73It explains, first of all, in general terms, its view regarding the determination of the persons required to repay aid in the event of a transfer of the shares in the recipient company or of its assets. In that regard, it begins by observing that the question does not pose particular problems in the event of a transfer of the shares, since the recipient company continues to exist, only its ownership being altered. In the Commission's view, it is clear from the case -law that, in such a case, the obligation to repay rests with the company which received the aid or with its successors, irrespective of the changes which have taken place in the ownership structure and of any account taken of the obligation of recovery in deciding on the conditions of sale. It points out that, by continuing to pursue the subsidised activity, that company continues to derive an advantage from the aid, thus perpetuating the distortion of competition. Secondly, the Commission submits that there are no additional difficulties where the assets of the recipient company are transferred to undertakings belonging to the same group. It contends that, in such a case, in addition to the recipient company, the undertakings within the group — which, as a result of the transfer of those assets, have been in a position to benefit from the favourable effects arising from the aid, by securing an economic advantage from it — will be required to repay the aid. Moreover, as regards the sale to third -party undertakings of the recipient company's assets, the Commission makes a distinction based on whether those assets were sold separately or “en bloc”. According to the Commission, if the assets are sold separately, at the market price, the buyers are not required to repay the aid since, as a result of the separate sale of the assets, the subsidised activity disappears, the aid granted before the transfer of the assets being, therefore, more likely to disadvantage the recipient company's competitors. By contrast, the Commission submits that the situation is different if the assets are sold “en bloc” in such a way as to enable the buyer to continue the recipient company's business. In the Commission's view, in that situation, continuation of the subsidised business is likely to perpetuate the distortion of competition, so that particular vigilance becomes necessary in order to prevent the transfer of the recipient company's assets from giving rise to a substantial evasion of the obligation to repay by “sheltering” the assets sold. The Commission contends that such evasion cannot be ruled out when, as well as taking place at the market price, the transfer “en bloc” of the recipient company's assets is effected by way of an unconditional procedure which is open to all that company's competitors.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.