The aim of this thesis is to determine the issues associated with the national enforcement of EU state-aid regulations in regards to public service. Art. 107 in the treaty of Lisbon contain the general rule, that state-aid is prohibited. A measure is state-aid when it fulfills the four criteria set out by art. 107, TEUF. The first criterion is that the given measure has to be awarded by the government or by government funds. Second, the measure must influence the intra-Community trade. The third criterion implies that the recipient has to gain an advantage from the given measure. The last criterion is that the measure has to distort or potentially distort terms of competition. Nevertheless the criteria set out in art. 107 TEUF are still difficult to determination as regards to whether an aid constitutes a state-aid. There are exceptions to the general rule mentioned above. These will also be dealt with in this thesis, but also here it is concluded that the exceptions can cause problems. The basis for this is case law and announcements from the European Commission et cetera. In the event of a prohibited state-aid, the recipient is obligated to reimburse the aid with an additional mark-up which is determined by the European Commission. Furthermore the advantages associated with a law suit on compensation for financial losses are assessed. At last I examine the financial consequences when national courts enforce state-aid provisions. For this purpose a hypothesis is constructed. The hypothesis features two identical firms in two different member states. Only one of the firms is awarded state-aid. The ambition is to illustrate the difference between their ability to compete. Additionally Kaldor- Hicks efficiency is considered when analyzing when allocation of state-aid is efficient. In the conclusion complications in relation to national enforcement of European state-aid provisions are reviewed.
|Educations||MSc in Commercial Law, (Graduate Programme) Final Thesis|
|Number of pages||86|