In December 2008, the government of Slovenia announced a change in private-sector financial support.



  • 1 harmful
  • 0 neutral
  • 0 liberalising


Official letter from EC to Slovenia - Brussels, 20.III.2009 C(2009)2084. Available from < >
The letter from EC to Slovenia -
Official letter from EC to Slovenia - Brussels, 15.4.2010 C(2010)2420 final. available from : < >
Official letter from EC to Slovenia - Brussels, 23.08.2010
C(2010)5880 final. Available from : < >

Inception date: 20 Mar 2009 | Removal date: 18 Dec 2010

Capital injection and equity stakes (including bailouts)

Slovenia submitted on 16 December 2008 notification of a liquidity scheme by which it would provide short and medium term loans to financial institutions incorporated in Slovenia.

In response to the ongoing turbulence in world financial markets, on 11 November 2008 the Slovenian Parliament adopted the Act amending the Public Finance Act, which defines possible measures to maintain the stability of the national financial system.

The objective of the Liquidity Scheme is to provide short and medium term financing to the financial institutions, which are unable to obtain funds on the financial markets, even under the Guarantee scheme.

The amount of the loans to be granted is encompassed within the maximum amount of State guarantees that can be granted, which is up to EUR 12 billion, i.e. the overall limit for both the Guarantee scheme and the State liquidity scheme is set at EUR 12 billion.

 In its decision on granting a loan the Government will fix the duration of the loan and the annual interest rate. The loans will be granted for a duration of between one and a maximum of three years.

 The Commission decided that the liquidity scheme constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC in favor of the financial institutions concerned and gave the following assessment:

 "The scheme will enable the beneficiaries to acquire the necessary liquidity on more favourable terms that would have been possible under the conditions prevailing in the financial markets. Inasmuch as this will confer an economic advantage on beneficiaries and strengthen their position vis-ŕ-vis their competitors in Slovenia and in other Member States, the aid scheme will distort competition and affect trade between Member States. The resulting advantage will be a selective one in that it will benefit only beneficiaries under the scheme and will be financed through State resources." (par. 31 f the letter from EC to Slovenia - Brussels, 20.III.2009 C(2009)2084).

Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty enables the Commission to declare aid compatible with the Common Market if it is "to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State." This aid has to be applied restrictively and must tackle a disturbance in the entire economy of the Member State according to the interpretation of the Article 87(3)(b) by the Court of First Instance.

 The Commission referred to its Communication on the financial crisis (Temporary Framework) and concluded that the Measure complies with the conditions laid therein. Therefore, despite the measure constituting State aid pursuant to the Article 87(1) EC, it is compatible with the Common Market according to the Article 87(3)(b) EC Treaty. The Commission raises no objections against the measure at issue and authorizes it as emergency intervention in the face of the current financial crisis. (par. 33-47 of the letter).

Prolongations of the Slovenian liquidity scheme for the financial sector - State aid N510/2009, N113/2010, N321/2010
On 7 September 2009, Slovenian authorities proposed to prolong the guarantee scheme without amendments to the substance for another six months (until 30 June 2010). On 23 March 2010, Slovenia notified the second prolongation of the liquidity scheme until 30 June 2010. On 16 July 2010 Slovenia notified the third prolongation of the liquidity scheme until 31 December 2010. Prolongations were motivated by the continuing the volatibility of the financial markets.
 Astate measure in the GTA database is assessed solely in terms of theextent to which its implementation affects the extent of discriminationagainst foreign commercial interests. On this metric, the state aidproposed here is discriminatory.