When Sweden signed the EEA Agreement, the Regulation was notified to EFTA (ESA) along with other, at that time, existing aid schemes. EFTA registered it and filed it. It did not further investigate the Regulation. It was, therefore, implicitly approved.

According to the Accession Treaty, when Sweden joined the EU, all aid schemes that had been registered with EFTA were automatically considered to be “existing aid.” Member States had no duty to “re-notify” these aid schemes at the time of the accession. This included the Regulation.

According to the procedural regulation governing state aid, Member States have a duty to notify new aid and, under certain circumstances, amendments to an existing aid (for example, when the amendment is of such a nature to significantly alter the original aid scheme).

During this summer, Sweden notified amendments to the Regulation. The notification, however, contained very little information and was incomplete. In August, DG Competition sent a written request for information to which Sweden replied in September.

The amendments concerned the part of the Regulation relating to operating aid. It turned out that the Regulation does not specify what the aid can be used for other than a very general purpose: for “the production of newspapers.” There are no specific eligible costs or restrictions and there is also no limit to the aid intensity. It thus appeared to be an aid measure with the sole effect of continuously reducing the costs which the recipients would normally have to bear. It was, therefore, prima facie (kurs. i original. OJ), not compatible with the common market.

The notified amendments imply, amongst others, that newspapers which had previously not been eligible for aid could now receive aid. Thus, the amendments would constitute new aid.

Since the amendments are not severable from the rest of the Regulation, the Regulation has to be assessed in full. The matter is also complicated by the fact that in the past Sweden has made several changes to the Regulation, but none of these was ever notified to the Commission. It is not clear if those changes constituted “new aid” that should have been notified and were therefore illegal. The above aspects were informally discussed with the Legal Service which agreed with the preliminary analysis.

Following the reply of the Swedish authorities, some customary informal contacts usual in a notification case took place over the phone between DG Competition and the Swedish Ministry to clarify outstanding issues. On those occasions the Swedish authorities asked for feedback from DG Competition.

DG Competition explained that – although the assessment was still preliminary and it could not prejudge in any way the views of the Commission – according to the rules and precedents, an operating aid of this kind would normally not be accepted. The Commission, however, could formally express its position only by way of decision. This might take some time: first to adopt a decision to open the formal investigation procedure and then to take a final decision. Separate procedures might also be needed to deal with the existing aid and, possibly, the illegal aid. In view of this, Sweden decided it would save time by withdrawing the notification, revising the entire Regulation and submitting a new project that had greater chances of compatibility. We are therefore waiting to receive the revised Regulation.

Maria Dupont
Pressekreterare
Kultur- och Idrottsminister Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth
Kulturdepartementet
Telefon +46 (0) 8 405 35 12
Mobil: +46 (0) 70 358 77 91
Adress: Drottninggatan 16, 103 33 Stockholm