Europaudvalget 2020-21
EUU Alm.del Bilag 463
Offentligt
2376483_0001.png
NOTE
12. marts 2021
2021 - 3794
miy
Danish response to the Commission’s invitation to comment on revised
State aid rules on Important Projects of Common European Interest
The Danish government appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Eu-
ropean Commission’s draft communication on the criteria for the analysis
of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid to promote the
execution of important projects of common European interest (the draft IP-
CEI Communication).
In general, the Danish Government is positive towards the draft IPCEI
Communication. Overall, we agree that the new focus points in the draft
Communication will help secure more openness, transparency and inclu-
siveness, notably for SME participation and enhance the focus on the green
and digital transition. Furthermore, we are happy to note that many of the
Danish Government’s views and points have been taking in to account in
the draft IPCEI Communication.
As mentioned in the Danish Government’s
response to the road map hear-
ing, we strongly support the Commission’s intention to limit the scope of
the revision to the three main adjustments foreseen in the road map 1)
providing further guidance on criteria in the communication, including the
Green Deal, 2) facilitating the involvement for SME’s, and 3) ensuring that
the process is genuinely transparent and inclusive.
The Danish Government finds that the current Communication on IPCEI
(2014/C 188/02) has contributed in a positive way to provide helpful guide-
lines for Member States when preparing schemes for an approval process
that is as smooth and quick as possible, while ensuring a strict use and ap-
plication of IPCEI. We believe that this revision will not and should not
lead to a general relaxation of the rules or an undermining of the Commis-
sions objective assessment of notified projects.
Updating of the EU priorities and strategies
We welcome the update of references to EU policies and strategies in the
cumulative criteria. This include especially references to initiatives re-
lated to the green and digital transition, e.g. European Green Deal, the
Digital Strategy. The guidelines should enable the development of state-
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 463: Notat samt høringssvar vedr. revision af meddelelsen om Vigtige Projekter af Fælleseuropæiske Interesse
2/5
of-the-art green and digital technologies through the use of IPCEI. How-
ever, always in the case of a market failure and projects going beyond the
aim of catching up with the technological developments globally.
Furthermore, it should be noted, that state aid policy cannot stand alone in
supporting these strategies and a comprehensive approach is needed, in-
cluding a focus on improving the general framework conditions, which in
many cases would be a more effective tool to support the digital and green
transition.
We would refer to the Danish
Government’s response of 20
th
of November
2020 on how the competition policy can support the Green Deal.
Openness and inclusiveness of IPCEIs
We are supportive of the Commission’s focus on securing transparency and
inclusiveness. Therefore, we find it very positive that the Commission has
clarified that all Member States must be given a genuine opportunity to
participate in new projects and that the Commission has expanded the eli-
gibility criteria regarding the minimum number to four member states for
a project to qualify as an IPCEI. However, it is important that this remains
the minimum number and does not become the norm for e.g. IPCEIs on
research and innovation and first industrial deployment, so that all Member
States are granted the opportunity to participate.
Currently, there is no clear procedure for how Member States can coordi-
nate and cooperate on IPCEI in advance of the state aid assessment. The
current work on the hydrogen on IPCEI is a great step in the right direction
in terms of improving transparency and inclusiveness in the early stages of
establishing an IPCEI for industrial development. However, we believe that
more can be done in providing a standardised setup in order to safeguard
that all Member States are given an opportunity to participate and that clar-
ity and predictability with regards to the process is ensured from the start.
A common digital platform provided by the Commission involving report-
ing obligations for Member States on current statuses on upcoming and/or
ongoing IPCEIs could be considered in this regard.
Further, we welcome the additions aimed at ensuring better inclusion of
SMEs, namely in provision 5 and 22 d. We see the additions as an important
tool to support the SME Strategy and maintaining a broad base of SMEs
across the EU.
Clarifications and updates
In general, the new clarifications are positive. However, the Danish Gov-
ernment would like the IPCEI Communication to clarify the definition of
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 463: Notat samt høringssvar vedr. revision af meddelelsen om Vigtige Projekter af Fælleseuropæiske Interesse
3/5
market failure
further so that it doesn’t include IPCEIs in the infrastructure
sector. We elaborate on this in the specific comment to provision 16 below.
Specific comments
Below, we will give our comments to the specific provisions in the draft
IPCEI Communication.
Provision 4
The Danish Government is worried that the last sentence in provision 4
outlining that IPCEIs can contribute to recovery potentially changes the
focus of IPCEIs towards activities aimed at neither research and innovation
nor infrastructural needs, but merely recovery needs. Recovery efforts
through IPCEIs should only be allowed to the extent that such efforts com-
ply with the eligibility criteria. Otherwise, such efforts could potentially
lead to unnecessary distortion of competition within the internal market.
Therefore, the Danish Government would like this new addition to be clar-
ified further or alternatively removed from the provision.
Provision 5
We find it very positive that SMEs and the SME Strategy are now men-
tioned specifically in the IPCEI Communication. However, we would like
to point out that this provision can be hindered by the draft provision 20
since many IPCEIs will have difficulties providing
significant
co-financ-
ing. Therefore, we suggest that SMEs are exempt from the condition of
providing
significant
co-financing.
Provision 10 (a)
The Danish Government is supportive of the exemption regarding under-
takings that became undertakings in difficulty in the period from 1 January
2020 and as long as the Temporary Framework is applied. The intention
hereof should be to allow for the participation of companies, who under
normal circumstances would not have been undertakings in difficulty.
Hence, the amendment should not lead to a shift in focus of IPCEIs towards
activities aimed at compensation and strictly recovery efforts.
Provision 16
The Danish Government supports that the Commission continues to apply
the market-based principles in its assessment, meaning that IPCEIs can
only be used to overcome important market or systemic failures or to ad-
dress societal challenges that cannot otherwise be addressed. In this light,
we welcome the inclusion of this aspect as one of the cumulative criterions.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 463: Notat samt høringssvar vedr. revision af meddelelsen om Vigtige Projekter af Fælleseuropæiske Interesse
4/5
On the other hand, however, the Danish Government sees a potential prob-
lem in having a
market or systemic failure
as one of the cumulative criteri-
ons since this could lead to infrastructure IPCEIs falling outside the scope
of the IPCEI Communication and TFEU article 107(3)(b). Therefore, we
suggest that a clear exemption regarding infrastructure IPCEIs is imple-
mented in this provision. Furthermore, we would like the provision to clar-
ify further what is to be understood by
market or systemic failures.
Provision 17
The Danish Government is positive about IPCEIs must involve at least four
Member States unless a smaller number is justified. However, as noted
above, in some cases and especially regarding research and innovation pro-
jects the number of participating Member States should in practice be
higher.
Provision 18
The Danish Government supports this new provision. It is important that
all Member states be given a genuine opportunity to participate in IPCEIs.
It is positive that it falls on the applying Member State(s) to inform other
Member States.
Provision 20
See the comment regarding provision 5. We propose that SMEs are exempt
from the condition of providing
significant
co-financing.
Provision 21
We strongly support the inclusion of provision 21 and the principal of ‘do
no significant harm’. It is essential to maintain the provision in order to
support and fulfil the needs for the green transition.
Provision 22 (d)
We are supportive of the addition regarding SMEs since the Danish Gov-
ernment finds collaboration between SME’s and large enterprises as a good
way to strengthen the European competitiveness.
Provision 24 and 25
We find it positive that a definition of
first industrial deployment activities
has been included in the draft IPCEI Communication. However, we find it
unclear what is to be understood when an R&D&I component constitutes
“an
integral and necessary element for the successful implementation of
the project”.
This should be clarified further.
Provision 32
The Danish Government supports that the notifying Member States are in-
vited to provide relevant documentation. This helps secure that state aid
 EUU, Alm.del - 2020-21 - Bilag 463: Notat samt høringssvar vedr. revision af meddelelsen om Vigtige Projekter af Fælleseuropæiske Interesse
5/5
given under the IPCEI Communication does not distort competition in a
disproportionate manner.
Provision 36
The Danish Government supports that State aid can be cumulated. How-
ever, we emphasize the importance of a narrow interpretation of this pro-
vision.
Provision 37
The Danish Government supports this new provision. However, it needs to
be very clear in the Commission’s decisions when and how a Member state
is obliged to claw-back disproportionate and unnecessary State aid.
Provision 39
The Danish Government would like a
clarification of what “appropriate
actions”
the Commission may take in the mentioned circumstances.
Provision 42
We are positive towards the draft IPCEI Communication now mentioning
that the Commission will consider more favourably projects that include a
very
significant contribution by the beneficiaries themselves.
Provision 49
The Danish Government is very happy with this new provision. It is our
opinion that State aid must never lead to the relocation of a product activity
or any other activity within the EU.
Provision 50
We are positive about the new clarification in provision 50 (c) to 50 (i).
Provision 55
The Danish Government wonder why the revision does not include an end
date to its validity like the current communication.