1. Awareness and enforcement of compliance with State aid rules
25 June 2018
Awareness and enforcement of compliance with State aid rules

2. What was the situation – SR 24/2016
For the period , we found 50 cases of non- compliance with state aid rules:
16 cases with financial impact; and
13,5% of the average annual estimated level of error.
Non-compliance cases allocated into four categories:
Aid intensity to high (10 with financial impact (fi)/ 1 without financial impact (wfi);
Absence of incentive effect (5 fi/2 wfi);
Undetected State aid or lack of notification (1 fi/17 wfi); and
Monitoring or formal requirements not met (14 wfi).

3. What did the Commission and Member States do – SR 24/2016
Detection of weaknesses and errors:
DG REGIO detects a significant number of State aid errors;
DG COMP reveals many problematic aid schemes; and
Insufficient focus by MS audit authorities on State aid compliance.
Monitoring of weaknesses and errors:
Commission recorded errors and weaknesses;
Records did not allow for comprehensive analysis;
Actions to prevent and correct weaknesses and errors :
DG REGIO – financial corrections were imposed;
DG COMP – no siginifiacnt recoveries of State aid despite size of problem; and
In parallel, up-date of 2008 GBER which was adopted in June 2014.

4. What did the Commission and Member States do – SR 24/2016
Estimated minimum impact of the increase in scope of the 2014 GBER compared to the 2008 GBER
Source: European Court of Auditors, based on Commission estimates and the 2008 and 2014 GBERs.

5. What have we found since then – Annual reports
For the period 2015, we found 7 cases (ERDF/CF) of non-compliance with state aid rules:
3 cases with financial impact contributing to approx. 0.3 percentage points of the estimated level of error; and
The error category was ‘aid intensity to high’
For the period 2016, we found 11 cases (ERDF/CF) of non-compliance with state aid rules:
None had financial impact.
The error category was ‘Monitoring or formal requirements not met’
Less errors with financial impact appears to relate to:
The 2014 GBER; and
The retrospective application of this regulation.

6. Commission and Member States – State aid rules being or to be addressed
We identified Member State good practices which can prevent non-compliance with State aid rules – Denmark and Portugal;
Our survey identified that Member States would benefit from further support i.e. practical guidebook with case studies, additional training courses, using the State aid expertise within the national State aid offices.
Commission
State aid common action plan including workshops, question- and-answer database, dissemination of good practice was being implemented.
The Commission should record irregularities (IMS and MAPAR) allowing comprehensive analysis of causes, origin etc.
The Commission should inter alia ensure that the checks of audit authorities are appropriate, provide additional guidance material to Member States and encourage Member States to set up a ‘de minimis’ aid-register.

7. Thank you for your attention!
Find out more about the other products and activities of the ECA:
eca.europa.eu
EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG