Einde inhoudsopgave
State aid to banks (IVOR nr. 109) 2018/8.10.3
8.10.3 Maximum budget of the scheme
mr. drs. R.E. van Lambalgen, datum 01-12-2017
- Datum
01-12-2017
- Auteur
mr. drs. R.E. van Lambalgen
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS591788:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Financieel recht / Europees financieel recht
Mededingingsrecht / EU-mededingingsrecht
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
Hungarian bank support scheme, N664/2008, 12 February 2009, para. 50.
Latvian guarantee scheme, N638/2008, 22 December 2008, para. 47. Interestingly, this maximum budget was not discussed in the context of the criterion of necessity, but in the context of the proportionality of the guarantee scheme.
This maximum amount consisted of either: a) the sum of that bank’s debt instruments, or b) 20% of that bank’s deposits as of 1 September 2008. Support measures for the banking industry in Sweden, N 533/2008, 29 October 2008, para. 9.
See: Portuguese guarantee scheme (prolongation), N51/2010, 22 February 2010, para. 28.
The original Greek guarantee scheme contained a maximum budget of EUR 15 billion. In footnote 2 of the Commission decision (N560/2008, 19 November 2008), it was indicated that this maximum could be amended, but that it could not exceed the amount of EUR 23 billion. It was also indicated that any amendment would have to be approved by the Commission.
Greek bank support scheme (amendment), N163/2010, 12 May 2010.
Commission Staff Working Paper 2011, p. 48.
Most guarantee schemes and recapitalisation schemes had a maximum budget. This was welcomed by the Commission, because a maximum budget ensures that the aid measure is limited to a certain amount.1 This maximum budget can be expressed in absolute terms or in relative terms. The Latvian guarantee scheme is an illustration of the latter: this scheme contained a maximum of 10% of Latvia’s GDP.2 In addition, the maximum budget can relate to the individual bank or to the entire banking sector (or to both). For instance, the Swedish guarantee scheme had both an overall maximum budget and a maximum amount for each beneficiary bank.3
Sometimes, when a bank support scheme is prolonged, the Member Statechoses to decrease the maximum budget of the scheme. As a general rule, the Commission notes positively such a decrease.4 This illustrates clearly that the amount of the budget of the bank support scheme matters to the Commission. The opposite is also possible: in 2010, the ceiling for the Greek guarantee scheme was increased from EUR 15 billion to EUR 30 billion.5 The Commission accepted this amendment to the scheme, because of the specific situation of the Greek banking sector. Because of severe fiscal imbalances, Greece’s credit rating was downgraded. Consequently, the credit ratings of Greek banks were also downgraded, which restricted their access to the money market and capital market. 6
The analysis of the bank support schemes reveals that that most schemes had a maximum budget. Only the Irish guarantee scheme did not have a maximum budget. In its Commission Staff Working Paper, the Commission observed that this made Ireland an exception (compared to the guarantee schemes of the other Member States).7
While it is true that a maximum budget ensures that the aid is limited to a certain amount, there are still some questions that can be asked. To what extent is the exact amount of the maximum budget important? And is it only about the amount in absolute terms or should it be related to the size of the banking sector? In the Commission’s decisions, only the amount of the maximum budget is mentioned. No reference is made to the size of the banking sector.