ERU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 275: Orientering om det danske høringssvar til Europa-Kommissionens høring vedr. revisionen af Meddelelsen om Vigtige Projekter af Fælles Europæisk Interesse, fra erhvervsministeren

Erhvervsudvalget 2020-21
ERU Alm.del Bilag 275
Offentligt

NOTE

12. marts 2021

2021 - 3794

miy

Danish response to the Commission’s invitation to comment on revised

State aid rules on Important Projects of Common European Interest

The Danish government appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Eu-

ropean Commission’s draft communication on the criteria for the analysis

of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid to promote the

execution of important projects of common European interest (the draft IP-

CEI Communication).

In general, the Danish Government is positive towards the draft IPCEI

Communication. Overall, we agree that the new focus points in the draft

Communication will help secure more openness, transparency and inclu-

siveness, notably for SME participation and enhance the focus on the green

and digital transition. Furthermore, we are happy to note that many of the

Danish Government’s views and points have been taking in to account in

the draft IPCEI Communication.

As mentioned in the Danish Government’s

response to the road map hear-

ing, we strongly support the Commission’s intention to limit the scope of

the revision to the three main adjustments foreseen in the road map 1)

providing further guidance on criteria in the communication, including the

Green Deal, 2) facilitating the involvement for SME’s, and 3) ensuring that

the process is genuinely transparent and inclusive.

The Danish Government finds that the current Communication on IPCEI

(2014/C 188/02) has contributed in a positive way to provide helpful guide-

lines for Member States when preparing schemes for an approval process

that is as smooth and quick as possible, while ensuring a strict use and ap-

plication of IPCEI. We believe that this revision will not and should not

lead to a general relaxation of the rules or an undermining of the Commis-

sions objective assessment of notified projects.

Updating of the EU priorities and strategies

We welcome the update of references to EU policies and strategies in the

cumulative criteria. This include especially references to initiatives re-

lated to the green and digital transition, e.g. European Green Deal, the

Digital Strategy. The guidelines should enable the development of state-

ERU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 275: Orientering om det danske høringssvar til Europa-Kommissionens høring vedr. revisionen af Meddelelsen om Vigtige Projekter af Fælles Europæisk Interesse, fra erhvervsministeren

2/5

of-the-art green and digital technologies through the use of IPCEI. How-

ever, always in the case of a market failure and projects going beyond the

aim of catching up with the technological developments globally.

Furthermore, it should be noted, that state aid policy cannot stand alone in

supporting these strategies and a comprehensive approach is needed, in-

cluding a focus on improving the general framework conditions, which in

many cases would be a more effective tool to support the digital and green

transition.

We would refer to the Danish

Government’s response of 20

of November

2020 on how the competition policy can support the Green Deal.

Openness and inclusiveness of IPCEIs

We are supportive of the Commission’s focus on securing transparency and

inclusiveness. Therefore, we find it very positive that the Commission has

clarified that all Member States must be given a genuine opportunity to

participate in new projects and that the Commission has expanded the eli-

gibility criteria regarding the minimum number to four member states for

a project to qualify as an IPCEI. However, it is important that this remains

the minimum number and does not become the norm for e.g. IPCEIs on

research and innovation and first industrial deployment, so that all Member

States are granted the opportunity to participate.

Currently, there is no clear procedure for how Member States can coordi-

nate and cooperate on IPCEI in advance of the state aid assessment. The

current work on the hydrogen on IPCEI is a great step in the right direction

in terms of improving transparency and inclusiveness in the early stages of

establishing an IPCEI for industrial development. However, we believe that

more can be done in providing a standardised setup in order to safeguard

that all Member States are given an opportunity to participate and that clar-

ity and predictability with regards to the process is ensured from the start.

A common digital platform provided by the Commission involving report-

ing obligations for Member States on current statuses on upcoming and/or

ongoing IPCEIs could be considered in this regard.

Further, we welcome the additions aimed at ensuring better inclusion of

SMEs, namely in provision 5 and 22 d. We see the additions as an important

tool to support the SME Strategy and maintaining a broad base of SMEs

across the EU.

Clarifications and updates

In general, the new clarifications are positive. However, the Danish Gov-

ernment would like the IPCEI Communication to clarify the definition of

3/5

market failure

further so that it doesn’t include IPCEIs in the infrastructure

sector. We elaborate on this in the specific comment to provision 16 below.

Specific comments

Below, we will give our comments to the specific provisions in the draft

IPCEI Communication.

Provision 4

The Danish Government is worried that the last sentence in provision 4

outlining that IPCEIs can contribute to recovery potentially changes the

focus of IPCEIs towards activities aimed at neither research and innovation

nor infrastructural needs, but merely recovery needs. Recovery efforts

through IPCEIs should only be allowed to the extent that such efforts com-

ply with the eligibility criteria. Otherwise, such efforts could potentially

lead to unnecessary distortion of competition within the internal market.

Therefore, the Danish Government would like this new addition to be clar-

ified further or alternatively removed from the provision.

Provision 5

We find it very positive that SMEs and the SME Strategy are now men-

tioned specifically in the IPCEI Communication. However, we would like

to point out that this provision can be hindered by the draft provision 20

since many IPCEIs will have difficulties providing

significant

co-financ-

ing. Therefore, we suggest that SMEs are exempt from the condition of

providing

significant

co-financing.

Provision 10 (a)

The Danish Government is supportive of the exemption regarding under-

takings that became undertakings in difficulty in the period from 1 January

2020 and as long as the Temporary Framework is applied. The intention

hereof should be to allow for the participation of companies, who under

normal circumstances would not have been undertakings in difficulty.

Hence, the amendment should not lead to a shift in focus of IPCEIs towards

activities aimed at compensation and strictly recovery efforts.

Provision 16

The Danish Government supports that the Commission continues to apply

the market-based principles in its assessment, meaning that IPCEIs can

only be used to overcome important market or systemic failures or to ad-

dress societal challenges that cannot otherwise be addressed. In this light,

we welcome the inclusion of this aspect as one of the cumulative criterions.

4/5

On the other hand, however, the Danish Government sees a potential prob-

lem in having a

market or systemic failure

as one of the cumulative criteri-

ons since this could lead to infrastructure IPCEIs falling outside the scope

of the IPCEI Communication and TFEU article 107(3)(b). Therefore, we

suggest that a clear exemption regarding infrastructure IPCEIs is imple-

mented in this provision. Furthermore, we would like the provision to clar-

ify further what is to be understood by

market or systemic failures.

Provision 17

The Danish Government is positive about IPCEIs must involve at least four

Member States unless a smaller number is justified. However, as noted

above, in some cases and especially regarding research and innovation pro-

jects the number of participating Member States should in practice be

higher.

Provision 18

The Danish Government supports this new provision. It is important that

all Member states be given a genuine opportunity to participate in IPCEIs.

It is positive that it falls on the applying Member State(s) to inform other

Member States.

Provision 20

See the comment regarding provision 5. We propose that SMEs are exempt

from the condition of providing

significant

co-financing.

Provision 21

We strongly support the inclusion of provision 21 and the principal of ‘do

no significant harm’. It is essential to maintain the provision in order to

support and fulfil the needs for the green transition.

Provision 22 (d)

We are supportive of the addition regarding SMEs since the Danish Gov-

ernment finds collaboration between SME’s and large enterprises as a good

way to strengthen the European competitiveness.

Provision 24 and 25

We find it positive that a definition of

first industrial deployment activities

has been included in the draft IPCEI Communication. However, we find it

unclear what is to be understood when an R&D&I component constitutes

“an

integral and necessary element for the successful implementation of

the project”.

This should be clarified further.

Provision 32

The Danish Government supports that the notifying Member States are in-

vited to provide relevant documentation. This helps secure that state aid

5/5

given under the IPCEI Communication does not distort competition in a

disproportionate manner.

Provision 36

The Danish Government supports that State aid can be cumulated. How-

ever, we emphasize the importance of a narrow interpretation of this pro-

vision.

Provision 37

The Danish Government supports this new provision. However, it needs to

be very clear in the Commission’s decisions when and how a Member state

is obliged to claw-back disproportionate and unnecessary State aid.

Provision 39

The Danish Government would like a

clarification of what “appropriate

actions”

the Commission may take in the mentioned circumstances.

Provision 42

We are positive towards the draft IPCEI Communication now mentioning

that the Commission will consider more favourably projects that include a

very

significant contribution by the beneficiaries themselves.

Provision 49

The Danish Government is very happy with this new provision. It is our

opinion that State aid must never lead to the relocation of a product activity

or any other activity within the EU.

Provision 50

We are positive about the new clarification in provision 50 (c) to 50 (i).

Provision 55

The Danish Government wonder why the revision does not include an end

date to its validity like the current communication.