Thread by @GeorgePeretzQC

This is not, in my view, a sensible hill for the current UK government to die on. In practice, ex ante approval will be insisted on *by the recipient* if there is any risk that a regulator can order the reversal of a subsidy after it is granted.

https://twitter.com/tconnellyrte/status/1335718560111468558

(And if there is to be a regulator that is more than a toothless commentator it must be able to order the reversal of subsidy that distorts more than it helps achieve any public policy objective.)

So winning the absence of a prior clearance requirement should be not an important UK objective, here.

As for third party rights to injunctions or damages, they are rarely invoked, though the threat can hold granting authorities to the straight and narrow.

In my view, the EU should be satisfied with clear provisions entitling third parties to complain to a regulator that something is a subsidy but has not been notified, with a right to a decision on such a complaint that it can appeal to a body like the Competition Appeal Tribunal.

In addition, the provisions should require that affected third parties (eg competitors) have a right to be heard on, and to seek judicial review of, any regulator’s decision to clear a subsidy.

With that, I think third parties would be sufficiently protected.