Pöördumine

Suur-Ameerika 1 / 10122 Tallinn / Estonia / +372 611 3558 / [email protected]

www.rahandusministeerium.ee / Reg. code: 70000272

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

[email protected]

HT. 6365 Estonia's comments on

the first draft of GBER

Dear Sir/Madam

Hereby we submit Estonia's opinion on the draft General Block Exemption Regulation

(hereinafter referred to as GBER).

Estonia supports the simplifications proposed in the draft GBER, which aim to reduce the

administrative burden and increase legal clarity. Estonia is in favour of simplifying general

provisions (e.g. calculation of aid amount, start of works), abolishing the obligation of ex post

evaluation for aid schemes with large budgets, expanding simplified cost options, special

conditions for small amounts of aid, extending the scope of the Regulation to the agriculture,

fisheries and aquaculture sectors. Estonia also supports simplifications in the granting of aid

for research and development, for renewable energy and industrial decarbonisation and for

infrastructure. Please find our more specific comments and suggestions below:

1) Draft GBER and Communication on EU’s eastern regions bordering Russia, Belarus

and Ukraine. The European Commission has adopted a Communication on EU’s

eastern regions bordering Russia, Belarus and Ukraine1, setting out a strategy to

support economic and security conditions in these regions. The Communication states

that, as part of the review of GBER, it will be assessed whether GBER needs to be

amended to address the challenges posed by Russian aggression in the Eastern border

regions. The current version of the draft GBER does not include such provisions, and

we would like to know whether the Commission intends to make any specific changes

to GBER in light of the aforementioned Communication.

2) Food security. Estonia proposes to include in the draft GBER additional opportunities

to support investments aimed at increasing the resilience and crisis preparedness of

the food industry.

3) Separate article for supporting the defence industry. In 2025, Estonia proposed, in its

response to the GBER questionnaire, to include an article in the future regulation on

aid for the production of defence-related products and services. Such an article has not

been included in the draft GBER and Estonia is re-suggesting the same.

1 communication-eastern-border-2026.pdf

Our ref. 23.04.2026 No 12.1-2/1816-1

2

4) Making an exception to the prohibition on supporting undertakings in difficulty in the

case of small amounts of research and development aid (amendment in Article

1(5)(g)). Article 32 allows to increase the aid intensity for small-scale R&D projects

(aid amount up to 1.2 million per undertaking) by 20% for all undertakings, regardless

of their size, is positive. This allows for the design of simpler measures with a lower

administrative burden, as determining the size of an undertaking is a very resource-

intensive activity. However, even for small amounts of R&D aid, there is an obligation

to verify whether the undertaking is in difficulty, which means that the size of the

undertaking has to be determined in advance. We propose to amend Article 1(5)(g) of

the draft GBER so that it also reflects the exception for small amounts of R&D aid.

We propose to amend the wording of the said provision as follows: “(g) aid for

research and development and innovation under Chapter III, Section 4, to

undertakings which qualify as innovative enterprises under Article 2, point (89) and

which are unlisted and have been operating for less than 10 years following their

registration or , where the total help amount does note exceeds EUR 1.2 million per

undertaking , to any undertakings which do not qualify as undertakings in difficulty

under Article 2, point (32)(a) to (c)".

5) New Article on aid in the form of financial instruments (Article 4). The objective of

Article 4 is not clear, e.g. does it mean that any aid granted on the basis of Chapter III

(except Sections 3 and 10) has to follow the conditions stipulated in Article 4 (inter

alia paragraph 4(7)(a) - i.e. to organise the tender to find the intermediary)? Does it

mean that the State has no right to appoint an aid grantor in case aid is granted in the

form of financial instruments (e.g. a state foundation)? We would also like to clarify

what is meant by the requirement in paragraph 7(b) stating that “They shall be

managed on a commercial basis and ensure profit-based financing decisions”. In

conclusion, we propose reviewing the entire Article 4.

6) Article 21 of the draft GBER uses the term “cash amount”, which is not defined. We

ask the Commission to clarify what is meant by “cash amount” or whether the term

should be “nominal amount”.

7) New Article 28. We propose to remove from Article 28(1) the reference to Article

25(3), which sets out the requirements that the eligible SME must have been in

operation for either less than 10 years following its first registration or less than 7 years

following its first commercial sale and that the investment in the new economic

activity must exceed 30% of the average annual turnover of the preceding five years.

The purpose of these conditions remains unclear, given that aid under Article 28 is

primarily granted in the form of guarantees for repayable loans. Introducing such

requirements will increase bureaucracy rather than help to reduce it.

8) Article 38 – Notification thresholds for research infrastructure and testing and

experimentation infrastructure. The draft GBER lowers the notification threshold for

investment aid for research infrastructure from the current EUR 35 million to EUR 25

million, bringing it to the same level as for testing and experimentation infrastructure.

Estonia proposes to leave the notification thresholds in Article 38 unchanged: EUR 35

million for research infrastructure and EUR 25 million for testing and experimentation

infrastructure.

9) Articles on aid for environmental protection (section 6 of the draft GBER). The draft

provides for the possibility of using an aid intensity of 5% in the case of a simplified

calculation of the aid amount (total investment costs). This principle generally

corresponds to Estonia's position on simplification, but the draft does not justify why

3

the aid intensity of 5% has been chosen, and in Estonia's opinion, such an aid intensity

may prove to be of little motivation and does not encourage investments.

10) New Article 40. We consider that Article 40 is disproportionately burdensome for

small-scale knowledge transfer transactions and infrastructure use. We propose to

include Article 40 under the exceptions of Article 8(5), i.e. aid under Article 40 should

be deemed to have incentive effect and no written application for aid must be

submitted before the activity starts.

11) Article 53. The current GBER (Article 36a) excludes aid for port infrastructure

investments, but no such exclusion appears in Article 53 of the draft. Please clarify

whether aid under Article 53 can be granted for recharging or refuelling infrastructure

investments in ports?

12) Article 54. Estonia proposes to allow a combined approach to retrofitting of maritime

vessels (ships), which would allow the retrofitting to be viewed as a whole and the

total impact of the modernization of different parts to be considered, rather than the

impact of each individual activity separately. Example: the cumulative effect of three

small retrofits on a ship (hull optimization, propeller replacement, automation

upgrade) can result in 10% energy savings, although none of the measures individually

would not meet the conditions of the article.

We also suggest allowing a simplified evidence framework for retrofitting for smaller

ships, as it would be disproportionately burdensome if retrofitting of all ships were

subject to the same burden of proof (e.g. a ship under 500 GT operating in local coastal

traffic cannot afford CFD analyses or verification by classification society).

13) Article 70. We propose to define difficult audiovisual works more precisely in the

draft. The wording in the draft has not been changed compared to the current

regulation, but we believe that the corresponding definition should be written in a more

clear and concrete manner.

14) Article 79. Estonia is of the opinion that the conditions on granting aid set out in Article

79 (Aid to airports) of the draft GBER should allow for greater flexibility in granting

state aid to airports and airlines in the peripheral Member States of the European

Union, where air connections play an important role in European integration and

improving competitiveness, especially given the current situation in Eastern Europe.

We consider it important to have sufficient flexibility that considers the security and

geopolitical aspects of the Eastern European Member States, including additional

obligations related to aviation safety and security, such as responding to GNSS

interference or detecting and repelling unmanned aircraft.

15) The explanatory provisions in the current GBER are moved out of the Regulation into

separate guidance document, which in our opinion does not contribute to legal

certainty (e.g. Article 2(14) “outermost regions"; Article 2 point 3 “transport sector”;

Article 2 point 144 “reasonable profit”; Article 69(5)). We propose not to remove the

explanatory or illustrative provisions that contribute to the interpretation and

implementation of GBER and that would be legally binding if set out in GBER.

Technical comments:

1) Article 1: There is no list of categories to which GBER shall apply (as it is in Article

1(1) of the current GBER. This means that there is no easy overview of which

categories of aid the GBER applies to, please add such list.

4

2) Article 1(2)(c-e): it is not clear why the provisions concerning fisheries and

aquaculture are set out in separate subparagraphs – this makes it difficult to understand

in which cases the GBER does not apply to aid for fisheries and aquaculture.

3) Article 2: The definitions of terms are arranged according to the order in which they

appear in the chapters and sections of GBER. This is also the case in current GBER,

but in current GBER it is explained which aid category (objective) the terms fall under

(e.g. Definitions for regional aid), but in the draft only the sections and chapters of the

GBER are referred to (e.g. Definitions of terms that first appear in Section 1 of Chapter

III) – it is no longer immediately clear which category of aid the definition of term

applies to. We propose also adding categories of aid.

4) Article 2 point 109 (operating profit): please consider whether the term needs to be

defined, as this term will not be used in the draft further.

5) Article 2, point 117: “small mid-cap” in case of implementation of the InvestEU-

programme – please clarify whether only the number of employees (“employs up to

499 workers”) counts and whether turnover and balance sheet size (as in Annex IV in

general) do not need to be taken into account.

6) Article 3(2)(a) (relevant entity is undertaking): it is not clear how, in such a case, aid

granted to one undertaking, but to different entities under different articles should be

taken into account (cumulation).

7) Article 4: the title of Article 4 does not mention "financial intermediary" (only

intermediary") - it is not clear what is meant by "intermediary", e.g. does it mean

“financial intermediary” (as defined in Article 2, point 33)?

8) Article 6(2)(e) (“repayable advance”): it is not clear why the text of the current GBER

“if total nominal amount … does not exceed the thresholds applicable under this

regulation” has been omitted from the draft GBER. Does this mean that the draft only

leaves the option “to notify the method to Commission”?

9) Article 7(2 )(b): reference is made to “appropriate authority”. For the sake of clarity

please define “appropriate authority”, e.g. “Appropriate authority – the managing

authority of the Structural Funds programme or the authority responsible for the

national support measure”.

10) Article 8(2)(a): we propose to add to “undertaking's size”, the text "if appropriate".

Please consider whether it would be necessary to also add “small mid-cap” (SMC),

because under some articles of the draft GBER, aid can only be granted to SMCs.

11) Article 9(1): incorrect reference to (old) Article 4 – probably should be “Article 5”.

12) Article 10(3): we propose to refer to a specific article (Article 49), currently there is

no reference.

13) Chapter III: it is not clear under which articles aid can be granted only to “aid schemes”

and when also as “individual aid” – this should be explained somewhere in the draft

(e.g. in Article 1). E.g. in Articles 16, 25, 26, 27, 29, 61 etc. aid can be granted to “aid

scheme”, but in Article 15 to “aid measures” – is “aid measure” the same as “aid

scheme”?

14) Article 41, paragraph 6: it is not clear how this paragraph fits into the article (it seems

to be in the wrong place or has been pasted here by mistake).

15) Article 45(1): in Article 32 of the current GBER it is referred to “aid scheme”, in

Article 45 (1) of the draft it has been replaced by “aid” - does this mean that individual

aid can also be provided under Article 45 of the draft?

16) Article 51: We propose to clarify Article 51 of the draft. It replaces the current Article

36, which is already complicated, but the wording of Article 51 that replaces it is even

more complicated. The solution is not in line with the principle of simplification (e.g.

5

it is difficult to understand whether the aid intensities in Article 51(8)(a)(ii) are

alternatives to subparagraph (i)).

16) Article 53(2): it is not clear why in case of “investment aid for recharging and

refuelling infrastructure” in addition to the specific notification threshold, the

condition that “average annual budget of the measure may not exceed 300 million

euros” (also in the current GBER art 4(1)(sb)) is left in the draft? However, such a

requirement is abolished in Articles 59 and 60 of the draft GBER (Articles 42, 43 of

the current GBER).

17) Article 53(3): please clarify whether ports are covered by the article, as the former

Article 36a excluded the granting of State aid to ports.

18) Article 65(8): for the sake of clarity, the text "Investments related to technologies

constituting an already profitable established commercial practice throughout the

Union without the aid” has to be explained. This is a vague condition that increases

the administrative burden, as there is no clarity on what exactly “throughout the

Union” means, as well as how to define the concept of “already profitable established

commercial practice”. The terms of GBER must be unambiguous and the cited text is

also not in line with the principle of simplification.

19) Article 69(3)(a): we propose to add also “press” (“except for press and magazines that

are exclusively cultural”), because it is not clear why cultural magazines are preferred

but cultural newspapers are left out.

20) Article 78(3): clarification is needed on whether aid for local infrastructure can be

granted for sports infrastructure and cultural infrastructure. Or is such infrastructure

always regarded as “dedicated infrastructure” (which is not eligible anyway)?

21) Article 84: for the sake of clarity, please specify which specific funds are meant under

“Union funds implemented under shared management for the remainder of the 2021-

2027 programming period” (e.g. ERDF, Social Fund, JTF).

We also ask for clarification as to whether it is not necessary to submit new block

exemption notifications in this case (in case the duration of the existing structural

funds measures is stated in the existing block exemption notification as 31.12.2026)?

We also need clarification as to whether the RRF measures can or cannot continue to

be implemented under the current GBER.

22) ANNEX II, Part I, budget: we propose to add the box “total budget planned”, this

would simplify the work of aid providers and help monitor whether the 20% limit is

exceeded when increasing the budget - in which case a new block exemption

notification must be submitted for the measure.

23) ANNEX II, Part II (bonuses): we propose to create separate boxes for different

bonuses (e.g. Article 32(7) points a-d), including adding a box if the bonus is for a

small amount of aid (e.g. Article 32(7)(8)).

24) ANNEX III, reference to Article 9(1): incorrect reference, correct reference to Article

10(1).

25) ANNEX III, footnote 76: incorrect references to Articles 16a, 24-28; Article 9(2)

should be Article 10(2).

26) ANNEX III, size of enterprise (SME/ large enterprise): please consider whether “small

mid-cap” should also be added (the same comment also on Article 8(2)).

27) Future Guidance document:

a. We ask to clarify in the guidance document the distinction between economic

and non-economic activities of research and development institutions or

research infrastructure.

b. Please explain and provide examples of the “simplified funding gap” provision

in Article 2, point 48 of the draft GBER.

6

c. Please clarify the practical implementation of Article 40 of the draft GBER.

Yours sincerely,

(signed digitally)

Kaur Kajak

Deputy Secretary-General for Public Governance Policy

Maris Kalda +372 58851434

[email protected]