ERU, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 74: Regeringens høringssvar til Kommissionens vedr. kodeks for god praksis i udformningen af vigtige projekter af fælleseuropæisk interesse (såkaldte IPCEI-projekter)

Erhvervsudvalget 2022-23 (2. samling)
ERU Alm.del Bilag 74
Offentligt

03 March 2023

Danish response to the Commission’s invitation to comment on

the draft proposal on Code of good practices for IPCEIs.

The Danish Government welcomes the Commission’s initiative to launch

a code of good practices for IPCEI’s and appreciates the opportunity to

comment on the proposal.

The Danish Government has participated in the two recently approved IP-

CEI’s in the hydrogen

sector, Hy2Tech and Hy2Use. Thus, the experiences

drawn from the Danish experience of the process could contribute to im-

provements around future IPCEIs.

The “Code of good practices for IPCEIs for a transparent, inclusive and

faster design”, presented

as a technical document of non-legal nature by the

Commission, provides a very helpful overview of the key processes and

inflection points around IPCEIs, and consolidates the lessons learned into

a set of useful hands-on points and observations that can guide the work on

future IPCEIs.

1. General comments

Streamlined and accelerated processes without compromising the quality

and thoroughness of the state aid assessment

We welcome efforts to make future IPCEI processes more structured by

building on best practices. It is highly desirable to find ways to streamline

and accelerate the work of establishing and assessing future IPCEIs.

However, while we share the desire to

see IPCEI’s expedited speedily, we

also caution against unrealistic expectations and excessive reliance on pre-

set fixed time frames that could compromise the quality of state aid assess-

ments. It continues to be vital that the Commission carry out in-depth and

comprehensive assessments of state aid projects.

Genuine and timely involvement

It is helpful that the Code of good practice emphasizes that we must find a

way to ensure all Member States have a genuine chance to participate when

a new IPCEI is being conceived. The decision to enter into an IPCEI entails

substantial commitments from the Member States concerned and thus re-

quires careful consideration. It is therefore important to ensure genuine in-

volvement of all Member States at an early stage. This requires transparent

MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY,

BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL

AFFAIRS

Slotsholmsgade 10-12

1216 Copenhagen K

Denmark

Tlf.

+45 33 92 33 50

Fax.

+45 33 12 37 78

CVR-nr. 10092485

EAN nr. 5798000026001

[email protected]

www.em.dk

ERU, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 74: Regeringens høringssvar til Kommissionens vedr. kodeks for god praksis i udformningen af vigtige projekter af fælleseuropæisk interesse (såkaldte IPCEI-projekter)

2/4

and open discussions well ahead of any final decision to launch any new

IPCEIs. We would therefore welcome stronger wording on the need for this

involvement to be not only genuine but also

timely.

In a similar vein, ensuring sufficient involvement of the policy DG(s) most

concerned and especially DG COMP will likely help to ensure that any

considerations of establishing new IPCEI’s are in line with the IPCEI Com-

munication. Therefore, we welcome the references in the Code of good

practice to ensure early-stage involvement of the Commission’s

DGs.

We would also like to highlight the importance of preparing IPCEI’s in a

way that induces participation of SMEs by taking into account that SMEs

typically have access to limited judicial and administrative capacities. In

this regard, the Danish Government recalls that the IPCEI Communication

underlines the importance of SMEs and start-ups being able to participate

in IPCEIs and benefit from them.

New IPCEIs must be necessary and proportional

Developing a new IPCEIs has proven to be a very significant and time-

consuming process both from the point of view of Member States, the un-

dertakings involved and the Commission. Before considering the emer-

gence of a new IPCEI it must be clearly established that there is a manifest

need for an IPCEI to address an important market or systemic failure or

societal challenge in line with the IPCEI Communication. Furthermore, it

must be ensured that the challenge is not being addressed by other ongoing

initiatives

and

that it cannot be adequately addressed through other tools.

This includes urgent or crisis-related support, as described in the Code of

Good Practice document, but other state aid frameworks such as CEEAG

and others should also be duly considered before deciding to prepare new

IPCEIs. Drawing on past experiences, we appreciate that DG COMP’s ef-

forts to inform all stakeholders at the early stages about the variety of state

aid rules that could be considered instead of opting to participate in a new

IPCEI. In this regard, we would welcome further efforts aimed at increas-

ing transparency regarding ongoing investment initiatives at national and

European level in order for Member States to better assess the relevance of

establishing and participating in an IPCEI.

2. Specific improvements to IPCEI processes

Agreeing upon and sticking to a realistic and feasible timeline

We very much welcome that the draft points out that in the very early

stages, interested Member States should agree among themselves on a joint

tentative timeline for the emergence and design phase. In our experience,

setting out a realistic and feasible timeline is of key importance in order for

3/4

Member States to plan accordingly with regards to budgeting, communica-

tion with stakeholders, national calls etc. Therefore, we recommend that

sticking to the timeline is considered a key priority throughout the whole

IPCEI process and that any delays etc. lead to quick adjustments to the

timeline in a transparent and inclusive way.

Systematic sharing of validated templates

The Code of Good Conduct document also point out that Member States

should ensure they obtain the latest templates and guidance validated by

DG COMP. In our experience, it was not clear how official templates could

be obtained, and we ultimately relied on other Member States to share tem-

plates employed in previous IPCEIs. Therefore, we recommend the Com-

mission to systematically ensure clear communication on whether a tem-

plate is validated or not and to make sure that up to date templates are sys-

tematically shared with all participating Member States.

A transparent and predictable matchmaking process

Based on our experience, the matchmaking process was associated with a

high level of uncertainty and, consequently, a lack of predictability for both

the companies involved and at Member State level. Among other things,

the uncertainty was caused by unclarity regarding the matchmaking time-

line and procedure as a whole, criteria on which the matchmaking process

was to be based as well as what was needed for projects to demonstrate

integration in line with the IPCEI Communication. Therefore, we would

welcome that considerations on the matching process and its organization

are developed and agreed upon already at an early stage in order for Mem-

ber States and stakeholders to plan accordingly and ensure adequate inte-

gration between the projects, thereby increasing quality and efficiency of

the matching process.

Requests for Information

The IPCEI process involves highly technical and often lengthy in-depth

assessments of comprehensive projects including, as deemed necessary by

the Commission, e.g. in the form of Requests for Information exchanges.

Member States must take care to ensure submitted projects are of a suffi-

cient quality and maturity to ensure a smooth pre-notification process. Es-

pecially considering that an IPCEI consists of numerous national projects

and cannot be finalized before every individual project have been evaluated

by the Commission. It is also important, given the often highly technical

and detailed nature of Request for Information, that the Commission is pre-

pared to readily explain and elaborate on requests in case a Member State

needs clarifications, so as to ensure the best possible response and prevent

delays in the process.

4/4