9.1 Introduction

As explained in the previous chapter, State aid measures have to be appropriate, necessary and proportionate. With respect to asset relief measures (also referred to as impaired asset measures1), there is a special compatibility-assessment: these measures have to be compatible with the principles of the Impaired Assets Communication (IAC).2 In that regard, the IAC sets out the following criteria for the compatibility of asset relief measures: i) eligibility of assets, ii) transparency and disclosure, iii) management of assets, iv) valuation, and v) burden-sharing and remuneration.

These five criteria can be found in section 5 of the IAC. The bank State aid decisions explicitly refer to section 5 of the IAC and its various subsections.3 This makes it all the more surprising that the decisions are structured in a slightly different way than section 5 of the IAC. Since this PhD-study analyses the decisional practice, the present chapter will follow the structure of the decisions (rather than the structure of section 5 of the IAC).

The current chapter discusses how the Commission has analysed the compatibility of impaired assets measures. Asset relief measures can have a complicated structure. Therefore, before focussing on the specific compatibility-criteria, it is useful to describe the basic features of asset relief measures. This will be done in section 9.2. The compatibility-criteria will be discussed in sections 9.4 to 9.10. Before discussing the criteria set out in the IAC, a preliminary question should be addressed: is the IAC applicable? The applicability of the IAC will be discussed in section 9.3.