Examples of using An aid scheme in English and their translations into Croatian
{-}
-
Colloquial
-
Ecclesiastic
-
Computer
The existence of an aid scheme, within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589.
The following observations may be made on the basis of the definition of an aid scheme in Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589, set out in paragraph 77 above, as interpreted by the case-law.
See Régie Networks, paragraphs 79 to 86,regarding a subsequent increase in resources allocated to finance an aid scheme.
Accordingly, even though things would have been clearer if the measure had been expressly classified as an aid scheme, the first part of the first ground of appeal is admissible.
The second plea alleges an error of law and a manifest error of assessment,in that the Commission classified the measures as an aid scheme.
It is just such an aid scheme which is provided for in the EEG 2012, which, in my view, is comparable to the schemes that gave rise to the case-law in Association Vent De Colère! and Others. 98.
The limitation period shall begin on the day on which the unlawful aid is awarded to the beneficiary either as individual aid or as aid under an aid scheme.
To the extent that the necessity of an aid scheme targeted at games which serve a cultural or educational purpose can be demonstrated, the Commission will apply the aid intensity criteria of this Communication by analogy.
It follows from the foregoing considerations that the Commission erroneously considered that the Belgian excess profit system at issue, as presented in the contested decision,constituted an aid scheme.
Rather, as mentioned above, it is the duty of the Commission,when considering an aid scheme financed by a tax or levy which forms an integral part thereof, to take the method of financing into account when examining that scheme. .
In that regard, the Commission observes that, contrary to the finding in paragraph 171 of the judgment under appeal,the requirement to notify the aid does not prove that the guarantee in favour of IFPEN does not constitute an aid scheme.
Member States shall keep a record regarding an individual aid for 10 years from the date on which it was granted, and regarding an aid scheme, for 10 years from the date on which the last individual aid was granted under such scheme. .
In this instance, the Commission maintains that the guarantee enjoyed by IFPEN, which is not linked to a specific project and is granted for an indefinite period and for an indefinite amount,must be classified as an aid scheme.
And in Italy v Commission,(43) the Italian Government had notified the Commission of its intention of allocating another EUR 10 million to the budget of an aid scheme previously approved by that institution(corresponding to 100% of the aid scheme). .
Accordingly, it is necessary to uphold the pleas raised by the Kingdom of Belgium and Magnetrol International, alleging the infringement of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589,as regards the conclusion set out in the contested decision regarding the existence of an aid scheme.
In the alternative, the French Republic adds that if the Court should find that the conversion of IFPEN into an EPIC constitutes an aid scheme and that the General Court therefore made an error of law, that error would not entail that the judgment under appeal should be set aside.
Consequently, it must be held that EU law precludes a national court from assessing whether a residence condition, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, complies with the free movement of capital,where the scheme for the refund of dividend tax concerned constitutes an aid scheme.
The Commission maintains that the General Court was wrong to hold that the guarantee enjoyed by IFPEN did not constitute an aid scheme and that, consequently, the Commission could not rely on the general characteristics of that measure in order to show that it constituted State aid. .
It follows from the foregoing considerations that the Commission wrongly concluded that the excess profit exemption scheme, as defined by the Commission in the contested decision, did not require further implementing measures andtherefore constituted an aid scheme, within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589.
The Kingdom of Belgium and Magnetrol International submit, in essence,that the Commission incorrectly identified the acts on the basis of which the excess profit system allegedly constituted an aid scheme and wrongly found that those acts did not require further implementing measures, within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Regulation 2015/1589.
The French Government supports that argument and infers that the measure examined did not constitute an aid scheme and that the Commission could not confine itself to studying the general characteristics of the measure for the purpose of determining whether it constituted State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
State aid- Aid scheme implemented by Belgium- Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and unlawful and ordering recovery of the aid granted- Tax ruling- Excess profit exemption- Fiscal autonomy of the Member States- Concept of an aid scheme- Further implementing measures.
Alternatively, the Commission claims that, even ifit can be considered that the guarantee in favour of IFPEN does not constitute an aid scheme but individual aid, the General Court should have based its examination on the potential effects of the guarantee, namely on the effects that that measure was likely to produce.
It is in the light of those considerations that it is necessary to verify whether, as the Commission claims, the General Court erred in law when it held, in paragraphs 169 to 172 of the judgment under appeal,that the guarantee in favour of IFPEN does not constitute an aid scheme and that the Commission cannot, therefore, rely on the general characteristics of that measure in order to demonstrate that it constitutes State aid. .
In that regard, moreover, I fail to see what the effect might be of the difference between an aid scheme which is unlawful but need not be recovered(first part of the decision at issue) and an aid scheme found to be lawful but of which the appellants are not, in any event, beneficiaries second and third parts of the decision at issue.
By its first ground of appeal,which is divided into three parts, the Commission first of all takes issue with the General Court for having erred in law by refusing to classify the measure concerned as an aid scheme and by prohibiting the Commission from confining its examination to the general features of the aid scheme at issue(first part).
Accordingly, my position on the first reading of the first question referred is that an increase in tax revenue intended to finance an aid scheme does not fall within the scope of the State aid rules in the FEU Treaty if that tax, even though it might be allocated to the financing of the aid scheme, has no direct impact on the amount of aid paid out.
Of the judgment under appeal, on the argument presented by the Commission, based on EU case-law in that regard,according to which where it assesses an aid scheme, that institution may confine itself to examining the general characteristics of the scheme at issue in order to establish whether it involves elements of State aid. .