Euroopa Komisjoni konsultatsioon päästmiseks ja ümberkorraldamiseks antava riigiabi suuniste läbivaatamiseks

Draft ID: c30eb3b9-36eb-4c6e-bea8-df1ad6d4bb8c Date: 01/09/2025 11:01:40 Public Consultation Questionnaire - Revision of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines 647700 137612 Fields marked with * are mandatory. Fields marked with * are mandatory. Introduction 695325 81952 The Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines and the need to revise them The currently applicable Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines were adopted in 2014 and are based on the 2004 Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines. However, the basic principles of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines were laid down long before, as the European Commission at least since the 1970 s allowed State aid to Undertakings in Difficulty and specific guidelines were adopted in 1994, 1997, 1999 and 2004. Financial distress at the company level plays a signaling role in an economy, indicating that a firm is not making optimal use of its resources. While financial distress and consequent market exit plays a key role in ensuring an efficient allocation of resources, they can have negative economic consequences, which can justify public support. There is general consent that rescue and restructuring aid is distortive and detrimental to productivity and should be allowed only under strict conditions. The Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines set out the conditions under which the Commission deems State aid granted to rescue or restructure Undertakings in Difficulty to be compatible with the internal market. Besides few exceptions, rescue or restructuring support is the only aid Undertakings in Difficulty can receive. Since the last revision of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines in 2014, the Commission has applied them in a large number of cases covering various sectors of the economy. The Commission practice and the case law of the EU Courts show that the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines in general work well. Moreover, this view was supported by the results of an evaluation conducted in the context of the Fitness Check of the 2012 State aid modernisation package, railways guidelines and short-term export credit insurance published in 2020. The Fitness Check focused in particular on the Undertaking in Difficulty definition and came to the conclusion that the Undertaking in Difficulty criterion largely meets its objective to identify companies in difficulties correctly, but it is not entirely clear and easy to apply for national authorities and guidance and/or clarification might be needed. Based on its case practice, the evaluation in context of the Fitness Check and ad hoc contributions received since the conclusion of the Fitness Check, the Commission considers that there is considerable evidence available to allow revising the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines. The purpose of this public consultation is to collect feedback on the key revisions on substance envisaged by the Commission to take better into account the challenges faced by companies in the EU. In particular, the Commission is envisaging updating the scope of the guidelines. It is considering lifting the exclusion of the steel sector and to review the parameters defining an Undertaking in Difficulty. The results of this public consultation will be summarised in a factual report, which will be published on the Have Your Say website. At the end of the survey, you can upload a file with a more detailed contribution. About you 695325 81535 * Language of my contribution Bulgarian Croatian Czech Danish Dutch English Estonian Finnish French German Greek Hungarian Irish Italian Latvian Lithuanian Maltese Polish Portuguese Romanian Slovak Slovenian Spanish Swedish * I am giving my contribution as Academic/research institution Business association Company/business Consumer organisation EU citizen Environmental organisation Non-EU citizen Non-governmental organisation (NGO) Public authority Trade union Other * First name 890587 78138 * Surname 890587 78138 * Email (this won't be published) 890587 78138 * Country of origin Please add your country of origin, or that of your organisation . 904875 424531 904875 732223 This list does not represent the official position of the European institutions with regard to the legal status or policy of the entities mentioned. It is a harmonisation of often divergent lists and practices. Afghanistan 86480 -16128 Djibouti 234575 -16128 Libya 77898 -16128 Saint Martin Åland Islands Dominica Liechtenstein Saint Pierre and Miquelon Albania Dominican Republic Lithuania Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Algeria Ecuador Luxembourg Samoa American Samoa Egypt Macau San Marino Andorra El Salvador Madagascar São Tomé and Príncipe Angola Equatorial Guinea Malawi Saudi Arabia Anguilla Eritrea Malaysia Senegal Antarctica Estonia Maldives Serbia Antigua and Barbuda Eswatini Mali Seychelles Argentina Ethiopia Malta Sierra Leone Armenia Falkland Islands Marshall Islands Singapore Aruba Faroe Islands Martinique Sint Maarten Australia Fiji Mauritania Slovakia Austria Finland Mauritius Slovenia Azerbaijan France Mayotte Solomon Islands Bahamas French Guiana Mexico Somalia Bahrain French Polynesia Micronesia South Africa Bangladesh French Southern and Antarctic Lands Moldova South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Barbados Gabon Monaco South Korea Belarus Georgia Mongolia South Sudan Belgium Germany Montenegro Spain Belize Ghana Montserrat Sri Lanka Benin Gibraltar Morocco Sudan Bermuda Greece Mozambique Suriname Bhutan Greenland Myanmar/Burma Svalbard and Jan Mayen Bolivia Grenada Namibia Sweden Bonaire Saint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Guadeloupe Nauru Switzerland Guam Nepal Syria Botswana Guatemala Netherlands Taiwan Bouvet Island Guernsey New Caledonia Tajikistan Brazil Guinea New Zealand Tanzania British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Guinea- Bissau Nicaragua Thailand Guyana Niger The Gambia Brunei Haiti Nigeria Timor- Leste Bulgaria Heard Island and McDonald Islands Niue Togo Burkina Faso Honduras Norfolk Island Tokelau Burundi Hong Kong Northern Mariana Islands Tonga Cambodia Hungary North Korea Trinidad and Tobago Cameroon Iceland North Macedonia Tunisia Canada India Norway Türkiye Cape Verde Indonesia Oman Turkmenistan Cayman Islands Iran Pakistan Turks and Caicos Islands Central African Republic Iraq Palau Tuvalu Chad Ireland Palestine Uganda Chile Isle of Man Panama Ukraine China Israel Papua New G uinea United Arab Emirates Christmas Island Italy Paraguay United Kingdom Clipperton Jamaica Peru United States Cocos (Keeling) Islands Japan Philippines United States Minor Outlying Islands Colombia Jersey Pitcairn Islands Uruguay Comoros Jordan Poland US Virgin Islands Congo Kazakhstan Portugal Uzbekistan Cook Islands Kenya Puerto Rico Vanuatu Costa Rica Kiribati Qatar Vatican City Côte d’Ivoire Kosovo Réunion Venezuela Croatia Kuwait Romania Vietnam Cuba Kyrgyzstan Russia Wallis and Futuna Curaçao Laos Rwanda Western Sahara Cyprus Latvia Saint Barthélemy Yemen Czechia Lebanon Saint Helena Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Zambia Democratic Republic of the Congo Lesotho Saint Kitts and Nevis Zimbabwe Denmark Liberia Saint Lucia The Commission will publish all contributions to this public consultation. You can choose whether you would prefer to have your details published or to remain anonymous when your contribution is published. For the purpose of transparency, the type of respondent (for example, ‘ business association, ‘ consumer association’, ‘ EU citizen’) country of origin, organisation name and size, and its transparency register number, are always published. Your e-mail address will never be published. Opt in to select the privacy option that best suits you. Privacy options default based on the type of respondent selected I agree with the personal data protection provisions Sectorial Scope of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines 695325 81591 The questions in this section aim at assessing whether the current state of the EU economy would justify a change in the sectors covered by the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines. Background Currently all sectors can benefit from aid under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines except the coal and steel sectors and the financial sector. Concerning the steel sector, its exclusion from the scope of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines had been historically motivated by the existence of significant overcapacities globally and in the EU market. The current exclusion of the steel sector means that if a steel company is under financial distress (considered an Undertaking in Difficulty) it cannot receive any State aid, including State aid under the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines, unlike undertakings active in other metal sectors, such as aluminium . Global overcapacity still affects European producers and their employees. Moreover, the pressure on the EU steel industry from imports is taking place against the background of decarbonisation and new challenges to the global trade system. Due to the challenges faced, the Commission adopted an Action Plan for Steel and Metals, which outlines the importance of the steel sector which is among the most vulnerable sectors in transition. Within the EU market overcapacities have decreased and EU production can cover most of the EU’s domestic demand in steel (90%). Between 2014 and 2023, EU steel industry production capacity has decreased significantly (crude steel production has decreased by around 20%). In the same vein , employment in the sector decreased by around 10%. At the same time, in 2024, global overcapacity was estimated to be more than four and a half times the EU’s yearly consumption. The EU steel industry went from a substantial trade surplus to a significant deficit. Question 1 879602 553897 Yes No I do not know / no opinion Competition within the EU steel sector Competitiveness of the EU steel sector Both There has been no positive impact at all Yes No I do not know / no opinion Competition within the EU steel sector Competitiveness of the EU steel sector Both There has been no positive impact at all In your experience, has the exclusion of the steel sector from the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines had a positive impact on: Please justify your answer: 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53764 Question 2 In your experience, has the situation of the steel sector changed compared to 2014? has improved has worsened is unchanged I do not know / no opinion The situation Please justify your answer: 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53448 Question 3 Based on your reply to the question above, do you consider the exclusion of the steel sector from the scope of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines still justified? Yes No I do not know / no opinion Please justify your answer: 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53870 Question 4 879602 554336 Yes No I do not know / no opinion A positive impact on competition within the EU steel sector A positive impact on competitiveness of the EU steel sector A positive impact on both no positive impact Negative impact on competition within the sector Negative impact on competitiveness of the sector Yes No I do not know / no opinion A positive impact on competition within the EU steel sector A positive impact on competitiveness of the EU steel sector A positive impact on both no positive impact Negative impact on competition within the sector Negative impact on competitiveness of the sector In your view, would an inclusion of the steel sector in the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines have: Negative impact on both 4322445 -560117 4775327 -560117 5173472 -560117 6781800 -560116 917702 -560116 Please justify your answer: 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53829 Question 5 879602 554209 a positive impact a negative impact no impact I do not know / no opinion There would be a positive impact a negative impact no impact I do not know / no opinion There would be In your view, would an inclusion of the steel sector in the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines have an impact on other industries relying on steel products as input? Please justify your answer: 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53929 Material Scope of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines 695325 81627 The questions in this section aim at assessing whether the current definition of Undertaking in Difficulty would need to be amended to address certain deficiencies raised previously by stakeholders. Background For undertakings that meet the criteria to be defined as Undertakings in Difficulty, rescue and restructuring aid is in principle the only route available to grant State aid. This is because rescue and restructuring aid is among the most distortive types of State aid, as it interrupts the normal competitive process leading inefficient undertakings to exit the market. The Undertaking in Difficulty concept is thus of a horizontal relevance as it is applied not only as an inclusion criterion in the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines, but also as an exclusion criterion preventing companies from receiving aid under other guidelines. An undertaking is considered to be in difficulty when, without intervention by the State, it will almost certainly be condemned to going out of business in the short or medium term. Whether an undertaking fulfils this definition is assessed based on four quantitative criteria in the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines (( i ) the loss of more than half of the subscribed capital in case of limited liability companies, (ii) the loss of more than half of the book capital for companies with at least some members with unlimited liability, (iii) undertakings under collective insolvency proceedings or fulfilling the criteria for being placed in collective insolvency proceedings at the request of its creditors, (iv) undertakings that are not SMEs with a book debt to equity ratio above 7.5 and an EBITDA interest coverage ratio below 1.0 for the past 2 years). Start-ups and scale- ups The Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines provide that an SME that has been in existence for less than three years will not be considered to be in difficulty unless it is subject to collective insolvency proceedings or fulfils the criteria under its domestic law for being placed in collective insolvency proceedings at the request of its creditors. However, in recent years it has come to the Commission’s attention that the quantitative criteria of the Undertaking in Difficulty definition may have the effect of qualifying certain start-ups or scale-ups that have a specific capital-intensive growth model and that have not yet had the time to achieve Balance Sheet growth as Undertaking in Difficulty. Although those undertakings would not be condemned to going out of business in the short or medium term, and thus barring them from receiving other forms of State aid. The Commission reminds that the following questions concern the Undertaking in Difficulty definition of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines and of all other State aid rules using that term. The General Block Exemption Regulation (EU) 651/2014 (“GBER”) includes also a definition for Undertakings in Difficulty in Article 2(18) of the GBER. Aid to undertakings that fulfil the definition set out in Article 2(18) of the GBER can, in principle, not be block exempted (Article 1(4)(c)) GBER). The Undertaking in Difficulty definition of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines does not concern the GBER, hence no potential change to the definition in the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines will impact the possibility of undertakings concerned to receive aid that has been block exempted. Question 6 In your experience, is the current exemption for SMEs that have been in existence for less than three years sufficient to allow start-ups to benefit from other forms of aid? Yes No I do not know / no opinion Please justify your answer: 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53941 Question 7 917702 554209 If your answer to Question 6 was “no”, which of the following options would be sufficient to address the shortcomings: Yes No I do not know / no opinion Extend the exemption period to five years Exempt all undertakings that fulfil the definition of start-up laid down in Article 22(2) of the GBER Extend the exemption period to ten years If the proposed extension period is not relevant, please provide a proposition and specify your industrial sector: 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53880 Others (please specify) 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53443 Please justify your answer: 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53570 Question 8 Under the current rules, scale-ups fall under the definition of an Undertaking in Difficulty which prevents them from receiving aid under other State aid rules. In your view, is this specific scale- ups situation justified? Yes No I do not know / no opinion Please justify your answer: 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53999 Question 9 879602 889508 Yes No I do not know / no opinion It would decrease the administrative burden with respect to start- ups It would decrease the administrative burden with respect to scale- ups It would not decrease the administrative burden Yes No I do not know / no opinion It would decrease the administrative burden with respect to start- ups It would decrease the administrative burden with respect to scale- ups It would not decrease the administrative burden In your view, what would be the impact of an exemption of start-ups and/or scale-ups from the definition of Undertaking in Difficulty on the administrative burden and costs for authorities? Please justify your answer: 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53542 Question 10 879602 843896 Yes No I do not know / no opinion Increase competition within the EU Increase Competitiveness of the EU Increase both Decrease competition within the EU Decrease Competitiveness of the EU Decrease both Yes No I do not know / no opinion Increase competition within the EU Increase Competitiveness of the EU Increase both Decrease competition within the EU Decrease Competitiveness of the EU Decrease both In your view, what would be the impact of exempting start-ups and/or scale-ups from the definition of Undertaking in Difficulty on competition between undertakings within the internal market and the competitiveness of the EU economy in a global context? Please justify your answer: 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53431 The definition of “own funds” The term “own funds” (which represents a literal translation of the French term “fonds propres ” into English) is used in the definition of Undertaking in Difficulty and serves as a benchmark against which accumulated losses of a limited liability company must be evaluated, in order to establish whether such a company is in difficulty. That term is not defined in the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines, which may create in some language versions of the Guidelines confusion as to which parts of a company’s equity and which financial instruments are covered by the term “own funds”. Question 11 In your opinion, does the term “own funds” need to be further clarified? Yes No I do not know / no opinion Please justify your answer: 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53535 Question 12 If your answer to Question 11 was “yes”, what would, in your opinion, be the necessary clarification of the term “own funds”? 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53909 Please justify your answer: 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53570 Question 13 In your opinion, using “equity” instead of “own funds” would contribute to simplifying the assessment of this criterion, given that a company’s equity is readily available from its balance sheet? Yes No I do not know / no opinion Please justify your answer: 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53310 Other comments on the definition of Undertaking in Difficulty Question 14 Do you have any other comments concerning the definition of Undertaking in Difficulty for the purposes of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines or other State aid rules. Yes No If yes, please elaborate: 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53525 Additional information 695325 81627 Question 15 Do you want to raise any other points which may be relevant for the revision of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines? Yes No If yes, please elaborate: 2000 character (s) maximum 885825 53932 Additional documents If you want to share any document (e.g. data, research paper, position paper, etc.) that may be relevant for the revision of the Rescue and Restructuring Guidelines, please upload it here. Please make sure not to include any personal data in the file you upload if you wish to remain anonymous. Please upload your file(s) Only files of the type pdf,txt , doc,docx , odt,rtf are allowed Please upload your file(s) Only files of the type xls,xlsx ,ods are allowed Contact [email protected] Meie 13.09.2025 nr 12.1-1/4043-1 Euroopa Komisjoni konsultatsioon päästmiseks ja ümberkorraldamiseks antava riigiabi suuniste läbivaatamiseks Austatud kolleegid Euroopa Komisjon (edaspidi komisjon) avas 22. augustil küsimustiku (vt lisatud inglise keeles), et saada liikmesriikidelt ja sidusrühmadelt tagasisidet 2014. aastal vastu võetud komisjoni teatise „Suunised raskustes olevate mittefinantsettevõtjate päästmiseks ja ümberkorraldamiseks antava riigiabi kohta“ läbivaatamiseks. Suuniste inglise keelne tekst on leitav siit . Suunistega on kehtestatud tingimused, mille kohaselt võib raskustes olevate mittefinantsettevõtjate päästmiseks ja ümberkorraldamiseks antavat riigiabi pidada siseturuga kokkusobivaks ELTL artikli 107 lg 3 punkti c alusel. Suuniste kohaselt võivad abi saada ainult need ettevõtjad, kes vastavad raskustes oleva ettevõtja kriteeriumitele. Suunised kehtivad kõigi raskustes olevate mittefinantsettevõtjate suhtes peale söe- ja terasesektori ettevõtjate. Suuniste läbivaatamise eesmärgid on: - jätta teatavad idu- ja kasvufirmad „raskustes oleva ettevõtja“ määratluse kohaldamisalast välja, et võimaldada neil saada muud liiki riigiabi, kui nad ei ole pankrotiohus. - lisada suuniste sisulisse kohaldamisalasse ka terasesektor ja viia suunised kooskõlla ELi hiljutise kohtupraktikaga. Raskustes oleva ettevõtja kindlaksmääramise tehnilised kvantitatiivsed kriteeriumid. Komisjoni selgituste järgi võib praegustel kriteeriumitel olla selline tagajärg, et nende alusel võidakse raskustes olevaks ettevõtjaks tunnistada teatava kasvumudeliga ettevõtjaid (nt innovaatilised idufirmad, millel on alguses suured innovatsioonikulud, mis aga kaetakse järgmistes omakapitali kaasamise voorudes), kes tegelikult raskustes ei ole. Selline soovimatu mõju oleks vastuolus raskustes oleva ettevõtja määratluse eesmärgiga selgitada välja sellised ettevõtjad, kes peaaegu kindlasti lõpetavad tegevuse lühikeses või keskpikas perspektiivis. Probleemil on ka teine tahk: see võib elujõulistelt ettevõtjatelt põhjendamatult võtta võimaluse saada muud liiki riigiabi. Terasesektori lisamine suuniste kohaldamisalasse. Komisjoni selgituste järgi jäeti see sektor 2014. aastal suuniste kohaldamisalast välja, kuna ELis ja kogu maailmas oli liiga palju tootmisvõimsust. ELis enam struktuurset Suur-Ameerika 1 / 10122 Tallinn / 611 3558 / [email protected] / www.rahandusministeerium.ee registrikood 70000272 tootmisvõimsuse ülejääki ei ole, kuid mujal maailmas on seda endiselt. Suuniste läbivaatamise käigus kaalutakse terasesektori lisamist suuniste kohaldamisalasse, kuna see aitaks lahendada ELi terasetööstuse praegusi ja tulevasi probleeme. Kolmandaks kavatseb komisjon täpsustada raskustes oleva ettevõtja määratlust eelkõige mõiste „omavahendid“ osas, mis näib neetmete rakendajate sees segadust tekitavat. Lisaks kavandab komisjon teha suuniste ülesehituses tehnilisi muudatusi vastavalt mitmele ELi kohtute otsusele. Komisjon plaanib suuniste muudatused vastu võtta 2026. a neljandas kvartalis. Enne seda saadab ta suuniste muudatuste eelnõu konsulteerimiseks. Küsimustikule vastamise tähtaeg on 14.11.2025. Rahandusministeerium juba informeeris ministeeriume küsimustikust riigiabi võrgustikule 29.08.2025 saadetud e-kirjaga. Käesolevale kirjale lisame küsimustiku Word formaadis (võrgustikule saadetud küsimustik oli PDF formaadis) ja palume tagasisidet hiljemalt 24. septembriks. Vastused küsimustikule palume esitada eesti keeles. Lugupidamisega (allkirjastatud digitaalselt) Kaur Kajak halduspoliitika asekantsler Lisa(d): EK küsimustik Ljudmilla Sokolnikova 611 3360 [email protected] 2