 for the financial services sector in the context of the economic crisis and the French Government will have to comply with the Banking Communication in demonstrating a return to viability.
However, the Commission considers that BPF’s viability depends on that of the group, which itself will also benefit from the guarantee. It has therefore required PSA to present a restructuring plan for the whole group, which complies with the stricter test of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines, under which it is obliged to undertake compensatory measures in order to minimize the effect on competition, such as divesting assets or reducing capacity and contribute to the restructuring by selling off non- essential assets.
The Commission has doubts on the viability both of BPF and PSA, which is taking too optimistic a view of market evolution. In addition PSA has partly based its plan on an aided R&D project
for hybrid cars while abandoning a joint venture with BMW to develop and produce hybrid cars. From the French point of view involving an R&D&I project is probably a good strategy. Currently the only way for large companies to receive large amounts of State aid is through the R&D&I Framework, which the Commission applies very leniently but tax payers may wonder if it is efficient to abandon one hybrid project for another.
More generally, the rules are getting stricter. The Commission is reforming the State aid rules to make spending more efficient and address the disparity in Member States’ spending power. France has in the past been responsible for a large share of total EU spend on regional aid but new Regional Aid Guidelines for 2014-20 will only allow aid to large companies in the poorest regions of the EU unless they are diversifying into new activities. The Commission has a difficult task and will have to do a robust investigation. Aid for the survival of national champions, where many jobs are at stake has always been controversial and political. In this case a competitor has already filed a complaint and no doubt will be prepared to challenge any positive decision before the General Court.
What challenges do companies face under the state aid rules?
Companies, receiving aid need to be careful that the rules are respected because illegal aid ultimately has to be repaid with interest and national courts have the power to block aid that has not been notified to the Commission.
www.lawyer-monthly.com What potential risks do they raise?
In my practice I have seen more and more interest in State aid over the past year. Government and State bodies want advice on what vehicles are open to them to grant aid in a way which is compatible with the rules, while companies want to challenge aid to their competitors by bringing complaints to the Commission or taking action in the national courts.
Is there anything else you would like to add?
An area to watch for the future is access to capital
through financial engineering
instruments, which the Commission is pushing because the revolving nature of the aid means that public money goes further. LM
Contact:
Ursula o´dwyer Partner
Philip Lee Solicitors Rond Point Schuman 9 B-1040 Brussels Belgium
tel (32) (2) 640 3890 Fax (32) (2) 648 2279 Email:
uodwyer@philiplee.be
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132