nach oben

Erschienen in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

1. Introduction

verfasst von : Lei Zhu

Erschienen in: Services of General Economic Interest in EU Competition Law

Verlag: T.M.C. Asser Press

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This introductory chapter places service of general economic interest (SGEI) in its broader legal context. It first traces the historical development of SGEI by outlining its increasing importance in EU law. After remaining dormant for 30 years, it began to occupy a pivotal position from the late 1980s as it provides derogation from the application of Article 106(1), justifying the “controlled liberalisation” process in sectors such as electronic communications, postal services, transport, broadcasting and energy. Its significance rose further after the Treaty of Lisbon, which endorsed SGEI as a fundamental right and grants new legislative competence to the EU. It then summarises four main themes in the academic debate concersening SGEI. It introduces the aim of this book, which is to investigate whether the right balance has been struck in the current EU regime on SGEI, and outlines the plan of this book.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nächstes Kapitel SGI: An EU Expression of State Functions

van den Bossche and Coppieters point out that “Article 106 remained for a very long time in a genuine state of hibernation and accordingly remained unused for many years”: van Den Bossche and Coppieters 1999, p. 228.

Obermann et al. 2005, p. 9.

Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/47 (hereafter TFEU).

In the EEC Treaty it was contained in Article 90 and was renumbered as Article 86 in the EC Treaty. The text has remained essentially the same, with slight change of wording from its original version in the EEC Treaty which reads as follows:

Any enterprise charged with the management of service of general economic interest or have the character of a fiscal monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in this Treaty, in particular to those governing competition, to the extent that the application of such rules does not obstruct the de jure or de facto fulfilment of the specific tasks entrusted to such enterprise. The development of trade may not be affected to such a degree as would be contrary to the interests of the Community.

Article 106(2) TFEU.

Kerf explains that there are three reasons for EU’s absence of actions on Article 106 during this period. First, Article 106 is extremely difficult to interpret. Second, increasing competition would lead to undesired results in certain cases. Third, the inactivity of the EU was motivated by political considerations, i.e., the resistance from the Member States. Kerf 1993. See also Pappalardo 1991; Gerber 1994; Buendia Sierra 2000.

For more discussion on the literal reading of Article 106(2), see Sect. 3.4.1 of Chap. 3.

Case 155/73 Giuseppe Sacchi [1974] ECR-409; Case 311/84 Centre belge d’études de marché—Télémarketing (CBEM) v SA Compagnie luxembourgeoise de télédiffusion (CLT) and Information publicité Benelux (IPB) [1985] ECR-3261; Case 66/86 Ahmed Saeed Flugreisen and Silver Line Reisebüro GmbH v Zentrale zur Bekämpfung unlauteren Wettbewerbs e.V. [1989] ECR-803.

The Commission adopted five Decisions before 1989, including:

(1)

78/823/EEC: Commission Decision of 21 September 1978 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/28.824—Breeders’ rights —maize seed) [1978] OJ L286/23;

(2)

82/371/EEC: Commission Decision of 17 December 1981 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/29.995—NAVEWA-ANSEAU) [1982] OJ L167/39;

(3)

82/861/EEC: Commission Decision of 10 December 1982 relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (IV/29.877—British Telecommunications) [1982] OJ L360/36;

(4)

89/205/EEC Commission Decision of 21 December 1988 relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.851—Magill TV Guide/ITP, BBC and RTE) [1989] OJ L78/43;

(5)

89/536/EEC Commission Decision of 15 September 1989 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.734—Film purchases by German television stations) [1989] OJ L284/36.

This issue was discussed in two of its Decisions:

(1)

89/205/EEC Commission Decision of 21 December 1988 relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.851—Magill TV Guide/ITP, BBC and RTE) [1989] OJ L78/43;

(2)

82/861/EEC: Commission Decision of 10 December 1982 relating to a proceeding under Article 86 of the EEC Treaty (IV/29.877—British Telecommunications) [1982] OJ L360/36.

Blum 2000; van der Woude 1991, p. 68; Gardner 1995.

Commission of the European Communities, Completing the Internal Market (White Paper form the Commission to the European Council), COM (85) 310 final, 14.6.1985; Henry 1993, p. 45.

For an overview of EU’s market integration programme in these sectors, see Ehlermann 1993; Nomden 1997; Geradin 2006; Héritier 2001.

Camenen 1996.

Blum 2000; Charles et al. 2007.

Article 345 TFEU provides that “the Treaties shall in no way prejudice the rules in Member States governing the system of property ownership”.

Article 3(f) of the EEC Treaty provides that “the institution of a system ensuring that competition in the common market is not distorted”. In the EC Treaty, the wording was slightly changed, which in Article 3(g) prescribes “a system ensuring that competition in the internal market is not distorted”. In the latest Lisbon Treaty, it is contained in Protocol (No 27) on the Internal Market and Competition.

Ehlermann 1993.

Hordijk 1995.

Nomden 1997.

Szyszczak 2001, p. 37.

Noaksson 2005.

Graham 2010.

Bell 1999, p. 189.

It is criticised as “judicial activism”: Bright 1993; Van Der Woude 1991.

Case 155/73 Giuseppe Sacchi [1974] ECR-409.

Pescatore 1986; Blum 2000, p. 57; Prosser 1986, p. 149.

Gerber 1994; Gyselen 2010, p. 494.

In 1991, the Court delivered four Judgments on the interpretation of Article 106(1), including:

(1)

Case C-41/90 Klaus Höfner and Fritz Elser v Macrotron GmbH [1991] ECR I-1979;

(2)

Case C-18/88 Régie des Télégraphes et des Téléphones v GB-Inno-BM SA [1991] ECR I-5941;

(3)

Case C-260/89 Elliniki Radiophonia Tileorassi AE (Ert) (Panellinia Omospondia Syllogon Prossopikou Ert intervening) v Dimotiki Étairia Pliroforissis (Dep) and Sotirios Kouvelas (Nicolaos Avdellas and Others intervening) [1991] ECR I-02925;

(4)

Case C-179/90 Merci Convenzionali Porto di Genova SpA v Siderurgica Gabrielli SpA [1991] ECR I-05889.

In these cases, the concern of the Court was the distortive effects of exclusive rights. The Member States were found in breach of Article 106 even though no actual abusive behaviour had been committed by undertakings. Broberg and Fenger 1995, p. 369; Bacon 1997, p. 285; Blum 2000, p. 65.

Gardner 1995, p. 84.

Case C-202/88 French Republic v Commission of the European Communities [1991] ECR I-1223.

Gómez-Barroso and Marbán-Flores 2013.

Ehlermann 1993; Van Der Woude 1991; Kerf 1993; Hordijk 1995.

Sauter 1999, p. 154; Scott 2000, p. 310.

Case C-320/91 Paul Corbeau [1993] ECR I-2533.

Prechal points out that “Article 16 may be considered as a first step in the process of constitutionisation of the service of general interest”. Prechal 2008, p. 67.

Sauter 2008.

Van De Walle 2008.

Article 16 TFEU.

Krajewski 2008, p. 379; Behrens 2001; Sole 2003, p. 341.

Van Den Bossche and Coppieters 1999.

Ross 2004; Héritier 2001, p. 829.

Kenny 2009; Prosser 2005, p. 553.

Article 36, Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the European Union [2012] OJ C326/391.

Article 6 (1) TEU provides that “the Union recognises the rights, freedoms and principles set out in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union of 7 December 2000, as adopted at Strasbourg, on 12 December 2007, which shall have the same legal value as the Treaties”: Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union [2012] OJ C326/13 (hereafter TEU).

Article 14 TFEU.

Protocol (No 26) on Service of General Interest, TEU.

The term “service of general interest” is a late arrival. Before the Lisbon Treaty, it was only used by the Commission in its Communications which have no binding effect at all: Commission of the European Communities, Service of General Interest in Europe (Communication from the Commission) COM (96) 43 final, 11.09.1996; Commission of the European Communities, Service of General Interest in Europe (Communication from the Commission) [2001] OJ C17/04.

Houben 2008, pp. 7–11.

Article 1 of the Protocol lists the shared values of SGEI, which include:

the essential role and the wide discretion of national, regional and local authorities in providing, commissioning and organising services of general economic interest as closely as possible to the needs of the users;

the diversity between various services of general economic interest and the differences in the needs and preferences of users that may result from different geographical, social or cultural situations;

a high level of quality, safety and affordability, equal treatment and the promotion of universal access and of user rights.

Protocol (No 26) on Service of General Interest, TEU.

The earliest commentary on Article 106 was published in 1965: Deringer 1965, p. 129.

The focus of the literature has been evolving with the development of the EU law, in particular the case law of the Court. It seems that three stages could be roughly distinguished.

(1)

Before 1990, the attention of the discussion was not on Article 106, but on the application of Articles 101 and 102 to the Member States. See for example Marenco 1983; Pescatore 1986; Lang 1989.

(2)

From 1990, the focus of the scholars began to shift to the application of Article 106. See for example Slot and Hancher 1990; Van Der Woude 1991; Ehlermann 1993; Kerf 1993; Gardner 1995; Hordijk 1995; Broberg and Fenger 1995; Bacon 1997; Bartosch 1999; Blum 2000.

(3)

From 2000, SGEI has begun to attract much attention from commentators. See for example Van Den Bossche and Coppieters 1999; Szyszczak 2001; Napolitano 2005; Krajewski 2008; Ross 2009; Karayigit 2009; Fiedziuk 2011.

Houben 2008, p.10; Kronenberger 2001, p. 301; Sauter 2008, p. 174.

Karayigit 2009, p. 576.

This situation is well-summarised by a report requested by the European Parliament, which reads as:

Semantically, each word of this term of SGEI is difficult to define as such. And the concept as such – or is it the activity that is meant? – poses real linguistic and terminological difficulties, since it can be understood as an organic structure as a whole, as a national prerogative, as a requirement imposed on the service or a means to achieve general interest.

Obermann et al. 2005.

Buendia Sierra 2000, p. 278.

See for example, Case T-289/03 British United Provident Association Ltd (BUPA), BUPA Insurance Ltd and BUPA Ireland Ltd v Commission of the European Communities [2008] ECR II-8; Szyszczak 2001, p. 39.

Case C-393/92 Municipality of Almelo and others v NV Energiebedrijf Ijsselmij [1994] ECR I-1477; Deringer 1965, p. 129.

Protocol (No 26) on Services of General Interest, TFEU.

See for example Neergaard 2009.

Behrens 2001.

Buendia Sierra 2000, p. 282; Auricchio 2001, p. 67.

He argues that “it is likewise proposed here that only where markets, in the absence of governmental action, would fail, it will be possible to meet the EU law standard of necessity (proportionality) that is required to successfully invoke the EU law concepts of SGEI and universal service”. Sauter 2008.

Schwintowski 2003; Walsh 1995, pp. 6–12.

Commission of the European Communities, Service of General Interest in Europe (Communication from the Commission) COM (96) 43 final, 11.09.1996.

Kronenberger 2001, pp. 301, 319.

Article 93 TFEU provides that “aids shall be compatible with this Treaty if they represent reimbursement for the discharges of certain obligations inherent in the concept of a public service”.

Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community [2008] OJ L293/3; Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 [2007] OJ L315/1; Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) [1992] OJ L364/7.

Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC [2009] OJ L211/55; Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC [2009] OJ L211/94.

Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services [2002] OJ L108/51.

Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service [1998] OJ L15/14.

Simmonds points out that “the difference between these two terms—universal service obligations and public service obligations—has proven to be confusing and is often misconceived”. Simmonds 2003, p. 2.

Buendia Sierra 2000, p. 280; Ross 2009, p. 127.

Hancher and Larouche point out that “the dividing lines between European and national regulation are no longer clear-cut but where a choice for a more co-operative and multi-layered approach is evident”. Hancher and Larouche 2010, p. 43.

Article 14 TFEU.

Cseres 2008.

For a review of proposals and initiatives, see for example: Krajewski 2008; Rodrigues 2009; De Vries 2008.

Commission of the European Communities, White Paper on Services of General Interest (Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions), COM (2004) 374 final, 12.5.2004, p. 11.

Szyszczak 2001, pp. 35–42.

Hordijk 1995, p. 595.

Deringer 1965. See also Slot and Hancher 1990; Marenco 1983; Kerf 1993.

Van Der Woude 1991; Marenco 1983, p. 502.

Szyszczak 2001, p. 45.

These approaches are: absolute sovereignty, absolute competition, limited sovereignty and limited competition. They differ in the extent of freedom that the Member States enjoy in creating exclusive rights. The absolute sovereignty approach is that the Member States have total freedom in this respect. By contrast, the absolute competition approach argues that the principle of undistorted competition shall apply to its full extent and the Member Stats are prohibited from granting exclusive rights. The limited sovereignty/competition approaches are in the middle, which recognise the power of the Member States in this respect is limited by competition law and vice versa. Edward and Hoskins 1995.

Ibid.

Sauter 1999, p. 51.

Bacon 1997, p. 285; Gardner 1995, p. 79.

Case C-320/91 Paul Corbeau [1993] ECR I-2533.

Blum 2000; Behrens 2001; Auricchio 2001.

Sierra points out that “the interpretation of the principle of proportionality has become the main legal-political battleground in the field of Article 106 and one of the most controversial areas of Community law”. Buendia Sierra 2000, p. 300. See also Nomden 1997; Schwintowski 2003.

Kenny 2009; Kronenberger 2001, p. 320.

Lang 1989, p. 125; Soriano 2003.

Auricchio 2001, p. 73.

Szyszczak 2001; Prosser 1986, p. 132.

See for example Case C-393/92 Municipality of Almelo and others v NV Energiebedrijf Ijsselmij [1994] ECR I-1477, para 50; Scott 2000.

Nomden 1997; Rodrigues 2009; Houben 2008.

Camenen 1996; Keune et al. 2008; Walsh 1995, Chap. 1; Van Den Bossche and Coppieters 1999.

Freedland and Sciarra 1998; Szyszczak 2001, p. 55; Louri 2002, p. 168; Scott 2000; Kociubiński 2011.

100

The notion of public service is particularly strong in France. Bell points out that “public service is a central concept in French public law”. Bell 1999, p. 189.

The same argument is also made by Dreyfus. He submits that “the notion of service public is old and firmly enshrined in the French legal order”. Dreyfus 2009.

By contrast, the idea of public service is much weaker and defined in a loose manner in Britain. Prosser 1986, 2000, 2005.

Van de Walle argues that “in a country such as France, the concept of service public has served as the basic framework for discussing the provision of services. No such concept exists in common law, but the concept of ‘common callings’ shows some similarities”. Van De Walle 2008, p. 261.

101

The concept of SGI (service of general interest) is a relatively new arrival in the Treaty. It was first used by the Commission in its Communications. The concept was adopted by the Lisbon Treaty in its 26^th Protocol. As an over-arching concept, it covers SGEI and NSGI. However, it is not clearly defined anywhere in the Treaty or in secondary legislation. See Sect. 2 of Chap. 2

102

Damjanovic and De Witte 2009. See also Boeger 2010; Sole 2003.

103

Camenen 1996.

104

See also Winter 1951.

105

Geradin identifies three reasons for the existence of state monopoly in network industries, including:

(1) There was a belief that such industries were natural monopolies; […] (2) Monopolies were often granted in return of the monopolist to provide universal service, also often referred to as public services of services of general economic interest; […] and (3) Because of the importance of these industries from several viewpoints governments believed it was important to consolidate them in one firm, which they controlled.

Geradin 2006.

106

Bell 1999.

107

Broberg and Fenger 1995, p. 370; Ehlermann 1993, pp. 67–68; Kenny 2009; Geradin 2006, p. 2.

108

Jacobi and Kowalsky identified three driving forces for this fundamental change, including:

(1) The understanding of the State has changed right across the political spectrum to the effect that the core business of the State is the provision of sovereign services; (2) Private companies are increasingly thronging to the market for SGI, which is regarded as a lucrative one; and (3) By means of the Single Market the market for SGI has also been Europeanised and so made subject to the general competition regulations of the EU. Jacobi and Kowalsky 2002. See also Keune et al. 2008; Sauter 1999, p. 143.

109

See for example Tanzi 1997; Stewart and Walsh 1992; Walsh 1995; Henry 1993; Defeuilley 1999; Millward 2011.

110

See for example Majone 1997; Héritier 2001; Campbell 2002; Charles et al. 2007.

111

See for example Szyszczak 2001; Simmonds 2003.

112

Slot and Skudder 2001.

113

Article 345 TFEU.

114

Brooks 2009; Geradin 2006, p. 14.

115

Martin et al. 2005, p. 6; Van Den Bossche and Coppieters 1999, p. 229.

116

Behrens 2001; Rott 2005.

117

Vogel 1998.

118

Ross 2004; Szyszczak 2001; Jacobi and Kowalsky 2002, p. 186; Napolitano 2005.

119

Nagy argues that “universal service is central to the European thinking on markets and public services and is an inevitable element of market liberalisation and sectoral competition rules”. Nagy 2013, p. 1731.

Napolitano points out that “the growing Europeanisation of the public utilities legal order is becoming manifest in the way in which the new law harmonises service and shapes the nature, power and procedures of the national regulatory authorities”. He also argues that “the process is nevertheless still incomplete; […] The European legal order is only partially capable of maintaining and reinforcing the fragile construction of a new regime for public utilities within national regulations”. Napolitano 2005, p. 567.

120

Article 3(1) of Directive 2002/22 provides that “Member States shall ensure that the services set out in this Chapter are made available at the quality specified to all end-users in their territory, independently of geographical location, and, in the light of specific national conditions, at an affordable price”: Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services [2002] OJ L108/51.

121

Article 3(1) of Directive 97/67 provides that “Member States shall ensure that users enjoy the right to a universal service involving the permanent provision of a postal service of specified quality at all points in their territory at affordable prices for all users”: Directive 97/67/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service [1998] OJ L15/14.

122

In the transport sector, SGEI is defined through the notion of PSO. For example, in the maritime transport sector, PSO is defined as “obligations which the Community ship owner in question, if he were considering his own commercial interest, would not assume or would not assume to the same extent or under the same conditions”: Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States [1992] OJ L364/7.

123

For an overview of SGEIS in different sectors, see Cseres 2008; Noaksson 2005; Simmonds 2003; Hall 2001.

124

Graham 2010; Rott 2005; Sole 2003.

125

Ross points out that the principle of solidarity has a key role to play on two fundamental questions: (1) the relationship between social and market values, and (2) competence allocation between the EU and Member States. Ross 2010.

126

Krajewski 2008.

127

Ross 2004; Houben 2008; Behrens 2001; Auricchio 2001; Simmonds 2003; Jacobi and Kowalsky 2002, p. 191; Scott 2000, p. 312; Héritier 2001, p. 826; Bruijn and Dicke 2006; Gyselen 2010.

128

Szyszczak 2001, p. 77.

129

Nomden 1997; Kenny 2009, p. 25; Houben 2008; Soriano 2003.

130

Prosser 2005.

131

Graham 2010, p. 157; Prechal 2008.

132

Case C-53/00 Ferring SA v Agence centrale des organismes de sécurité sociale (ACOSS) [2001] ECR I-09067; Case C-126/01 Ministère de l’Économie, des Finances et de l’Industrie v GEMO SA [2003] ECR I-13769.

133

The key question is whether funding for SGEI constitutes state aid. If it is regarded as state aid, it falls within the scope of EU state aid law and the Member States have the obligation to notify and standstill. On the other hand, if it does not constitute state aid, it is outside the scope of EU state aid control regime. Sinnaeve 2003.

134

The central issue in the case was whether subsidy granted by local authority in Germany for the provision of public bus service constituted state aid: Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans GmbH and Regierungspräsidium Magdeburg v Nahverkehrsgesellschaft Altmark GmbH, and Oberbundesanwalt beim Bundesverwaltungsgericht [2003] ECR I-7747.

135

These conditions are: (1) there must be clearly defined public service obligations; (2) the parameters for compensation must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner; (3) compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations; and (4) compensation shall be determined through a public procurement procedure or on the basis of the costs of a typical and well run undertaking: Ibid.

136

Travers 2003, p. 387; Bartosch 2003.

137

The Court has long established that for the SGEI derogation to apply, three conditions must be met: (1) there must be a clearly defined SGEI task; (2) the SGEI task must have been entrusted by public authorities; and (3) a proportionality test must be satisfied: Case C-320/91 Paul Corbeau [1993] ECR I-2533. In the context of state aid law, the issue was first discussed by the Court in the FFSA case: Case T-106/95 Federation Française des Societes d’Assurances (Ffsa) and Others v E.C. Commission [1997] ECR II-229.

138

Ross 2004; Nicolaides 2003; Klasse 2013.

139

It is named after the Commissioner who was responsible for competition. The “Monti Package” includes:

(1)

Commission Decision of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty to state aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest [2005] OJ L312/67;

(2)

Community framework for state aid in the form of public service compensation [2005] OJ C297/4;

(3)

Commission Directive 2005/81/EC amending Directive 80/73EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and their public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings [2005] OJ L312/47.

140

It is named after the Commissioner who was responsible for competition. The “Almunia package” contains:

(1)

Communication from the Commission on the application of the European Union state aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest [2012] OJ C8/4;

(2)

Commission Decision of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to state aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest [2012] OJ L7/3;

(3)

Communication from the Commission, European Union framework for state aid in the form of public service compensation [2012] OJ C8/15;

(4)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 360/2012 of 25 April 2012 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to de minimis aid granted to undertakings providing services of general economic interest [2012] OJ L114/8.

141

The Commission first adopted Guidelines in 1997. After the Altmark case, the Commission updated its Guidelines, and also adopted a Communication interpreting the application of Regulation 3577/92 which also contains rules on the application of state aid rules on SGEI funding:

(1)

Community guidelines on state aid to maritime transport [1997] OJ C205/5;

(2)

Community guidelines on state aid to maritime transport [2004] OJ C13/3;

(3)

Commission of the European Communities, Communication on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States, COM (2003) 595 final, 22.12.2003.

142

The Communication was first adopted in 2001 and then updated in 2009:

(1)

Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission on the application of state aid rules to public service broadcasting [2001] OJ C320/5;

(2)

Commission of the European Communities, Communication from the Commission on the application of state aid rules to public service broadcasting [2009] OJ C257/1.

143

The Commission Guidelines were first adopted in 2009 and then updated in 2013:

(1)

Commission of the European Communities, Community Guidelines for the application of state aid rules in relation to rapid deployment of broadband networks [2009] OJ C235/7;

(2)

Commission of the European Communities, EU Guidelines for the application of state aid rules in relation to the rapid deployment of broadband networks [2013] OJ C25/1.

144

The Commission’s Decisions are examined in Sects. 4.3 and 4.4 of Chap. 4.

145

Sauter 2012; Sauter and Van de Gronden 2011; Bovis 2005; Lynskey 2007.

Auricchio V (2001) Services of general economic interest and the application of EC competition law. World Competition 24(1):65–91

Bacon K (1997) State regulation of the market and EC competition rules: Articles 85 and 86 compared. European Competition Law Review 18(5):283–291

Bartosch A (1999) EC Telecommunications Law: what aid does Article 90(2) of the EC Treaty offer to the former monopolists. Computer and Telecommunications Law Review 5(1):12–15

Bartosch A (2003) Clarification or confusion? How to reconcile the ECJ’s rulings in Altmark and Chronopost? European State Aid Law Quarterly 2(3): 375–386

Behrens P (2001) Public services and the internal market – an analysis of the Commission’s communication on services of general interest in Europe. European Business Organisation Law Review 2(4):469–492

Bell J (1999) France: the concept of public service under threat from Europe? An illustration from energy law. European Public Law 5(2):189–198

Blum F (2000) The recent case law of the European Court of Justice on state monopolies and its implication for network industries. Journal of Network Industries 1(1):55–87

Boeger N (2010) Public service, autonomy and community law. In: Nickel R (ed) Conflict of laws and laws of conflict in Europe and beyond: patterns of supranational and transnational juridification. Intersentia Publishing, Antwerp

Bovis CH (2005) Public service obligations in the transport sector: the demarcation between state aids and services of general interest under EU Law. European Business Law Review 16(6):1329–1347

Bright C (1993) Article 90, Economic policy and the duties of member states. European Competition Law Review 14(6): 263–272

Broberg MP, Fenger N (1995) National organisation of regulatory powers and community competition law. European Competition Law Review 16(6):364–375

Brooks MR (2009) Liberalization in maritime transport. www.internationaltransportforum.org/2009/…/ws1-Brooks.pdf

Bruijn HD, Dicke W (2006) Strategies for safeguarding public values in liberalized utility sectors. Public Administration 84(3):717–735

Buendia Sierra JL (2000) Exclusive rights and state monopolies under EC Law: Article 86 (formerly Article 90) of the EC Treaty, Oxford University Press, Oxford

Camenen FX (1996) Public undertakings and public service activities in the European Union. (European Parliament, Directorate General for Research, Working document, Economic Affairs Series, W - 21) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/workingpapers/econ/pdf/w21_en.pdf

Campbell RM (2002) The politics of postal transformation: modernizing postal systems in the electronic and global world. McGill Queens University Press, Montreal

Charles MB, Dicke W, Koppenjan J, Ryan N (2007) Public values and safeguarding mechanisms in infrastructure policies: a conceptual and theoretical exploration. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/9283/1/PT_Infrastructure_Charles%2520Dicke%2520Koppenjan%2520Ryan.pdf

Cseres KJ (2008) What has competition done for consumers in liberalised markets? The Competition Law Review 4(2):77–121

Damjanovic D, De Witte B (2009) Welfare integration through EU Law: the overall picture in the light of the Lisbon Treaty. In: Neergaard UB et al (eds) Integrating welfare functions into EU Law: From Rome to Lisbon. DJØF Publishing, Copenhagen

De Vries SA (2008) Harmonization of services of general economic interest: where there’s a will there’s a way! In: Van de Gronden J (ed) The EU and WTO law on services: limits to the realization of general interest policies within the services markets? Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

Defeuilley C (1999) Competition and public service obligations: regulatory rules and industries games. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 70(1):25–48

Deringer A (1965) The interpretation of Article 90 (2) of the E.E.C. Treaty. Common Market Law Review 2(2):129–138

Dreyfus M (2009) France. In: Krajewski M, Neergaard U (eds) The changing legal framework for services of general interest in Europe: between competition and solidarity. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

Edward D, Hoskins M (1995) Article 90: Deregulation and EC Law. Reflections arising from the XVI FIDE conference. Common Market Law Review 32(1):157–186

Ehlermann CD (1993) Managing monopolies: the role of the state in controlling market dominance in the European Community. European Competition Law Review 14(2):61–69

Fiedziuk N (2011) Services of general economic interest and the Treaty of Lisbon: opening doors to a whole new approach or maintaining the ‘status quo’. European Law Review 36(2):226–242

Freedland M, Sciarra S (eds) (1998) Public services and citizenship in European law: public and labour law perspectives. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Gardner A (1995) The Velvet Revolution: Article 90 and the triumph of the free market in Europe’s regulated sectors. European Competition Law Review 16(2):78–86

Geradin D (2006) Twenty years of liberalization of network industries in the European Union: where do we go now? http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=946796

Gerber DJ (1994) The transformation of European Community Law? Harvard International Law Journal 35(1):97–138

Gómez-Barroso JL, Marbán-Flores R (2013) Basic financial services: a new service of general economic interest? Journal of European Social Policy 23(3):332–339

Graham C (2010) Social-economic rights and essential services: a new challenge for the regulatory state. In: Oliver D, Prosser T, Rawlings R (eds) The regulatory state: constitutional implications. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Gyselen L (2010) Services of general economic interest and competition under European Law – a delicate balance. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 1(6):491–499

Hall D (2001) EU competition policies and public services. http://www.psiru.org/sites/default/files/DHepsuConfFinal.doc

Hancher L, Larouche P (2010) The coming age of EU regulation of network industries and services of general economic interest. (Tilburg Law and Economics Center Law and Economics Discussion Paper No. 2010–024). http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1628573

Henry C (1993) Public service and competition in the European community approach to communications networks. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 9(1):45–66

Héritier A (2001) Market integration and social cohesion: the politics of public services in European regulation. Journal of European Public Policy 8(5):825–852

Hordijk EP (1995) EC law versus legal monopolies: a tense relationship. International Business Law Journal 11 (5):595–614

Houben I (2008) Public service obligations: moral counterbalance of technical liberalization legislation? European Review of Private Law 16(1):7–27

Jacobi O, Kowalsky W (2002) Regulated and controlled liberalisation: a means to reconcile market efficiency and social cohesion? Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 8(2):185–197

Karayigit MT (2009) The notion of service of general economic interest revisited. European Public Law 15(4):575–595

Kenny M (2009) Freezing the state out of the market: the three degrees of state incapacity in Europe. http://www.jura.uni-bremen.de/lib/download.php?file=0abf581818.pdf&filename=wp7_2009.pdf.

Kerf M (1993) The policy of the Commission of the E.E.C. toward national monopolies – an analysis of the measures adopted on the basis of Article 90 § 3 of the E.E.C. Treaty. World Competition 17(1):73–111

Keune M, Leschke J, Watt A (2008) Privatisation and liberalisation of public services in Europe: an analysis of economic and labour market impacts. European Trade Union Institute

Klasse M (2013) The impact of Altmark: the European Commission case law responses. In: Szyszczak E, Van de Gronden JW (eds) Financing services of general economic interest: reform and modernization. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

Kociubiński J (2011) Services of general economic interest – towards a European concept of public services. Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration and Economics 1(2):49–64

Krajewski M (2008) Providing legal clarity and securing policy space for public services through a legal framework for services of general economic interest: squaring the circle? European Public Law 14(3):377–398

Kronenberger V (2001) A model of the transformation process of statutory monopolies in European Community law: from practice to theory. European Business Organization Law Review 2(2):301–338

Lang JT (1989) European Community competition law and member state action. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 10(1):114–132

Louri V (2002) “Undertaking” as a jurisdictional element for the application of EC competition rules. Legal Issues of Economic Integration 29(2):143–176

Lynskey O (2007) The application of article 86(2) EC to measures which do not fulfil the Altmark criteria; institutionalising incoherence in the legal framework governing state compensation of public service obligations. World Competition 30(1):153–168

Majone G (1997) From the positive to the regulatory state: causes and consequences of changes in the mode of governance. Journal of Public Policy 17(2):139–167

Marenco G (1983) Public sector and community law. Common Market Law Review 20(3):495–527

Martin R, Roma M, Vansteenkiste I (2005) Regulatory reforms in selected EU network industries. Occasional Paper Series No. 28 https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpops/ecbocp28.pdf

Millward R (2011) Public enterprise in the modern western world: an historical analysis. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 82(4):375–398

Nagy CI (2013) The metamorphoses of universal service in the European telecommunications and energy sector: a trans-sectoral perspective. German Law Journal 147(9):1731–1756

Napolitano G (2005) Towards a European legal order for services of general economic interest. European Public Law 11(4):565–581

Neergaard U (2009) Services of general economic interest: the nature of the beast. In: Krajewski M, Neergaard U, Van de Gronden J (eds) The changing legal framework for services of general interest in Europe: between competition and solidarity. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

Nicolaides P (2003) Compensation for public service obligations: the floodgates of state aid? European Competition Law Review 24(11):561–573

Noaksson N (2005) Taking stock of the liberalization of public utilities: can structural reforms bring the Lisbon Strategy back on track? European Trade Union Institute for Research, Education, Safety and Health, November 2005. http://www.epsu.org/IMG/pdf/EPSU_Network_Industries_final_version_Nov05.pdf

Nomden K (1997) Reconciling liberalisation and public service obligations. EIPASCOPE, 1997 (1): 1–6.

Obermann G, Hall D, Sak B (2005) Services of general interest in the internal market. http://www.pedz.uni-mannheim.de/daten/edz-ma/ep/05/pe358.357-en.pdf

Pappalardo A (1991) State measures and public undertakings: Article 90 of the EEC Treaty Revisited. European Competition Law Review 12(1):29–39

Pescatore P (1986) Public and private aspects of European Community Competition Law. Fordham International Law Journal 10(3):373–419

Prechal S (2008) Fundamental rights as limits to the liberalisation of service markets. In: Van de Gronden J (ed) The EU and WTO Law on services: limits to the realization of general interest policies within the services markets? Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn

Prosser T (1986) Nationalised industries and public control. Basil Blackwell, Oxford/New York

Prosser T (2000) Public service law: privatization’s unexpected offspring. Law and Contemporary Problems 63(4):63–82

Prosser T (2005) Competition law and public services: from single market to citizenship rights. European Public Law 11(4):543–563

Rodrigues S (2009) Towards a general framework instrument related to SGEI? Political considerations and legal constraints. In: Krajewski M, Neergaard U (eds) The changing legal framework for services of general interest in Europe: between competition and solidarity. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

Ross M (2004) The Europeanization of public services supervision: harnessing competition and citizenship? Yearbook of European Law 23(1):303–319

Ross M (2009) A healthy approach to services of general economic interest? The BUPA judgment of the court of first instance. European Law Review 34(1):127–140

Ross M (2010) Solidarity – a new constitutional paradigm for the EU? In: Ross M, Borgmann-Prebil Y (eds) Promoting solidarity in the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford

Rott P (2005) A new social contract law for public services? – consequences from regulation of services of general economic interest in the EC. European Review of Contract Law 1(3):323–345

Sauter W (1999) Competition law and industrial policy in the EU. Clarendon Press, Oxford

Sauter W (2008) Services of general economic interest and universal service in EU Law. European Law Review 33(2):167–202

Sauter W (2012) The Altmark Package Mark II: new rules for state aid and the compensation of services of general economic interest. European Competition Law Review 33(7):307–313

Sauter W, Van de Gronden J (2011) State aid, services of general economic interest and universal service in healthcare. European Competition Law Review 32(12):615–620

Schwintowski HP (2003) The common good, public subsistence and the functions of public undertakings in the European internal market. European Business Organisation Law Review 4(3):353-382

Scott C (2000) Services of general interest in EC Law: matching values to regulatory technique in the public and privatised sectors. European Law Journal 6(4):310–325

Simmonds G (2003) Universal and public service obligations in Europe. Consumer Representation in Europe Policy and Practice for Utilities And Network Industries, Research Report 15. http://www.bath.ac.uk/management/cri/pubpdf/Research_Reports/15_Simmonds.pdf

Sinnaeve A (2003) State financing of public services: the court’s dilemma in the Altmark case. European State Aid Law Quarterly 2(3):351–364

Slot PJ, Skudder A (2001) Common features of community law regulation in the network-bound sectors. Common Market Law Review 38(1):87–129

Slot VP, Hancher L (1990) Article 90. European Competition Law Review 11(1):35–39

Sole D (2003) Services of general economic interest in the EU: a 50-year-battle between liberalization, deregulation and subsidiarity. European Journal of Law Reform 5(3–4):335-341

Soriano LM (2003) How proportionate should anti-competitive state intervention be? European Law Review 28(1):112–123

Stewart J, Walsh K (1992) Change in the management of public services. Public Administration 70(4):499–518

Szyszczak E (2001) Public service provision in competitive markets. Yearbook of European Law 20(1): 35–77

Tanzi V (1997) The changing role of the state in the economy: a historical perspective. www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/wp97114.pdf

Travers N (2003) Public service obligations and state aid: is all really clear after Altmark? European State Aid Law Quarterly 2(3):387–393

Van De Walle S (2008) What services are public? What aspects of performance are to be ranked? The case of “service of general interest”. International Public Management Journal 11(3):256–274

Van Den Bossche AM, Coppieters S (1999) Service of general interest: a challenge for European economic integration. In: Meeusen W (ed) Economic policy in the European Union: current perspectives. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham

Van Der Woude M (1991) State intervention: Article 90: competing for competence. European Law Review Supp (Competition Law Checklist):60–80

Vogel S (1998) Freer markets, more rules: regulatory reform in advanced industrial countries. Cornell University Press, New York

Walsh K (1995) Public services and market mechanisms: competition, contracting and the new public management. Palgrave Macmillan, London

Winter C (1951) Parliamentary, ministerial, and judicial control of nationalized Industries in Great Britain. Law and Contemporary Problems 16(4):670–701

Titel: Introduction
verfasst von: Lei Zhu
Verlag: T.M.C. Asser Press
Buch: Services of General Economic Interest in EU Competition Law
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-386-3

Electronic ISBN: 978-94-6265-387-0

Copyright-Jahr: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-387-0_1