Euroopa Komisjoni konsultatsioon riigiabi üldise grupierandi määruse läbivaatamiseks

Suur-Ameerika 1 / Tallinn 10122 / 626 2802/ [email protected] / www.kliimaministeerium.ee/

Registrikood 70001231

Tarmo Porgand

Rahandusministeerium

Teie 28.07.2025 nr 12.1-1/3458-1

Meie 02.09.2025 nr 6-5/25/3422-2

Euroopa Komisjoni konsultatsioon riigiabi üldise grupierandi määruse läbivaatamiseks

Austatud Tarmo Porgand

Vastavalt Riigikantselei resolutsioonile nr 2-5/25-01473 edastame seoses üldise grupierandi määruse lihtustamise ja muutmise avaliku konsultatsioonga Euroopa Komisjoni poolt koostatud

küsimustiku (osad 3-7) vastused Eesti seisukohtade kujundamiseks.

Lugupidamisega

(allkirjastatud digitaalselt) Tanel Ross

juhataja

Lisa: Euroopa Komisjoni küsimustik üldise grupierandi määruse kohta

Anneli Schmiedeberg, 639 7618

[email protected]

1

Draft ID: d5369901-da78-4727-bb29-27f15fcc5786

Date: 22/07/2025 10:53:27

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

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

Fields marked with * are mandatory.

2

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.

1 - No, not at all

2 - Yes, to a small extent

3 - Yes, to a large extent

4 - Yes, to a very large extent

Promotion of growth X X

Prioritisation of

enforcement on aid with

the highest impact on the

single market

(“big on big, small on

small”)

X

X

Simplification of the State

aid rules

X

KLIM selgitus: GBER rakendamine on aidanud kaasa eesmärkide saavutamisele erineval määral. Mõne valdkonna, näiteks lennunduse jaoks, on GBERi panus kasvu edendamisse ja reeglite lihtsustamisse olnud märkimisväärne, võimaldades toetada regionaalseid lennujaamu, mis muidu ei oleks majanduslikult

jätkusuutlikud, ning pakkudes riigiabi andjale tõhusamat menetlust võrreldes ametliku teavitusmenetlusega (tabelis vastatud kõigile kolmele küsimusele “yes, to a large extend”). Samas transpordi- ja energeetika valdkonnas hinnatakse panust pigem tagasihoidlikuna (tabelis kaks esimest küsimust vastatud “yes, to a

small extend) ning reeglite lihtsustumine hinnatakse kasulikuks (tables vastus “yes, to a large extend), kuid endiselt peetakse regulatsiooni kohati keeruliseks ja mitmeti tõlgendatavaks, mis suurendab

halduskoormust.

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.

1 –

Not

at

all

2 –

To

some

extent

3 –

To a

large

extent

Encouraging the green transition (including decarbonization)

X

Fostering the digital transition

N/A

Legal certainty (predictability and ease of understanding) for Member States

and undertakings

X

Promoting R&D and innovation

X

Promoting the economic, social and territorial cohesion of Member States and

the Union as a whole, as well as regional development of disadvantaged areas

X

Promoting the uptake of private investment in the EU through de-risking

N/A

Protecting a level playing field in the single market and minimising distortions of

competition

X

3

Strengthening the resilience of the EU economy against external shocks and

dependency on third countries (including mining and processing of critical raw

materials and growth of EU key strategic sectors referred to in the Competitiveness

Compass)

X

Supporting social protection measures

N/A

Supporting the competitiveness of the EU

X

Supporting the just transition

N/A

The prioritisation of enforcement on the most distortive types of State aid, which

should be notified to the Commission

X

KLIM selgitus: erinevatel valdkondadel on erinevad kogemused- lennundus täitis tabelis enamasti “To a large extent”, samas kui energeetika hindas küsimusi pigem “To some extent”.

Lennunduse valdkond on seisukohal, et praegune GBER ei ole piisavalt ambitsioonikas. CO2-heite

vähendamisele suunatud projektide puhul tuleks kaaluda oluliselt kõrgemaid toetusmäärasid (kuni 100%),

eriti väiksemates ja ELi äärealadel asuvates liikmesriikides, kus turupõhine huvi investeeringute vastu on

madal. Õiguskindluse tagamisel on GBERi mõju piiratud. Reeglid on endiselt keerukad ja alluvad

erinevatele tõlgendustele, mis tekitab ebakindlustust. Võrdsete konkurentsitingimuste tagamise

kriteeriumi juures ollakse seisukohal, et GBER ei arvesta piisavalt liikmesriikide vaheliste majanduslike

ja struktuuriliste erinevustega. See seab ebasoodsamasse olukorda väiksemate või ELi äärealadel asuvate

riikide ettevõtjad (nt põllumajanduses ja taristuehituses), kes ei suuda konkureerida suuremate ja

kesksemate riikide subsideeritud ettevõtetega.

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

X

Improving the user-friendliness, readability, consistency and

accessibility of the GBER

X

Increasing the scope of the GBER to more aid measures

X

Simplifying the compatibility conditions to block exempt more

aid measures while keeping sufficient safeguards to avoid

undue distortions

X

Adapting the current text to take into account political,

economic, technical and social changes

X

KLIM selgitus: lennunduse valdkond leidis, et GBER käsitleb mingil määral toodud teemasid, kusjuures

halduskoormuse osa hinnati “yes, to a large extend”, kuivõrd GBER on toonud kaasa halduskoormuse

4

vähenemise (ülejäänud teemasid hinnati “yes, to some extend”). Energeetika valdkond on hindab

halduskoormuse ja kasutajasõbralikkuse teemasid pigem piiratud mõjuga (vastus “yes, to a limited exted”

ning ülejäänud osas nõustutakse lennundusega- st GBER teemasid, lihtsustamist ning poliitilisi,

majanduslikke jt muutusi on mõnevõrra laiendatud (tabelis vastus “yes, to a some extend”). Transpordi

sektor rõhutab, et grupierandite määramisel tuleks arvestada liikmesriikide eripärasid, sealhulgas

geograafilist ääreala ja väikese turu olusid. Kokkuvõttes nähakse, et edasised täpsustused ja paindlikum

lähenemine aitaksid määruse eesmärke paremini täita ning rõhutatakse, et GBER peaks arvestama senisest

enam territoriaalsete eripäradega, näiteks liikmesriigi asukohaga ELi äärealal ja kaugusega Kesk-

Euroopast.

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

KLIM: Eesti ja lennunduse vaatest võimaldab see taristusse investeerida ja seda arendada

kliimasõbralike tehnoloogiate kasutuselevõtmiseks just taristu uuendamise kaudu (AFIR kaudu on investeeritud lennujaamadesse eesmärgiga vähendada taristust tekkivaid heitmeid). Kuigi lennunduses võimaldab GBER investeerida taristusse kliimasõbralike tehnoloogiate kasutuselevõtuks, siis on

tulevikus olulisem tagada väiksemate, mittetasuvate lennujaamade majandustegevuse toetamine. Lisaks oleks vaja aidata kaasa rahaliselt toetada lennuettevõtjaid, et nemad võtaks puhtamad kütused,

tehnoloogiliselt uuemad ja vähem heitmeid emiteerivad õhusõidukid kasutusele - arusaadavalt ei tohi need meetmed konkurentsi kahjustada, aga sellised alused võiks ELi geograafilistes äärepoolsetes piirkondades olla täiendavalt lubatud, kuna ka lennuliinid ei ole siin suures osas tasuvad reisijate

vähesuse tõttu ning see pärsib riikide konkurentsivõime kasvu.

Energeetikas tuuakse esile vajadus vabastada kohalike taastuvkütuste, näiteks biometaani kasutamine, teavitamiskohustusest, et soodustada kliimaeesmärkide ja energiajulgeoleku saavutamist.

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 KLIM: lennunduse valdkonnas GBER pigem ei toeta õiglast üleminekut piisavalt. Kliimaneutraalsuse saavutamine on pikaajaline eesmärk (nt vesiniktehnoloogia kasutuselevõtt lennunduses eeldatavasti alles pärast 2035. aastat) ja GBER ei toeta piisavalt vajalikke üleminekumeetmeid. See hõlmab näiteks säästvate lennukikütuste kasutamist ja uute tehnoloogiate, nagu elektrilennukite, kasutuselevõtu raskuste ületamist ELi äärepoolseimate piirkondade ja Kesk-Euroopa vahelistel liinidel

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.

5

2000 character(s) maximum

Please explain and provide examples

KLIM: GBER panus digitaliseerimise toetamisel on praegu piiratud. Lennunduses sõltuvad investeeringud pigem lennuettevõtete ja välistarnijate otsustest, millele üksnes lennujaama tasandi investeeringud olulist mõju ei avalda.

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

KLIM: GBER tähtis regionaalsete lennujaamade toetamiseks, mis on kriitilise tähtsusega ühenduste

tagamisel äärealadele (nt saartele) ja saarte lennuühenduste tagamine, mis on hädavajalikud alternatiivide

puudumisel (st laevaühendus on aeglane ja ronge ei ole). Energeetikas rõhutatakse, et energiajulgeoleku ja

tasukohasuse seisukohast on oluline, et GBER seaks piiranguid, mis takistaks sektori arengut,

taastuvenergiale (nt biomass, biometaan). seatud piirangutega.

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

KLIM: Lennunduse vaates ei ole piisavalt ressursse ja fonde, et GBERi kaudu innovatsiooni toetada. Energeetikas ei ole laiemat hinnangut antud, mis viitab sellele, et raamistik ei ole olnud praktikas piisavalt

rakendatav. Seetõttu võiks kaaluda täiendavaid toetusvõimalusi, mis soodustaksid R&D&I tegevusi ka väiksemates sektorites ja riikides.

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

6

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

KLIM: GBER toetab mõningal määral ühtekuuluvuse eesmärke, kuid territoriaalseid eripärasid tuleks paremini

arvesse võtta. Määrus on oluline elutähtsa taristu toetamisel äärealadel, näiteks väikeste lennujaamade ja

äärealade elanike liikumisvõimaluste tagamine on ülioluline, kuna turupõhiselt sellised ühendused ega taristu

muidu ei toimiks. GBER peaks arvestama äärepoolsetes, väiksemates või geopoliitiliselt haavatavamates

liikmesriikides esinevate ebasoodsate tingimustega. Spetsiifiliste erandite või paindlikumate tingimuste

pakkumine sellistele piirkondadele aitaks neil struktuurseid väljakutseid ületada ja ühtekuuluvuseesmärke

tõhusamalt saavutada.

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

KLIM: GBER annab vajaliku panuse ELi konkurentsivõimesse, võimaldades anda toetusi, mida muidu ei

oleks võimalik anda. Näiteks regionaalsed lennuliinid ja taristu ei oleks ilma GBERita jätkusuutlikud.

Toetades mittetasuvaid, kuid elutähtsaid transpordiühendusi ja -taristut, tagab see ühenduvuse ja liikuvuse,

mis on äärepoolsetes piirkondades äärmiselt oluline. Kuigi on raske hinnata, kas see panus on "piisav", on

selge, et ilma GBERi pakutavate võimalusteta oleks nende piirkondade konkurentsivõime oluliselt pärsitud.

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

KLIM: GBER parandab ärikeskkonda, võimaldades toetada kriitilise tähtsusega taristut. Näiteks abi andmine

väikestele lennujaamadele (kuni 200 000 reisijat) tagab nende tegevuse, mis omakorda loob kohalikele

ettevõtetele, sealhulgas VKEdele, vajaliku ühenduvuse tegutsemiseks ja laiematele turgudele pääsemiseks.

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

7

KLIM: Lennunduses on toetust saanud vaid hädavajalikud tegevused, kuigi oleks vajalik ka laiem võimalus toetada lennuettevõtlust väikelennuväljade ja piirkondade toimimise tagamiseks. GBERi panus integreeritud projektide toetamisse on piiratud mitme teguri tõttu. Esiteks, liiga ranged sätted

võivad takistada terviklike projektide elluviimist. Näiteks merendussektoris takistab artikli 36 välistav klausel laevade dekarboniseerimise keeruka projekti eri elementide kombineerimist ühe eesmärgi alla, kui need on reguleeritud erinevate artiklitega (nt art 36b). Teiseks ei ole mõnes sektoris GBERi alusel

kättesaadavad toetussummad piisavad, et luua ettevõtjatele tegelikku majanduslikku stiimulit investeerimiseks. Kolmandaks võib peamiseks kitsaskohaks olla pigem riiklike vahendite puudus kui

määruse sätted ise. Transpordi valdkonnas märgitakse, et keerukate kaasuste tõttu on toetuste andmine tihti raskendatud ja nõuab mahukat menetlust.

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.

X I don't know

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

8

categories of aid that meet the block exemption criteria and that are not included in

the GBER?

No

Yes

X I don't know

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

X I don't know

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.

9

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.

X 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.

KLIM selgitus: Valdav seisukoht on, et teatud definitsioone tuleks ajakohastada ja lihtsustada. Merenduse ja

energeetika eksperdid leiavad, et teatud mõisted vajavad täpsustamist. Rohereformi vaates peetakse osasid

definitsioone, nagu funding gap ja incentive effect, liialt keerukateks ja halduskoormust suurendavateks.

Seetõttu on vajalik definitsioonide läbiv lihtsustamine ja ühtlustamine, et tagada paremini arusaadav raamistik.

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.

10

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 KLIM: Selles küsimuses on seisukohad erinevad. Kuigi üldist välistamise põhimõtet toetatakse, leitakse

lennunduse poolelt, et siiski võiks kaaluda erandeid juhtudel, kus raskustes olemine ei välista

jätkusuutlikku ärimudelit ning ettevõtte tegevus on oluline avalikes huvides, näiteks taristu või

ühenduvuse tagamiseks. Energeetika poolelt aga ollakse igasuguste kohanduste tegemiselt vastu.

4.6 Incentive effect

11

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.

X This condition is complex to apply and could be

simplified.

This condition is not sufficient and should be reinforced.

I don't know

KLIM selgitus: valdkondade hinnangul on ergutava mõju tingimuse rakendamine keeruline ja kohati ebaselge. Näiteks energiaprojektides on määratlus „pöördumatu investeering“ jäänud õiguslikult ebaselgeks ja võiks olla lihtsam. Leitakse, et õiguskindluse parandamiseks ja halduskoormuse vähendamiseks tuleks teksti täiendada ja selgitada, integreerides määrusesse otse komisjoni suunistest ja kohtupraktikast tulenevad põhimõtted..

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

KLIM: „Ergutava mõju” küsimus on tihedalt seotud hiljutise kohtupraktika ja taastuvenergiakavade „pöördumatu investeeringu” mõistega. Meie arvates tuleks selgesõnaliselt arvesse võtta uusimat kohtupraktikat ning üldine grupierandi määrus peaks täpsustama punkti, millal investeering muutub pöördumatuks. Näiteks

kohtuasjas C-11/22, Est Wind Power, jõudis kohus küll EEAG-i alusel tehtud kokkusobivuse hindamise tulemusel järeldusele, et turbiinidega seotud investeeringud kujutavad endast pöördumatut investeeringut. Liikmesriikidel on vaja selgust, kas see tõlgendus kehtib ka üldise grupierandi määruse alusel. See on eriti

oluline, arvestades, et ergutava mõju mõistet käsitleti kohtuasjas C-349/17, Eesti Pagar, kus kohtu järeldus oli laiem. Seetõttu tuleks selgitada, kas taastuvenergia kontekstis kohaldatakse üldise grupierandi määruse alusel

konkreetset standardit selle kindlaksmääramiseks, millal investeerimisotsust peetakse pöördumatuks.

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.

12

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.

X 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

Please refer to specific provisions and explain how these provisions could in your view be clarified

KLIM: Merenduse poolelt soovitakse juhtida tähelepanu GBERi artikli 2 lõike 102f punktis d toodud “keskkonnasõbralik sõiduk” terminile ning seda just merelaevade puhul. Nimelt on Rahvusvahelise

Mereorganisatsiooni (IMO) poolt vastu võetud MARPOLi VI lisa kohaselt kohaldatakse uutele laevadele, mis tarnitakse alates 1. Juulist 2025, energiatõhususe indeksit (EEDI). Enne nimetatud kuupäeva tarnitud laevade ja

mittetraditsiooniliste jõuseadmetega varustatud laevade puhul EEDI nõuded ei ole kohaldatavad.

Järjepidevuse edendamiseks ja abikõlblike moderniseerimisprojektide ulatuse laiendamiseks teeme ettepaneku

muuta GBER artikli 2 lõike 102f punkti d kohast „keskkonnasõbraliku sõiduki” määratlust.

Täpsemalt teeme ettepaneku asendada viide energiatõhususe indeksile (EEDI) olemasoleva laeva

energiatõhususe indeksiga (EEXI). Kuna EEXI on olemasolevate laevade puhul kõige sagedamini kasutatav standard, viiks see muudatus GBERi paremini vastavusse praeguse tööstuspraktikaga.

EEXI kasutuselevõtt energiatõhususe võrdlusalusena mitte ainult ei suurendaks Euroopa merendussektori konkurentsivõimet, vaid toetaks otseselt ka Euroopa rohelise kokkuleppe ambitsioonikaid eesmärke, sealhulgas selliseid algatusi nagu „FuelEU Maritime“ ja pakett „Fit for 55“.

Teine ettepanek on seotud nulltasemega CO2-heite kütustega (nn zero direct (tailpipe) CO2 emissions fuels). Alternatiivkütuste kliimamõju täpsemaks mõõtmiseks ja laiemate ELi standarditega kooskõlla viimiseks teeme

ettepaneku rakendada kütuse konversioonidest tulenevate heitkoguste hindamisel nn. „well-to-wake“ (WtW) põhimõtet. WtW põhimõte arvestab kütuse kogu elutsüklit, sealhulgas heitkoguseid selle tootmisest,

13

transpordist ja lõppkasutusest laeval. See annab kütuse CO₂ kogumõjust terviklikuma pildi võrreldes praeguse

ainult summutitorust lähtuva arvutusega.

WtW standardi vastuvõtmine võimaldaks toetusskeemil tõhusalt katta ja stimuleerida selliste kütuste nagu roheline metanool kasutamist, mis, hoolimata sellest, et põlemisel tekib CO₂, võivad vähendada koguheidet 85–

95%, kui arvestada nende kogu elutsüklit. See muudatus muudaks meie riikliku süsteemi järjepidevamaks ja tõhusamaks, kuna EL kohaldab juba jäätmete käitlemise põhimõtet oma FuelEU Maritime'i määruses.

Energeetika valdkond juhib tähelepanu artikkel 2 punktis 28 toodud terminile “konkureeriv pakkumismenetlus”.

See mõiste on ebaselge ja siinkohal tuleks täpsustada, mida antud menetlus endast kujutab, eriti ELi rahastusega

seotud avatud taotlusvoorude kontekstis. On vaja selgitada, kas abi tuleb sellisel juhul anda abisaajale, kes

taotleb kõige vähem toetust (absoluutväärtuses või ühiku kohta), et mõiste oleks täidetud?

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 KLIM: Valdkondade seisukohad on erinevad: transpordis leiti, et rahastamispuudujäägi arvutused tuleks

14

GBERst eemaldada või kui need jäävad määrusesse, siis komisjoni poolt peaks olema metoodika rakendamiseks

välja antud ka üksikasjalik metoodika, mis muuhulgas arvestaks väikeste riikide eripära. Energeetikas leitakse,

et rahastamispuudujäägi arvutused võiksid olla vabatahtlikud või mitte kohustuslikud väikeste summade puhul

(vastuse variandid 1 ja 2). Energeetika seisukohti toetab ka lennunduse valdkond. Kokkuvõttes nähakse, et

meetod võib olla asjakohane, kuid vajab selget juhendit ja paindlikumat rakendamist.

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 KLIM: Energeetika on seisukohal, et praegune tingimus on liialt keerukas ja jäik. Lihtsustamiseks peaks

liikmesriikidel olema valikuvõimalus kasutada kas alternatiivset stsenaariumi koos kõrgemate toetusmääradega

või anda toetust ilma alternatiivse stsenaariumita, tuginedes madalamatele, eelnevalt kindlaksmääratud

toetusmääradele, mis juba arvestavad roheliste investeeringute keskmisi lisakulusid. See tagaks vajaliku

paindlikkuse ja vähendaks halduslikku keerukust.

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.

15

X Other

KLIM: energeetika valdkond palub selgitada, mida nimetatud protsess peaks hõlmama, kuivõrd ebaselge on, mida see menetlus praktikas eeldab. Näiteks kui korraldatakse avalik taotlusvoor (ELi rahastamine), kas abisaaja

tuleb valida madalaima taotletud abisumma alusel? See tähendab, et kas abi peaks andma neile, kes küsivad kõige vähem toetust (absoluutarvudes või ühiku kohta)?

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 KLIM: energeetika valdkonna arvates ei arvesta GBER piisavalt kiiresti turuolukorda (tehnoloogiat ega turumuutusi). Samas arvab lennundus, et väikelennujaamade (st kuni 200 000 reisijat) puhul võtab

turuolukorda arvesse.

16

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

KLIM: Kui liikmesriigid koostavad ELi eelarvest kaasrahastatavate toetuskavade tingimusi, peavad nad neid kooskõlastama GBERi sätetega. Vastuolude ja ebajärjekindluse vältimiseks peaksid ELi tasandi toetusprogrammide ja GBERi tingimused olema omavahel täielikult kooskõlas. Kusjuures õiguskindluse

saavutamiseks oleks vaja GBERs teha fondidele erisus, et juba heaks kiidetud ja GBERIle vastav rakenduskavas ette nähtud abi liigid (ja tingimused) rahastamisperioodil ei muutuks rangemaks (nn biometaani juhtum).

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)?

X yes

No

I don't know

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?

17

No

Yes

I don't know KLIM: Energeetikas puudub seisukoht, kuid transpordil on kogemus, et näiteks elektriraskeveokite laadimisvõrgu puhul ei ole finantsinstrumendid piisavad, et motiveerida ettevõtjaid investeerima. Seega ei ole

GBER piisavalt tõhus finantsinstrumentide rakendamisel ning vajab paindlikkust ja täiendavaid meetmeid.

69 Do the current GBER rules appropriately accommodate and promote the use of specific type of financial instrument, such as equity?

Yes

No

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

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

75 Do you consider that the GBER requirements on training aid are appropriate?

No

Yes

I don't know

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

18

still relevant?

Yes

No

I don't know

79 Do you consider that the GBER requirements on employment aid are appropriate?

No

Yes

I don't know

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

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

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

5.6 Other

87 Should the GBER be updated or simplified for other reasons?

3000 character(s) maximum

Please provide justifications and examples

19

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

KLIM: Energeetika eksperdid leiavad, et struktuur on rahuldav. Lennunduse vaates ei ole eelistusi ei ole.

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.

20

I don't know

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

X Yes

I don't know

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 KLIM: Kuigi e-State aid wiki toimib ja on kasulik, ei pruugi vastused alati olla piisavalt kiired. Samuti oleks otstarbekas pakkuda täiendavaid juhiste formaate (nt regulaarseid selgitusdokumente või Q&A kogu

liikmesriikidele). See suurendaks õigusselgust ja vähendaks eri tõlgenduste riski.

Contact

[email protected]