欧盟国家援助制度研究

【作者】 周牧；

【导师】 王晓晔；

【作者基本信息】 中国社会科学院研究生院 ， 经济法学， 2012， 博士

【摘要】 欧盟的国家援助制度是一个历经半个世纪，发展较为完备的补贴控制制度。通过控制和引导成员国政府对个别企业实施的财政补贴，欧盟希冀达到维护内部市场的统一，确保内部市场竞争不受扭曲的目的。近些年来，欧盟通过“中欧世贸项目”等交流渠道向中国相关部门提出，中国应借鉴欧盟的制度模式，建立一个类似于欧盟的国家援助控制制度。本文将通过解读欧盟的制度模式，分析欧盟模式的借鉴意义。根据经济学分析，政府对个别企业实施的援助一般会加强企业的竞争地位，从而对市场竞争造成影响，这对市场上其他竞争者而言是不公平的。如果援助措施缺乏必要的政策目的，则援助不仅损害了竞争而且浪费了公共财力。如果援助实施的过程不科学，或者援助金额超过企业所需，则市场竞争将受到不必要的损害。此外，政府援助措施的最终受益者未必是受援者。因此，政府在对个人实施援助的过程中很可能使个别企业获得了不当的竞争优势。政府对企业实施援助一般会影响竞争，但是政府的多种行为，例如宏观经济政策的调整，均有可能影响企业间的竞争，甚至使市场面临重新洗牌。为什么在欧盟，政府的援助行为由竞争法来调整？这是因为欧盟作为一个独特的经济、文化政体，在一体化进程中不断推进各国财政一致和法律协调，在多种协商机制下协调发展经济。因此，成员国政府很少单方面出台违反联盟利益的宏观经济政策，单方面破坏联盟团结和单方面严重搅乱市场竞争。在这样的背景下，援助控制才对内部市场的完整统一，以及对欧盟经济、社会的协调发展起到关键的作用。然而，援助控制并不意味着完全禁止国家援助。欧盟不是一个国家，成员国政府根据条约中的辅助性原则拥有自主发展经济、文化和社会的权能，而且拥有充足的财政力量实施国家援助。一方面，如果不对援助进行控制，联盟内部市场的竞争将受到破坏，欧盟一体化的种种努力将功亏一篑；另一方面，国家援助具有经济学上的合理性，应当视情况具体分析，不能与违反“四大自由”条款的政府行为视同一律。而且，判断一项援助是否对联盟有利，往往需要参考与市场竞争有关的经济学数据。因此，国家援助行为在欧盟由竞争法调整，并不为怪。根据《欧盟运行条约》第107-109条，成员国政府在实施国家援助之前，一般须向欧盟委员会申报，得到豁免后方可实施。这涉及两个关键步骤：国家援助的判定和国家援助的豁免。欧盟国家援助的判定需要满足4个构成要件，其中包括：政府是援助实施的主体；援助的对象是企业；援助使企业获得了竞争优势；以及援助不具备普遍性。国家援助的判定还将涉及“可归因性测试”和“市场投资人测试”的适用、国有企业与政府的财务关系，以及成员国的税收政策和地方自治权等问题。国家援助的豁免分为绝对豁免和相对豁免两个部分。《欧盟运行条约》有关相对豁免的规定涉及地区援助、经济动荡援助、文化遗产保护援助和中小企业援助、培训与就业援助等平行援助豁免政策。为此，欧盟委员会和理事会制定了大量的条例、指令、指南和通告等文件，对条约中的豁免规则做出细化规定。欧盟国家援助制度在欧盟独特的社会、经济、文化和法律环境中发展，与我国的财政制度和《反垄断法》中有关行政垄断的规定不存在太多可比性。中国若想引进这项制度，并使援助控制具有执行力，势必需要对现有法律体系进行大范围的调整。因此从目前来看，中国很难像欧盟所希望的那样，建立一个类似于欧盟的补贴控制制度。然而，欧盟国家援助制度对我国有很重要的借鉴意义，原因在于中国长期以来忽视政府补贴对市场竞争产生的影响。在政府所有的财政文件中，几乎没有与竞争有关的任何规定。在中央政府的财政文件中可以加入有关政府补贴的规定，要求对政府补贴的竞争及市场影响实施分析评估，从而提高补贴使用的效率和透明度，使补贴更加科学、合理。此外，欧盟国家援助制度以完善的公司财务制度和政府财政审计制度为保障，在实施过程中遵循合法、合理行政原则，对欧盟和成员国政府的行政能力提出了较高的要求。因此，我国在弘扬竞争文化的同时需加强这方面的法治建设，完善相关财政、行政法规，并重视对竞争执法队伍的建设。更多还原

【Abstract】 The State Aid Regime of the EU is a fully developed subsidy control system that has lasted for over half a century. By controlling and directing subsidies granted by Member States to undertakings so that they correspond with the Union’s interest, the EU aspires to establish and maintain a Common Market in which competition is undistorted. In recent years, particularly through the "EU-China Trade Project" dialogue, the Commision has proposed to its Chinese counterparts that China should establish a State Aid control system similar to that in the EU. This thesis strives to undertand and draw lessons from the European model of State Aid control.Studies in economics indicate that aid granted by the government to undertakings usually elevates the competitive status of those undertakings, which is unfair to other competitors on the market. If the aid itself lacks purpose, then, while adversely affecting competition, it would become a waste of public funding. If aid is not delivered in a reasonable manner and according to the principle of proportionality, competition may be disporportionly affected. Moreover, the recipient of aid is not necessarily the ultimate beneficiary, which means that the government may confer an advantage to certain undertakings by granting subsidies to individuals.State Aid is not the only type of state acts that may affect competition and alter market conditions, such as general economic policies. Why is it that an act of state is governed by the rules on competition in the EU? This is because the EU is a supra-national polity with unique economic and cultural characteristics. During its integration, the EU strives to achieve economic solidarity, harmonizes laws of Member States, and coordinates efforts via various policy instruments in developing the economy. Therefore, it is unlikely for a Member State to unilaterally develop general economic policies against the interests of the Union, to unilaterally harm the Union’s solidarity, and to unilaterally cause a serious disturbance in the economy by restricting competition via legislation. It is under this context that State Aid may prove to be a valuable instrument in maintaining the cohesion of the Common Market, and heavily influence the coordinated development of Europe’s economy and society. Nevertheless, State Aid control does not necessarily probihit all State Aids. The EU is not a state, but a conglomeration of states with competencies in economic, social and cultural development according to the Principle of Subsidiarity. Member States possess the financial power to provide State Aid. On the one hand, without State Aid control, competition shall be unduly damaged in the Union, and the integration efforts shall be in vain. On the other hand, State Aid in general is a rational act of state that addresses market failure, which must be subject to scrutiny before reaching a conclusion of incompatibility with the Common Market, and should not be treated the same as state acts in violation of the "four freedoms". Moreover, compatibility is largely determined by economic indicators relating to competition. It is therefore quite plausible for State Aid to be regulated by EU competition law.According to Article107-109TFEU, Member States must apply for clearance to the Commission before issuing State Aid. This begs two questions:What constitutes State Aid? And what constitutes lawful State Aid? In order for a government action to become State Aid, it must satisfy4criteria: Aid to be granted by the State, to undertakings, conferring a competitive advantage, that which is specific. This portion of the analysis involves the application of the Imputability Test, the Market Economy Investor Test, public undertaking’s financial relations with governments, as well as taxation and regional autonomy.The rules on lawful State Aid are divided into two categories:aid deemed to be compatible with the Common Market and aid which may be compatible with the Common Market. The latter type of aid governed by Article107(3) TFEU is explained in further detail by regulations, directives, guidelines, and communications made by the Commission and the Council.The State Aid Regime of the EU is developed in a unique social, economic, cultural and legal environment, and has little in common with AML’s provision on administrative monopoly and the laws relating to public finance. Therefore, in order to introduce a similar system, and able to enforce such a system, China would have to make too many changes in the legal system to make it worthwhile.The State Aid Regime of the EU, however, does provide insight to China’s competition law enforcement. The reason is that, for many years, China has turned a blind eye to anti-competitive effects of government subsides in the market, and there is nearly no sign of "competition" in official documents relating to public finance. This results in inapproate and intransparent handling of aid in China without analyses of the aid’s impact on competition. One should keep in mind that the European model is established under the rule of law and a sound auditing system of undertakings and public finance. Therefore, it is necessary for China to focus on establishing the rule of law and reforming the laws on public finance, while cultivating a culture for competition.更多还原