restructurings in Germany, as well as advising ING on
the European Commission’s interest in the state aid it
received from the Netherlands.
As one would expect, the banking sector has been
the dominant driver of work in the state aid area following the 2008 crisis, which brought some of the
world’s largest financial institutions to the verge of collapse. The subsequent turmoil in the markets necessitated government assistance to ensure stability, and this
was achieved largely through guarantee schemes and a
combination of full and part-nationalisations of the
affected banks. According to European Commission figures released at the end of last year, equity participation
was the most favoured method of government assistance (see ‘aid instruments’ table).
Generally, the crisis was a baptism of fire for many
European governments, as they immediately stepped in
to guarantee bank deposits and poured money into
haemorrhaging banks. In a different way, it was just as
tough for the European Commission.
‘The Commission was forced to be reactive rather
than proactive,’ says Yves Botteman, competition part-
ner in the Brussels office of Steptoe & Johnson. ‘As the
member states themselves were so quick to react, the
Commission became very quick to adapt to the chang-
ing circumstances.’
In 2009, unsurprisingly, industry and services domi-
nated state aid statistics, accounting for 96.4% of the
total European sum of state aid, and this has served to
draw attention to the help that has been given to cer-
tain companies.
Aid instruments as percentage in 2009 (EU 27)
The Commission is not just looking
to tidy up the state aid process.
There is an institutional drive
towards more motivated efficiency
throughout the entire competition
cycle. The law surrounding cartels,
for example, is another area that
has been strongly targeted for
improvement.
‘State aid has been rising in profile for for the last
couple of years,’ says José Luis Buendía, managing part-
ner of Garrigues’ Brussels office. ‘Of course there is not
much public money left, but governments are still try-
ing to find ways to support companies. This increase
has created a surge in firms proclaiming to be state aid
specialists, but it is a very different area from antitrust –
state aid experience is not something that you can just
improvise.’
It is a valid point, the scale and complexity of these
cases are very different from day-to-day competition
issues, and it is not just keeping law firms busy.
‘State aid is keeping the Commission very busy at the
moment,’ adds Buendía. ‘There are so many cases and
they are considering ways of prioritising these.’
Speaking at a conference in May this year, Joaquin
Almunia, who became the new European
Commissioner for Competition in February 2010, said:
‘We are asked to review on average well over one thou-
sand new cases per year. This is why I want to take a
more systemic approach to deal with State aid cases. I
want to simplify and clarify our rules, and I want to
focus on the aid that most hinders the functioning of
the Single Market.’
REDUCING THE BURDEN
The Commission is not just looking to tidy up the state
aid process. There is an institutional drive towards more
motivated efficiency throughout the entire competition
cycle. The law surrounding cartels, for example, is
another area that has been strongly targeted for
improvement. One of the main methods that the
Commission has been heralding to achieve more
speedy resolutions has developed out of the European
leniency system
