English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

More than five years ago, the European Commission provided further guidance on local support measures by establishing three criteria in order to exclude an effect on trade. As authors explain in this article, this approach fits well within the existing case law of the CJEU and has also been recently endorsed by the General Court. At the same time, authors critically assess the decision practice of the Commission  which often lacks a solid assessment of the three criteria. This detracts from the Commission's self-proclaimed goal to be 'big on big, small on small' and further reduce the administrative burden for public authorities and companies. This articles therefore calls upon the Commission to provide more legal certainty on the effect on trade criterion by taking the assessment of this criterion more seriously and create more precedents that stakeholders can rely on.  Keywords: effect on trade; local aid; cross-border; marginal effect; notion of aid

european state aid law quarterly

Big on Big, Small on Small: A Never Ending Promise? A Critical Assessment of the Commission Decision Practice with Regard to the Effect on Trade Criterion