pp 1-25 | Cite as

State Aid and Investment Screening: A Multifaceted Relationship

  • Grith Skovgaard ØlykkeEmail author
  • Louise Tandrup Christensen
Part of the YSEC Yearbook of Socio-Economic Constitutions book series


This chapter examines the relationship between State aid rules and the EU Screening Regulation, which may be characterised as multifaceted. Whereas State aid law in its nature limits Member States’ room for manoeuvre in the sphere of industrial policy, the new EU Screening Regulation provides an arguably broad room for manoeuvre for Member States to intervene in markets to protect public security and public order. However, it may be argued that this broader manoeuvring room could lead to a clash between the two sets of rules. The first facet of the relationship between the rules that are examined is where FDI screening leads to the granting of State aid. This could occur in connection with privatisation of State-owned undertakings; FDI screening may lead to the undertaking being sold to the second-best bidder following a disqualification of the best bidder. Such a situation would prior to the entry into force of the EU Screening Regulation lead to State aid to the buyer. Another facet is third country subsidised FDI. Although this topic has not been addressed explicitly during the legislative process leading to the adoption of the EU Screening Regulation, there are traces of subsidised FDI being an issue of concern, and the EU Screening Regulation in certain ways facilitates that subsidisation of the FDI could be taken into account by the screening Member State. It is concluded that many stones in the relationship between State aid law/third country subsidies and FDI screening are left unturned by the EU Screening Regulation.



  1. Beckington JS, Amon MR (2011) Competitive currency depreciation: the need for a more effective international legal regime. J Int Bus Law 10(2):209–268Google Scholar
  2. Danov M (2014) Awarding exemplary (or punitive) antitrust damages in EC competition cases with an international element - the Rome II Regulation and the Commission’s white paper on damages. Eur Compet Law Rev 29(7):430–436Google Scholar
  3. Devuyst Y (2013) European Union law and practice in the negotiation and conclusion of international trade agreements. J Int Bus Law 12(1):259–316Google Scholar
  4. Jaeger T (2008) Privatising Austrian airlines: another Groundhog Day. Eur State Aid Law Q 7(4):631Google Scholar
  5. Scott J (2014) The new EU ‘extraterritoriality’. Common Mark Law Rev 51(5):1343–1380Google Scholar
  6. Books

    1. Lowenfeld AF (2003) International economic law. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
    2. McGovern E (2008) European community anti-dumping and trade defence law and practice. Globefield Press, § 312Google Scholar
    3. Nicolaides P (2012) The economics of state aid and the balancing test. In: Hancher L, Ottervanger T, Slot PJ (eds) EU state aids, 3rd edn. Sweet & Maxwell, London, Chapter 2Google Scholar
    4. Van Bael I, Bellis JF (2019) EU anti-dumping and other trade defence instruments, 6th edn. Wolters Kluwer, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

    Supplementary Material/Private Homepage

    1. Deutche Welle, 27 July 2018, Berlin beats Chinese firm to buy stake in 50Hertz power company. Accessed 6 Jan 2020
    2. industriAll, European Trade Union, Policy Brief 2018-1, on Screening Foreign Direct Investment – Another step towards a fairer global level playing field. Accessed 6 Jan 2020
    3. Montel, 23 March 2018, Elia increases stake in German TSO 50Hertz for EUR 980m. Accessed 6 Jan 2020

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Grith Skovgaard Ølykke
    • 1
    Email author
  • Louise Tandrup Christensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Kammeradvokaten/Lawfirm Poul SchmidtCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations