Erhvervs-, Vækst- og Eksportudvalget 2015-16
ERU Alm.del Bilag 320
Offentligt
1650406_0001.png
Att: Commissioner Magrethe Vestager
European Commission
Rue de la Loi / Wetstraat 200
1049 Brussels
MINISTER FOR BUSINESS AND
GROWTH
23
nd
June 2016
Dear Commissioner Magrethe Vestager
Per Your request following the meeting of 20 May 2016 with the Minis-
try of Foreign Affairs the Danish government would like to thank You for
the opportunity to further elaborate on the issue of aid in connection to
relocation of undertakings and jobs in light of the proposed revision of the
GBER. We sincerely hope that the Commission will take onboard the
following concerns of the Danish government and that we can continue
communication on this issue until a satisfactory solution has been
reached.
On behalf of the Danish government I must relay our strong dissatisfac-
tion with the proposed insertion in the GBER of a compatibility criterion
of “unsubstantial” job losses resulting from a regional investment aid
beneficiary’s relocation. The Danish Government cannot accept the cur-
rent drafting of the Commission’s proposal in point 61a of the GBER to
include regional investment aid for the relocation of undertakings and
workforce which defines “Closure” to mean losses of at least a 100 jobs
or at least 50 % the workforce.
The provision should be rephrased to only include the first sentence;
“Closure of the same or similar activity’ means full closures and also
partial closures..”
and exclude any type of threshold. If a threshold is
inevitable, which the Danish government regrets, the number of 100 jobs
should be set significantly lower to accommodate the distortive effects,
that will surely come from unfair competition of state budgets, especially
in countries where the work force is mostly engaged in SMEs.
To further outline this rationale one must look at the proposed new provi-
sion in connection to the existing regional aid guidelines (RAG) for 2014-
2020, which defines such moving around of jobs as a manifestly negative
effect (recital 121, 126), unlikely to be balanced by any positive elements
-
of course, provided that that there is a causal link between the aid and
th
MINISTRY OF
BUSINESS AND GROWTH
Slotsholmsgade 10-12
1015 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tlf.
+45 33 92 33 50
Fax.
+45 33 12 37 78
CVR-nr. 10092485
EAN nr. 5798000026001
[email protected]
www.evm.dk
ERU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 320: Brev til Vestagers kabinet om Kommissionens forslag til ændring af gruppefritagelsesforordningen, fra erhvervs- og vækstministeren
1650406_0002.png
2/2
the relocation. The RAG also explicitly states that such ‘relocation aid’
granted under a notified scheme remains subject to the same notification
obligation as the scheme.
This leads to some unintended drafting implications from the interplay
between the RAG and the proposed new definition in the GBER article 2
(61a), which relates to GBER article 13, which defines the exemption of
relocation aid in the GBER.
It does so by referring to “closure of same or similar activity” elsewhere
in the EU within a certain time frame. The proposed new article 2 (61a)
defines “Closure” to mean losses of at least a 100 jobs or at least 50 % the
workforce. This significantly limits the exemption in the GBER laid down
in Article 13 and provide Member States with a legal guarantee that aid,
to relocation of undertakings below losses of 100 jobs or below 50 pct. of
the workforce is automatic compatible with the single market. This stands
in contrast with the presumption of incompatibility for this type of aid in
the RAG, which makes such aid subject to notification. The Commission
should not underestimate the deterrent effect of keeping such a notifica-
tion requirement and the corollary risk of exposure to illegal aid and re-
covery.
The clear message from the Commission must be that there is no Europe-
an value added, if regional investment aid is allowed to move jobs around
Europe with tax payers’ money - be it national state aid or EU structural
funds. The aim must be to create more innovation, economic growth and
jobs - not to move them around Europe with public money
I hope that these arguments have persuaded the Commission to reassess
the current proposed wording of point 61a and I would urge the Commis-
sioner to feel free to contact me for any further discussion on this issue.
Yours sincerely,
Troels Lund Poulsen