Draft ID: d5369901-da78-4727-bb29-27f15fcc5786 Date: 18/08/2025 13:43:05
Questionnaire - GBER general revision 2025
1
Introduction
The current version of Commission Regulation (EU) No 651/2014 of 17 June 2014 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the internal market in application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty (“General Block Exemption Regulation” or “GBER”) entered into force on 1 July 2014 and applies until 31 December 2026. With this questionnaire, the Commission invites stakeholders to provide written input on the purpose and the scope of the revision of the GBER.
As the GBER encompasses many different aid categories, please mention precisely in your replies the specific GBER article or articles concerned.
For each question, please elaborate, if relevant, on the expected impact of the change on the reduction of the administrative burden for undertakings and Member States, competition in the market, legal certainty for undertakings, harmonised application of the competition rules, compliance or enforcement costs, innovation and sustainability. As regards these impacts (and more generally for all your replies), please provide, as much as possible, quantitative evidence underpinning your statements. This will ensure that the review process is based on facts and reliable evidence.
2 About you
* 1 Language of my contribution Bulgarian
Croatian Czech
Danish Dutch English
Estonian
Finnish French German Greek
Hungarian Irish
Italian Latvian
Lithuanian Maltese
Polish
Portuguese Romanian Slovak
Slovenian Spanish Swedish
* 2 I am giving my contribution as
Academic/research institution Business association
Company/business
Consumer organisation EU citizen
Environmental organisation Non-EU citizen
Non-governmental organisation (NGO) Public authority
Trade union Other
* 3 First name
* 4 Surname
* 5 Email (this won't be published)
* 12 Country of origin
Please add your country of origin, or that of your organisation.
This list does not represent the official position of the European institutions with regard to the legal status or policy of the entities mentioned. It is a harmonisation of often divergent lists and practices.
Afghanistan Djibouti Libya Saint Martin
Åland Islands Dominica Liechtenstein Saint Pierre and
Miquelon
Albania Dominican Republic
Lithuania Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Algeria Ecuador Luxembourg Samoa
American Samoa Egypt Macau San Marino
Andorra El Salvador Madagascar São Tomé and
Príncipe
Angola Equatorial Guinea Malawi Saudi Arabia Anguilla Eritrea Malaysia Senegal
Antarctica Estonia Maldives Serbia
Antigua and Barbuda
Eswatini Mali Seychelles
Argentina Ethiopia Malta Sierra Leone Armenia Falkland Islands Marshall Islands Singapore
Aruba Faroe Islands Martinique Sint Maarten Australia Fiji Mauritania Slovakia
Austria Finland Mauritius Slovenia
Azerbaijan France Mayotte Solomon Islands Bahamas French Guiana Mexico Somalia
Bahrain French Polynesia Micronesia South Africa
Bangladesh French Southern and Antarctic Lands
Moldova South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Barbados Gabon Monaco South Korea Belarus Georgia Mongolia South Sudan Belgium Germany Montenegro Spain
Belize Ghana Montserrat Sri Lanka
Benin Gibraltar Morocco Sudan
Bermuda Greece Mozambique Suriname
Bhutan Greenland Myanmar/Burma Svalbard and
Jan Mayen
Bolivia Grenada Namibia Sweden
Bonaire Saint Eustatius and Saba
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Guadeloupe Nauru Switzerland
Guam Nepal Syria
Botswana Guatemala Netherlands Taiwan
Bouvet Island Guernsey New Caledonia Tajikistan Brazil Guinea New Zealand Tanzania
British Indian Ocean Territory
British Virgin Islands
Guinea-Bissau Nicaragua Thailand
Guyana Niger The Gambia
Brunei Haiti Nigeria Timor-Leste
Bulgaria Heard Island and McDonald Islands
Niue Togo
Burkina Faso Honduras Norfolk Island Tokelau
Burundi Hong Kong Northern Mariana Islands
Tonga
Cambodia Hungary North Korea Trinidad and
Tobago Cameroon Iceland North Macedonia Tunisia Canada India Norway Türkiye
Cape Verde Indonesia Oman Turkmenistan Cayman Islands Iran Pakistan Turks and
Caicos Islands
Central African Republic
Iraq Palau Tuvalu
Chad Ireland Palestine Uganda
Chile Isle of Man Panama Ukraine
China Israel Papua New Guinea
United Arab Emirates
Christmas Island Italy Paraguay United Kingdom Clipperton Jamaica Peru United States
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Japan Philippines United States Minor Outlying Islands
Colombia Jersey Pitcairn Islands Uruguay
Comoros Jordan Poland US Virgin Islands Congo Kazakhstan Portugal Uzbekistan
Cook Islands Kenya Puerto Rico Vanuatu
Costa Rica Kiribati Qatar Vatican City Côte d’Ivoire Kosovo Réunion Venezuela Croatia Kuwait Romania Vietnam
Cuba Kyrgyzstan Russia Wallis and Futuna
Curaçao Laos Rwanda Western Sahara
Cyprus Latvia Saint Barthélemy Yemen
Czechia Lebanon Saint Helena Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
Zambia
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Lesotho Saint Kitts and Nevis
Zimbabwe
Denmark Liberia Saint Lucia
The Commission will publish all contributions to this public consultation. You can choose whether you would prefer to have your details published or to remain anonymous when your contribution is published. For the purpose of transparency, the type of respondent (for example, ‘business association, ‘consumer association’, ‘EU citizen’) country of origin, organisation name and size, and its transparency register number, are always published. Your e-mail address will never be published. Opt in to select the privacy option that best suits you. Privacy options default based on the type of respondent selected
I agree with the personal data protection provisions
3 Objectives of the GBER and of the GBER revision
3.1 Objectives of the GBER
15 In its 2012 Communication on State aid modernisation, the Commission considered that the objectives of State aid modernisation were the promotion of growth, the prioritisation of enforcement on aid with the highest impact on the single market, and the simplification of the State aid rules. Do you consider that the implementation of the GBER has contributed to the achievement of these objectives?
Please rank each objective from 1 to 4 according to the following scale: 1 – Not at all. The implementation of the GBER did not contribute in any meaningful way. 2 – To a small extent. The implementation of the GBER had a noticeable but limited contribution. 3 – To a large extent. The implementation of the GBER contributed significantly to achieving the objective. 4 – Yes, to a very large extent. The implementation of the GBER was instrumental in achieving this objective.
Prioritisation of enforcement on aid with the highest impact on the single market
(“big on big, small on small”)
Simplification of the State aid rules
16 In your view, is the GBER well aligned with the following policy objectives?
Please rank each objective from 1 to 3 according to the following scale: 1 – Not at all. The GBER should not contribute in any meaningful way. 2 – To some extent. The GBER should contribute to achieving the objective. 3 – To a large extent. The GBER should be instrumental in achieving this objective.
3.2 Objectives of the revision of the GBER
17 In your view, does the GBER adequately address the following issues?
Please rank each issue from 1 to 4
1.
No
2. Yes, to a
limited extent
3. Yes, to
some extent
4. Yes, to a large extent
The reduction of the administrative burden of Member States and the Commission
Improving the user-friendliness, readability, consistency and accessibility of the GBER
Increasing the scope of the GBER to more aid measures
Simplifying the compatibility conditions to block exempt more aid measures while keeping sufficient safeguards to avoid undue distortions
Adapting the current text to take into account political, economic, technical and social changes
18 Do you consider that the current GBER contributes sufficiently to achieving the objective of supporting the transition towards a climate neutral, clean and sustainable economy, in particular for SMEs? If not, please explain why.
2000 character(s) maximum
Please explain and provide examples
19 Do you consider that the current GBER contributes sufficiently to achieving the objective of supporting a just transition (addressing negative impacts on territories and communities that are most affected by the transition to a climate-neutral, clean and sustainable economy), especially in view of the retraining and re-employment needs of workers from decarbonized industries? If not, please explain why.
2000 character(s) maximum
20 Digitalisation and new technologies are a key driver of innovation, competitiveness and growth. Do you consider that the current GBER contributes sufficiently to achieving the objective of supporting the transition towards a digitalised economy? If not, please explain why.
2000 character(s) maximum
Please explain and provide examples
21 Do you consider that the current GBER contributes sufficiently to achieving the objective of supporting the resilience of the EU economy, in particular of certain strategic sectors defined in the EU Competitiveness Compass, against external shocks and dependency on third countries? If not, please explain why.
2000 character(s) maximum
Please explain and provide examples
22 Do you consider that the current GBER contributes sufficiently to achieving the objective of supporting research, development and innovation activities? If not, please explain why.
2000 character(s) maximum
Please explain and provide examples
23 Do you consider that the current GBER contributes sufficiently to achieving the objective of supporting cohesion objectives (regional development, recognition of territorial specificities) or social objectives? If not, please explain why. Should in particular cohesion policy objectives be better taken into account in the various
provisions of GBER (also beyond Section 1 of Chapter III), by including specific support in certain regions?
2000 character(s) maximum
Please explain and provide examples
24 Do you consider that the current GBER contributes sufficiently to the competitiveness of the EU economy? If not, please explain why.
2000 character(s) maximum
Please explain and provide examples
25 Do you consider that the current GBER contributes sufficiently to improving the business environment (including access to finance) for SMEs, small mid-caps, startups and scale ups? Please explain in particular whether the possibility of benefitting from block exempted aid improves the business environment for SMEs, for example by facilitating or accelerating the completion of projects carried out by SMEs.
2000 character(s) maximum
26 Do you consider that the current GBER contributes sufficiently to supporting integrated investments/projects, such as those combining multiple objectives (and thus possibly multiple articles of Chapter III) and multiple types of costs (related to infrastructure, equipment, personnel, services, etc.)? Please explain and provide examples.
2000 character(s) maximum
27 Do you consider that the current GBER contributes sufficiently to promoting the uptake of private investment in the EU through de-risking? If not, please explain why.
2000 character(s) maximum
4 Common compatibility conditions (Chapter I of the GBER)
28 Do you consider that certain articles (or parts thereof) in Chapter III are not or not often used?
No
Yes, certain articles (or parts thereof) are not or not often used and should be updated.
Yes, certain articles (or parts thereof) are not or not often used and should be deleted.
• I don't know
29 If you replied that some articles should be updated, please indicate which provisions and explain how they should be updated.
3000 character(s) maximum
30 If you replied that some articles should be deleted, please indicate which provisions and explain why they should be deleted, for example in the light of market developments or because the provision is not used for other reasons.
3000 character(s) maximum
4.1 Scope of the GBER
Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1588 of 13 July 2015 on the application of Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of horizontal State aid (the “Enabling Regulation”) empowered the Commission to block exempt 15 different categories of State aid in favour of (i) SMEs, (ii) research, development and innovation, (iii) environmental protection, (iv) employment and training, (v) culture and heritage conservation, (vi) making good the damage caused by natural disasters,
(vii) making good the damage caused by certain adverse weather conditions in fisheries, (viii), forestry, (ix) promotion of food sector products not listed in Annex I of the TFEU, (x) conservation of marine and freshwater biological resources, (xi) sports, (xii) residents of remote regions, (xiii) certain telecommunications infrastructure, (xiv) infrastructure in support of the objectives above, of cohesion, and of other objectives of common interest, (xv) aid that complies with the regional aid maps. The GBER may only block exempt these aid categories from the notification obligation.
31 Do you consider that, within the scope of the Enabling Regulation, there are categories of aid that meet the block exemption criteria and that are not included in the GBER?
No Yes
I don't know
32 Please indicate, for each new aid category:
which aid category should be added
why such aid category should be block exempted, e.g. because there is clear and sufficient case practice from the Commission in this area (showing in particular a market failure i.e. there is an important investment gap and insufficient investment appetite by private sector due to the risk profile of investments needed to develop and grow certain key strategic sectors and technologies needed to boost EU competitiveness and the reshape of its industrial policy); because it would reduce the administrative burden of undertakings, Member States and the Commission and there is no risk of undue distortion of competition
which conditions would be appropriate for block exemption (e.g. notification threshold, aid intensities, based on Commission practice)
3000 character(s) maximum
4.2 Application of the GBER to primary agricultural production and fisheries
/aquaculture
The GBER only exceptionally applies to the sectors of primary agricultural production and fisheries
/aquaculture (the scope is defined in Article 1(3)(a) and (b)), given that tailor-made Block Exemption Regulations exist for those sectors. This initiative concerns a revision of the GBER, not of the specific block exemption regulations applicable to agriculture, forestry, fisheries and aquaculture (Regulation (EU) 2022
/2472 'ABER' and Regulation Regulation (EU) 2022/2473 'FiBER').
33 Do you think that other GBER articles, which are currently not applicable to the sectors of primary agricultural production/fisheries and aquaculture, should be opened to those sectors, taking into account the existing block-exemptions under ABER and FIBER?
No Yes
I don't know
34 If you consider that certain GBER articles should be opened to the sectors of primary agricultural production/fisheries and aquaculture, please provide a list of the relevant GBER articles, and explain why.
2000 character(s) maximum
35 Is the GBER used to grant aid to the sector of primary agricultural production and
/or fisheries and aquaculture? If yes, which provisions of the GBER are used and were there difficulties to apply these provisions?
2000 character(s) maximum
36 Under the current version of the GBER, there are specific aid measures which apply to the fisheries and aquaculture sector but not to primary agricultural production (or the other way around) leading to a difference in treatment between these sectors. Is this problematic in your view or are the exclusions justified by the specificities of the sectors, e.g. because the aid categories would not be relevant for the excluded sectors? Please substantiate your reply and provide relevant evidence.
2000 character(s) maximum
4.3 Definitions
37 Article 2 of the GBER provides a list of definitions of certain terms or concepts. What is your position regarding the definitions laid down in the GBER?
The current list of definitions is fine.
Certain concepts should be defined while they currently are not. Certain definitions should be updated.
• Certain definitions are unnecessary and should be deleted.
• Certain definitions rather constitute substantial compatibility conditions and should be moved to Chapter III.
I don't know.
38 If you replied that some concepts should be defined, please provide a list of concepts and definitions and explain
3000 character(s) maximum
39 If you replied that some definitions should be updated, please provide a list, the exact suggestion for an update and explain.
3000 character(s) maximum
40 If you replied that some definitions should be deleted, please provide a list and explain.
3000 character(s) maximum
41 If you replied that some definitions should be moved to Chapter III, please provide examples and explain.
3000 character(s) maximum
4.4 Evaluation
42 In 2014, the corollary of the expansion of GBER to new aid categories was the obligation of Member States to conduct an ex post evaluation of large aid schemes. As a result, the GBER does not apply to large aid schemes under certain sections of Chapter III beyond a period of 6 months after their entry into force, unless the Commission has approved an evaluation plan (Article 1(2)(a) GBER). Large aid
schemes are defined as those having an average annual budget above €150 million (certain articles of Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7) or above €200 million (Section 16). What is your position concerning the obligation to submit an evaluation plan for large aid schemes?
The evaluation obligation has contributed to the efficiency and effectiveness of large aid schemes and should be maintained as it is.
The notion of large aid schemes should be expanded (e.g. lower thresholds, more Sections of Chapter III).
The notion of large aid schemes should be restricted (e.g. higher thresholds, fewer Sections of Chapter III, only long-term schemes beyond a certain duration, because it is difficult to carry out an evaluation of short-term schemes, only schemes which were not subject to an evaluation plan carried out in the past).
The evaluation obligation should no longer be a requirement for block exemption and could be moved to Chapter 2, by analogy to the conditions on reporting).
The evaluation obligation does not add value and should be deleted. Other
43 Please explain your reply as to the evaluation requirement.
2000 character(s) maximum
4.5 Undertakings in difficulty
44 In principle, aid to undertakings in difficulty cannot be block exempted (Article 1(4) (c)) GBER). There are exceptions concerning aid schemes to make good the damage caused by certain natural disasters, start-up aid schemes, regional operating aid schemes, aid schemes to SMEs benefitting from community-led local development projects, and aid to financial intermediaries under certain articles. While the general principle of exclusion should remain because State aid to undertakings in difficulty is among the most distortive types of aid, do you see a need for adaptations of the exceptions to this general exclusion or to the definition in Article 2(18) of the GBER?
No Yes
• I don't know
45 If you consider that adaptations are necessary as regards the exclusion of undertakings in difficulties (or the definition of such undertakings) please explain what issues were encountered so far and consequently what adaptations should be done.
2000 character(s) maximum
4.6 Incentive effect
46 The incentive effect requirement under the GBER is generally met if a written application for the aid has been submitted before the start of works, which covers among others any commitment that "makes the investment irreversible” (Article 6 in combination with Article 2(23) GBER). This is to ensure that an undertaking does not receive aid if it was able to execute the project without it. What is your position on the assessment of the incentive effect?
• This condition functions well.
This condition is complex to apply and could be simplified. This condition is not sufficient and should be reinforced.
I don't know
47 Please explain your reply as to the incentive effect requirement and provide specific examples. If you consider that the condition can be simplified, please explain why and how it could be simplified to reduce the administrative burden while preserving this essential compatibility condition.
2000 character(s) maximum
4.7 Simplified cost options
48 Article 7(1) of the GBER lays down the general possibility of calculating eligible costs in accordance with simplified cost options (SCOs), provided that the operation is “at least partly financed through a Union fund that allows the use of simplified cost options”. Other articles also lay down specific possibilities of using SCOs. What is your position on the use of SCOs under the GBER?
The possibilities of using SCOs are sufficient.
The possibilities of using SCOs are not sufficient for small enterprises. The possibilities of using SCOs are not sufficient for SMEs.
The possibilities of using SCOs are not sufficient for all types of beneficiaries. I don't know
49 Please explain your reply as to the use of SCOs. If you consider that a wider use of SCOs is needed, please explain for which aid categories and under which conditions.
2000 character(s) maximum
5 Specific conditions for compatibility (Chapter III of the GBER)
5.1 Complexity of the conditions
50 Which provisions of the GBER are too complex, raise difficulties of interpretation or application, and should in your view be updated or clarified? Please refer to specific provisions and explain why. Please specify how you consider these provisions could be clarified.
3000 character(s) maximum
51 Apart from aid intensities and eligible costs, Chapter III of the GBER lays down a series of other compatibility conditions, for instance related to the eligibility of the beneficiaries and/or projects. Are any of these other compatibility conditions unnecessary or disproportionate in your view? Why? How should they be updated, relaxed or should they be completely lifted?
3000 character(s) maximum
Please explain and provide examples
52 The amount of aid can be determined in several ways under the GBER: by reference to a maximum aid intensity applied to eligible costs determined with or without a counterfactual scenario, by reference to a funding gap or by reference to a competitive bidding process. What is your position concerning the possibility for Member States of determining State aid by reference to a funding gap (e.g. instead of using a maximum aid intensity)?
Funding gap calculations should remain in the GBER, because they are most of the time not mandatory and national authorities may already rely on other methods to demonstrate the proportionality of aid.
Funding gap calculations should not be required for small aid amounts, or they should be replaced with other methods (e.g. aid intensity).
• Funding gap calculations should be removed from the GBER, because they are too complex and not commonly used by granting authorities.
Other
53 To the extent you suggested a change in reply to the previous question about funding gap calculations, please explain the reasons for the change. If you consider that funding gap calculations should not be required under some conditions, Please explain, for each relevant GBER article, which alternative methodologies could enable to calculate the maximum aid amount in a simpler manner.
2000 character(s) maximum
54 Some GBER provisions lay down that the eligible costs are the extra costs of a project by comparison to a counterfactual scenario in the absence of aid. The rationale for requiring a counterfactual scenario is the need for calibrating aid and avoiding that the aid covers costs that the beneficiary would have incurred in any event. It aims at ensuring that the aid only covers the extra costs of the green investment. What is your position concerning this condition?
This condition is reasonable and does not need to be changed. Member States should have the choice between either determining aid by reference to a counterfactual with higher aid intensities or without counterfactual but with lower aid intensities.
This condition is too complex. To simplify, Member States should only have the possibility of granting the aid without reference to the counterfactual based on aid intensities that already take the counterfactual into account.
Other
55 Please explain your reply.
2000 character(s) maximum
56 Certain articles in Chapter III lay down the possibility of carrying out a competitive bidding process as an appropriate way to ensure proportionality of aid and lay down additional conditions compared to the general definition in Article 2(38) GBER. This is because a competitive bidding process ensures that the aid amount is kept to the minimum. What is your position?
A competitive bidding process is an efficient way to keep the aid amount limited to the minimum and the current criteria do not involve a particular administrative burden.
Some conditions are unnecessary and could be simplified.
A competitive bidding process is burdensome especially for small projects and should be replaced with another method such as aid intensities.
Other
57 Please explain your reply and provide suggestions or examples.
2000 character(s) maximum
5.2 Consistency of the conditions (within the GBER, with other EU rules and with the evolution of technology and markets)
58 The GBER sometimes uses conditions or concepts which seem very similar (for instance ‘competitive bidding process’, ‘competitive selection procedure’ or ‘competitive selection process’). The revision will seek to harmonise this terminology. Are there other concepts (or conditions) for which you consider that the terminology used in the GBER should be standardised? Please list them.
3000 character(s) maximum
59 Are there concepts and definitions used in the GBER that are not well aligned with other concepts and definitions already laid down in EU law?
3000 character(s) maximum
Please provide specific references
60 Does the GBER appropriately reflect technological and market development?
• No Yes
I don't know
61 Please provide examples and explain why technological and market development make it necessary to update these provisions and how they should be updated.
3000 character(s) maximum
62 What do you think about the alignment between the GBER and conditions laid down by support programmes funded or co-funded by the EU budget?
The GBER conditions are well aligned Better alignment is needed
I don't know
63 The following conditions should be better aligned
between 1 and 7 choices
conditions related to the proportionality of the aid (competitive bidding process, aid intensity, aid amounts)
conditions related to the eligible costs (cost categories, calculation methodologies, etc.)
conditions related to the incentive effect
conditions related to the cumulation of EU and national funding
conditions related to the parallel procedures (EU funding and State aid) (e.g. requirements related to the selection of projects, project monitoring requirements and timelines)
conditions related to the eligibility of the beneficiaries other conditions
64 Please provide specific examples and explain how the rules should be aligned.
3000 character(s) maximum
65 Under the current Multiannual Financial Framework (2021-2027), EU funds can be granted until the end of 2029, while the GBER will expire by 31 December 2026. Should transitional provisions in the GBER be introduced to ensure that measures co- financed under the next Multiannual Financial Framework 2028-2034 remain block- exempted even after the expiry of the validity of the GBER (similarly to the provisions in Article 62(2) of Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/2472)?
Yes No
I don't know
66 Please explain your reply
5.3 Aid in the form of financial instruments
67 Member States may in some cases provide aid in the form of financial instruments instead of (or in addition to) aid in the form of grants. Financial instruments are a vehicle to deliver support via a multi-layer structure through which financial instruments (e.g. loans, guarantees, equity) are provided to final recipients in order to leverage private investment. The multi-layer structure may involve – apart from Member State authorities providing the aid – also implementing bodies or partners (e.
g. international/multilateral financial institutions, national promotional banks and
institutions and financial intermediaries) and private co-investors, and may therefore imply the presence of aid at different levels. Some GBER articles directly cover aid in the form of financial instruments (e.g. Article 39 on investment aid for energy efficiency in buildings in the form of financial instruments). Do current GBER rules sufficiently accommodate the use of financial instruments to provide aid to final beneficiaries?
No Yes
I don't know
69 Do the current GBER rules appropriately accommodate and promote the use of specific type of financial instrument, such as equity?
Yes No
70 Please explain your reply
2000 character(s) maximum
71 Should the GBER be simplified to enable participation of financial intermediaries other than banks and involvement of co-investors in financing programmes?
• Yes No
72 Please explain your reply
2000 character(s) maximum
5.4 Training and employment aid
73 The Communication on training aid provides guidance on the compatibility assessment of notifiable training aid measures. The Communication dates from 2009 and overlaps to a large extent with the training aid measures now block exempted under Article 31 GBER (Chapter III, Section 5). In light of this, is this Communication still relevant?
Yes No
• I don't know
74 Please explain your reply. If you consider that the Communication should remain in force, please explain in particular how this Communication is still useful for granting authorities.
2000 character(s) maximum
75 Do you consider that the GBER requirements on training aid are appropriate?
• No Yes
• I don't know
76 Please explain which conditions should be changed and provide a justification
3000 character(s) maximum
77 The Communication on employment aid provides guidance on the compatibility assessment of notifiable training aid measures. The Communication dates from 2009 and overlaps to a large extent with the training aid measures now block exempted under Article 31 GBER (Chapter III, Section 5). In light of this, is this Communication still relevant?
Yes No
I don't know
78 Please explain your reply. If you consider that the Communication should remain in force, please explain in particular how this Communication is still useful for granting authorities.
2000 character(s) maximum
79 Do you consider that the GBER requirements on employment aid are appropriate?
• No Yes
I don't know
80 Please explain which conditions should be changed and provide a justification
3000 character(s) maximum
81 The definition of disadvantaged workers is provided in Article 2(4) GBER and has not been updated since 2008. Is this definition still relevant?
• No Yes
I don't know
82 Please specify and provide examples. Are the age ranges not relevant? Are categories of workers not included?
3000 character(s) maximum
5.5 SMEs and small mid-caps
83 Annex I to the GBER provides a definition of SMEs based on the 2003 Recommen dation. Because of their limited size, SMEs generally benefit from more favourable rules under the GBER, such as specific aid categories or higher aid intensities (recitals 40-46 to the GBER). Should the SME definition be clarified?
No Yes
I don't know
84 Please specify and provide examples.
3000 character(s) maximum
85 Are the current GBER rules (e.g. Articles 38b and 56e GBER) sufficient to accommodate the needs of small mid caps?
No Yes
• I don't know
86 Please explain why and provide specific examples.
3000 character(s) maximum
5.6 Other
87 Should the GBER be updated or simplified for other reasons?
3000 character(s) maximum
Please provide justifications and examples
6 Structure of the GBER
88 The GBER is currently divided into four chapters containing common provisions (Chapter I), monitoring (Chapter II), specific provisions for different categories of aid (Chapter III) and final provisions (Chapter IV). There are also four annexes on the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs – Annex I), information sheets (Annexes II and III) and a list of critical raw materials for the purposes of specific compatibility provisions (Annex IV). Do you consider that the current structure of the GBER is satisfactory?
Yes
No, all provisions in Chapter I (Common provisions) should be moved to Chapter III (Specific provisions for different categories of aid), such that all compatibility conditions would be, for each aid category, laid down in a self-standing chapter or section.
No, some provisions in Chapter I (Common provisions) should be moved to Chapter III (Specific provisions for different categories of aid).
Other
89 Please specify which provisions should be transferred to Chapter III or should remain in Chapter I (notification thresholds, specific definitions only used in one aid category, specific provisions about incentive effect, transparency or cumulation, other provisions).
2000 character(s) maximum
91 The current structure of Chapter III of the GBER (Specific provisions for different categories of aid) is based on the list of aid categories laid down in the Enabling Regulation. For example, there are distinct sections within Chapter III on, among others, aid to SMEs (Section 2), aid for R&D&I (Section 4), aid for environmental protection (Section 7), etc. This leads to a situation where distinct GBER articles cover relatively similar activities (e.g. Articles 18 and 49 about consultancy services, Articles 25 and 30 about R&D&I).
The current structure of Chapter III of the GBER is sufficiently clear.
Chapter III of the GBER should be organised using a different structure which would be more helpful for granting authorities.
I don't know
92 If you replied that the structure of Chapter III of the GBER should be different, which options would you favour
• Some articles should be merged or grouped, even if they do not completely overlap (e.g. Article 18 is only for certain beneficiaries – SMEs – but for all consultancy services while Article 49 is for all undertakings but only for certain consultancy services i.e. environmental protection and energy matters)
• Certain GBER articles should be split because they cover different activities. Other
93 Please explain your reply and provide examples.
2000 character(s) maximum
94 The structure of individual articles in Chapter III is not always the same, in that the order of provisions regulating an article’s scope, eligibility conditions, compatibility conditions and proportionality is not uniform across all the articles. Do you see a need for harmonisation of the structure of each article in Chapter III?
No Yes
I don't know
95 If you consider that the internal structure of each article should be harmonised, please explain the order in which compatibility conditions or groups of conditions (general compatibility clause - need to comply with the “common conditions” -; eligibility / scope / exclusions; eligible costs and aid intensity and other ways to ensure proportionality) should be listed. Should there be different articles for operating aid and investment aid or should this be part of the harmonised structure of each article?
2000 character(s) maximum
7 Guidance on (and interpretation of) the GBER
Since the State aid modernisation, the Commission has provided central national authorities with guidance on the interpretation of State aid legislation, and especially on the GBER, through the e-State aid wiki platform.
96 Should the Commission consider ways of providing guidance on the interpretation of the GBER?
No, the current e-State aid wiki system (through which only Member States may ask interpretation questions) works well.
Yes, the Commission should provide guidance in a different format in addition to replies on e-State aid wiki
I don't know
97 How should the guidance be provided by the Commission?
Information sessions
Practical guide or Q&As published on DG Competition’s website Other
Wiki vastused võtvad kohati väga kaua aega, eriti kui tekib vajadus esitada lisaküsimusi. Wiki vastustes on aeg-ajalt märgitud, et kui küsimus on konkreetse ettevõtte/juhtumi kohta, siis ei vastata wikis. Sellisel juhul võiks olla algusest peale selge, kuhu küsimus esitada.
Contact
[email protected]