13.3.4 Concluding remarks

An inconsistency can occur at two levels. In the first place, there is an inconsistency when the Commission does not always apply the market position of the bank as a criterion to assess the competitive impact of the aid. In the second place, there is an inconsistency when the Commission does not elaborate the market position in a consistent manner.

As regards the first level, subsection 13.3.2 set out that almost all decisions mention the market position of the beneficiary bank. In that regard, a distinction should be made between the decisions that mention the market position as a description of the beneficiary bank and the decisions that mention the market position as a criterion to assess the competitive impact of the aid. Only the latter decisions can be categorised as decisions in which the Commission took into account the market position in its assessment. The finding that the market position is not always used as an assessment criterion points at an inconsistency.

As regards the second level, subsection 13.3.3 set out that the market characteristics are not always elaborated to the same extent. Some decisions contain more detailed information than other decisions.

Thus, the main finding is that at both levels, there is an inconsistency. What are the implications of this finding? It might be useful to recall that in its Restructuring Communication, the Commission provides that the compensatory measures will be “tailored to market characteristics”.1 In my opinion, the Commission should ‘practice what it preaches’ and should thus take into account the market characteristics in its assessment of the compensatory measures.