Europaudvalget 2022-23 (2. samling)
EUU Alm.del Bilag 269
Offentligt
2670723_0001.png
03 March 2023
Danish response to the Commission’s invitation to comment on
the draft proposal on Code of good practices for IPCEIs.
The Danish Government welcomes the Commission’s initiative to launch
a code of good practices for IPCEI’s and appreciates the opportunity to
comment on the proposal.
The Danish Government has participated in the two recently approved IP-
CEI’s in the hydrogen
sector, Hy2Tech and Hy2Use. Thus, the experiences
drawn from the Danish experience of the process could contribute to im-
provements around future IPCEIs.
The “Code of good practices for IPCEIs for a transparent, inclusive and
faster design”, presented
as a technical document of non-legal nature by the
Commission, provides a very helpful overview of the key processes and
inflection points around IPCEIs, and consolidates the lessons learned into
a set of useful hands-on points and observations that can guide the work on
future IPCEIs.
1. General comments
Streamlined and accelerated processes without compromising the quality
and thoroughness of the state aid assessment
We welcome efforts to make future IPCEI processes more structured by
building on best practices. It is highly desirable to find ways to streamline
and accelerate the work of establishing and assessing future IPCEIs.
However, while we share the desire to
see IPCEI’s expedited speedily, we
also caution against unrealistic expectations and excessive reliance on pre-
set fixed time frames that could compromise the quality of state aid assess-
ments. It continues to be vital that the Commission carry out in-depth and
comprehensive assessments of state aid projects.
Genuine and timely involvement
It is helpful that the Code of good practice emphasizes that we must find a
way to ensure all Member States have a genuine chance to participate when
a new IPCEI is being conceived. The decision to enter into an IPCEI entails
substantial commitments from the Member States concerned and thus re-
quires careful consideration. It is therefore important to ensure genuine in-
volvement of all Member States at an early stage. This requires transparent
MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY,
BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL
AFFAIRS
Slotsholmsgade 10-12
1216 Copenhagen K
Denmark
Tlf.
+45 33 92 33 50
Fax.
+45 33 12 37 78
CVR-nr. 10092485
EAN nr. 5798000026001
[email protected]
www.em.dk
 EUU, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 269: Notat om høringssvar til Kommissionens høring om kodeks for god praksis i udformningen af vigtige projekter af fælleseuropæisk interesse
2/4
and open discussions well ahead of any final decision to launch any new
IPCEIs. We would therefore welcome stronger wording on the need for this
involvement to be not only genuine but also
timely.
In a similar vein, ensuring sufficient involvement of the policy DG(s) most
concerned and especially DG COMP will likely help to ensure that any
considerations of establishing new IPCEI’s are in line with the IPCEI Com-
munication. Therefore, we welcome the references in the Code of good
practice to ensure early-stage involvement of the Commission’s
DGs.
We would also like to highlight the importance of preparing IPCEI’s in a
way that induces participation of SMEs by taking into account that SMEs
typically have access to limited judicial and administrative capacities. In
this regard, the Danish Government recalls that the IPCEI Communication
underlines the importance of SMEs and start-ups being able to participate
in IPCEIs and benefit from them.
New IPCEIs must be necessary and proportional
Developing a new IPCEIs has proven to be a very significant and time-
consuming process both from the point of view of Member States, the un-
dertakings involved and the Commission. Before considering the emer-
gence of a new IPCEI it must be clearly established that there is a manifest
need for an IPCEI to address an important market or systemic failure or
societal challenge in line with the IPCEI Communication. Furthermore, it
must be ensured that the challenge is not being addressed by other ongoing
initiatives
and
that it cannot be adequately addressed through other tools.
This includes urgent or crisis-related support, as described in the Code of
Good Practice document, but other state aid frameworks such as CEEAG
and others should also be duly considered before deciding to prepare new
IPCEIs. Drawing on past experiences, we appreciate that DG COMP’s ef-
forts to inform all stakeholders at the early stages about the variety of state
aid rules that could be considered instead of opting to participate in a new
IPCEI. In this regard, we would welcome further efforts aimed at increas-
ing transparency regarding ongoing investment initiatives at national and
European level in order for Member States to better assess the relevance of
establishing and participating in an IPCEI.
2. Specific improvements to IPCEI processes
Agreeing upon and sticking to a realistic and feasible timeline
We very much welcome that the draft points out that in the very early
stages, interested Member States should agree among themselves on a joint
tentative timeline for the emergence and design phase. In our experience,
setting out a realistic and feasible timeline is of key importance in order for
 EUU, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 269: Notat om høringssvar til Kommissionens høring om kodeks for god praksis i udformningen af vigtige projekter af fælleseuropæisk interesse
3/4
Member States to plan accordingly with regards to budgeting, communica-
tion with stakeholders, national calls etc. Therefore, we recommend that
sticking to the timeline is considered a key priority throughout the whole
IPCEI process and that any delays etc. lead to quick adjustments to the
timeline in a transparent and inclusive way.
Systematic sharing of validated templates
The Code of Good Conduct document also point out that Member States
should ensure they obtain the latest templates and guidance validated by
DG COMP. In our experience, it was not clear how official templates could
be obtained, and we ultimately relied on other Member States to share tem-
plates employed in previous IPCEIs. Therefore, we recommend the Com-
mission to systematically ensure clear communication on whether a tem-
plate is validated or not and to make sure that up to date templates are sys-
tematically shared with all participating Member States.
A transparent and predictable matchmaking process
Based on our experience, the matchmaking process was associated with a
high level of uncertainty and, consequently, a lack of predictability for both
the companies involved and at Member State level. Among other things,
the uncertainty was caused by unclarity regarding the matchmaking time-
line and procedure as a whole, criteria on which the matchmaking process
was to be based as well as what was needed for projects to demonstrate
integration in line with the IPCEI Communication. Therefore, we would
welcome that considerations on the matching process and its organization
are developed and agreed upon already at an early stage in order for Mem-
ber States and stakeholders to plan accordingly and ensure adequate inte-
gration between the projects, thereby increasing quality and efficiency of
the matching process.
Requests for Information
The IPCEI process involves highly technical and often lengthy in-depth
assessments of comprehensive projects including, as deemed necessary by
the Commission, e.g. in the form of Requests for Information exchanges.
Member States must take care to ensure submitted projects are of a suffi-
cient quality and maturity to ensure a smooth pre-notification process. Es-
pecially considering that an IPCEI consists of numerous national projects
and cannot be finalized before every individual project have been evaluated
by the Commission. It is also important, given the often highly technical
and detailed nature of Request for Information, that the Commission is pre-
pared to readily explain and elaborate on requests in case a Member State
needs clarifications, so as to ensure the best possible response and prevent
delays in the process.
 EUU, Alm.del - 2022-23 (2. samling) - Bilag 269: Notat om høringssvar til Kommissionens høring om kodeks for god praksis i udformningen af vigtige projekter af fælleseuropæisk interesse
4/4