The establishment of the cooperative guarantee scheme was linked to rescue measures in another State aid case.

The Belgian Company Code (in particular Articles 362, 364, 366, 367 and 374) permits certain restrictions on the transferability of cooperative shares. Cooperative shares can be sold to other shareholders of the cooperative but the Articles of Association of the cooperative company can attach conditions to such a transfer. Transfers to third parties can only take place under conditions and only to persons which are defined in Article 366 of the Belgian Company Code.

The Belgian Company Code (Article 367) also provides that cooperative shareholders may only exit the cooperative in the first six months of the financial year. In the case of such an exit, Article 374 of the Belgian Company Code provides that a cooperative shareholder is entitled to the value of its shares which will be based on the cooperative's balance sheet.

The cooperative guarantee scheme covers the paid-up capital (and not the potential capital gains) of individual cooperative shareholders up to a limit of EUR 100 000.

In contrast to the deposit guarantee scheme for credit institutions, membership of the cooperative guarantee scheme is optional.

1. (a)

   the obligation to reserve future public offerings to institutional shareholders;

2. (b)

   the commitment of all institutional shareholders not to withdraw shares or any money paid to the cooperative company and not to resign as a shareholder unless by way of transfer of shares; and

3. (c)

   a cap of 4,5 % p.a. on interest to be paid to shareholders.

Once a financial cooperative has applied for coverage, the financial cooperative cannot exit the scheme for a period of one year. After that period, the cooperative can terminate its participation by giving three months' notice. It will not be possible to reclaim any contributions paid in whatever form. If a cooperative decides to leave the cooperative guarantee scheme, it must wait for three years before being able to participate again.

Only cooperative shares which were issued before the entry into force of the Royal Decree of 10 October 2011 are covered by the measure.

The cooperative guarantee scheme is only available to individual shareholders and not to institutional shareholders of financial cooperatives.

1. (i)

   an annual contribution of 0,15 % of the protected amount (payable by all participants); and

2. (ii)

   a one-off entry fee of 0,10 % of the protected amount (payable by the cooperatives).

In addition, financial cooperatives can also be required to pay a capital gains contribution to the Special Protection Fund in connection with their listed equity holdings. The capital gains contribution corresponds to up to 10 % of the difference between the sale price of the relevant shares (or, if no sale occurs during a period of three years after the cessation of the protection system, the closing average stock price of the relevant share during a 30-day period before that third anniversary) and the reference price fixed by the government when a financial cooperative joins the cooperative guarantee scheme.

The Special Protection Fund will start making payments if the financial cooperative is bankrupt or if the financial supervisor has alerted the Special Protection Fund that the financial cooperative can no longer repay its shareholders wishing to exit.

• allocating 50 % of the annual contributions to be paid by mandatory participants;

• allocating a special annual contribution to be paid by financial cooperatives (whose participation is voluntary)

If the Special Protection Fund intervenes, it takes over the rights of the individual cooperative shareholder, ranking pari passu with the other remaining shareholders. That feature differs from the deposit guarantee scheme for credit institutions where the Fund ranks pari passu with the other creditors of the relevant company.

The Articles of Association of all three entities contain provisions which are relevant to shareholders wishing to exit.

In its Opening Decision, the Commission's preliminary conclusion was that the notified measure met the four (cumulative) State aid criteria and it doubted whether the measure could be declared compatible with the internal market.

The Commission found the measure to be imputable to the Belgian State as it was financed by the Special Protection Fund. To that end, the Commission noted that Belgian legislation determined the contribution that participants had to pay to the Special Protection Fund and also determined how those funds would be used. Moreover, the Commission observed that the Deposit and Consignment Office would advance funds to the Special Protection Fund if the need were to arise. The Commission questioned how the Deposit and Consignment Office would be repaid as it was unclear whether financial cooperatives would have sufficient financial means available. The Commission also wondered whether the fact that participation is optional for financial cooperatives would hinder an effective refinancing of the Special Protection Fund.

The Commission came to the conclusion that financial cooperatives could be considered as undertakings and that the measure presented a selective advantage to them. As regards the selective advantage the cooperative guarantee scheme seemed to have helped cooperatives to either attract new capital or maintain existing capital, convincing existing cooperative shareholders not to withdraw from financial cooperatives. Such protection was particularly relevant in periods of financial uncertainty such as the period between autumn 2008 and the date on which the Royal Decree was adopted, when financial cooperatives were effectively shielded from the risk of significant exit disbursements.

The Commission also observed that the protection was far-reaching and that the Belgian State allowed entry into the cooperative guarantee scheme irrespective of the financial health of the applicant financial cooperative. In the example of ARCO, financial cooperatives had been allowed to enter into the cooperative guarantee scheme when they were already insolvent, only to enter into liquidation shortly thereafter.

The Commission also concluded that the measure distorted competition as financial cooperatives competed on the market for retail investment products where they benefited from a selective advantage that was not available to other market players with similar products.

The Commission also believed the cooperative guarantee scheme to have an impact on intra-Union trade. In fact, many international providers of investment products are active on the Belgian market and the market share that any financial cooperative is able to preserve thanks to the measure is unavailable to them.

Concretely, in order to be compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty, a measure has to be necessary, appropriate and proportionate. The Commission doubted that the measure met any of those three cumulative criteria. It doubted whether the protection of shareholders of financial cooperatives was necessary to avoid a serious disturbance of the Belgian economy. As regards potential spill-over effects, the Commission noted that Belgium had already put in place several measures (e.g. increasing coverage under the deposit guarantee scheme to EUR 100 000 and State aid measures to several banks in different forms (recapitalisation measures, liquidity measures, impaired asset measure and ad hoc measures)). It did not therefore see why, in addition to all those measures, it was necessary to protect shareholders of financial cooperatives.

The Commission doubted that it was appropriate to protect shareholders of financial cooperatives. In that regard, the Commission observed that the financial cooperatives are not financial institutions and given their size did not seem to be of systemic importance. It invited the Belgian State to explain via which channels investment losses — which also incurred for investors of, e.g., mutual funds — would have created major negative spill-over effects for the Belgian economy.

Finally the Commission doubted whether the measure was proportionate. First, it was not clear to the Commission whether financial cooperatives would be paying a fair remuneration for the guarantee. Second, the Commission observed that the discretion to enter combined with the absence of a viability check in the entry procedure of the Belgian State implied that financial cooperatives had an incentive to enter only once it is clear that the guarantee would be triggered. It could lead to situations where beneficiaries could use the guarantee while avoiding to a large extent any payment for it. Finally, the Commission also wondered whether the cooperative guarantee scheme would not unduly distort competition, as shareholders in competitors were not protected, thus facilitating access to capital for financial cooperatives and their overall retail investment market share.

According to ARCO, the Belgian government decided and announced on 10 October 2008 the creation of the cooperative guarantee scheme as part of a broader package (increasing of deposit guarantee for savings deposits of credit institutions to EUR 100 000 and extending the guarantee scheme to ‘branch 21’ life insurance products and to individual shareholders of financial cooperatives). ARCO argued that the decision of 10 October 2008 was implemented for ‘branch 21’ products by the law of 15 October 2008 and Royal Decree of 14 November 2008 and for share certificates issued by financial cooperatives by the law of 14 April 2009 and Royal Decree of 10 October 2011.

In line with observations of the Belgian government, ARCO argued that all the characteristics of shares in financial cooperatives confirm that they respond to the same client needs as deposits and are treated by the legislator as such. ARCO underlined that the Belgian government was concerned about a contamination effect. If the Belgian State had not introduced the cooperative guarantee scheme, it would have undermined investor confidence and could have led to a run on all savings products.

The Belgian State argued that the cooperative guarantee scheme does not meet all of the cumulative State aid criteria of Article 107(1) of the Treaty and is therefore not State aid. Concretely, the Belgian State stated that three State aid criteria are not met. First, the Belgian State defended the viewpoint that the measure represents only aid to individuals and not to undertakings. Next, the Belgian State argued that the measure does not represent a selective advantage to financial cooperatives and finally, the Belgian State contended that the measure is not distortive.

As regards the argument that the aid does not benefit undertakings, the Belgian State argued that the normal deposit guarantee scheme for credit institutions, including its extension (i.e. the cooperative guarantee scheme) had been adopted in implementation of and in accordance with the Decisions of the ECOFIN Council, the DGS Directive as amended and the Investor Compensation Scheme Directive.

1. (i)

   The (individual) beneficiaries of the cooperative guarantee scheme deserve the same protection as depositors with other institutions active in the same business area and subject to the same supervision.

2. (ii)
   For tax purposes, dividends paid by financial cooperatives and interest paid on deposits are both — up to a fixed amount — exempted from withholding tax47.
3. (iii)

   Individual shareholders of financial cooperatives can only subscribe to a specific maximum amount of capital, in line with provisions in the Articles of Association of the financial cooperative.

4. (iv)

   Shareholders of financial cooperatives can only exit the company in the first six months of a financial year and a shareholder wishing to exit is not entitled to a pro rata part of the capital gains of the cooperative. According to the Belgian State, the value of cooperative shares does not reflect the value of the underlying assets of the financial cooperative and so shares in financial cooperatives do not compete with investment products in general but only with the subset of products which already benefit from a State guarantee (i.e. deposits and ‘branch 21’ life insurance products).

5. (v)
   The shares in financial cooperatives are registered and their transferability is limited by law48. They cannot be sold freely in order to realise capital gains. Shareholders in financial cooperatives are only entitled to a modest (tax-exempt) dividend and a reimbursement when they cease to be shareholders.
6. (vi)

   Shares in financial cooperatives cannot be qualified as an investment in shares in a corporation or listed entity.

7. (vii)

   Shares of financial cooperatives cannot be considered to be a risk investment as shareholders of financial cooperatives are not entitled to receive capital gains.

8. (viii)

   The cooperative guarantee scheme only protects the shares of natural persons (as opposed to institutions).

As to the absence of a selective advantage, the Belgian State pointed out that the cooperative guarantee scheme only covers financial cooperative shares issued before 10 October 2011. The Belgian State observed that after that date financial cooperatives could not use the cooperative guarantee scheme to position themselves in any market. The Belgian State also clarified that ARCO had not issued any new shares since September 2008.

The Belgian State also provided information on the number of shareholders of ARCO exiting the entity since the start of the crisis. In the financial years leading up to the voluntary liquidation, the number of ARCO shareholders which asked to have their capital refunded amounted to 9 764 in 2007/08, 21 150 in 2008/09 and 23 762 in 2010/11.

As regards the distortive impact of the measure, the Belgian State argued that the Commission should have explained to a reasonable extent with which financial products shares in financial cooperatives compete, even though the Belgian authorities acknowledged that the Commission in a State aid procedure is not obliged to proceed with a detailed market definition exercise. The Belgian State in essence claimed that the same level of protection was offered to individual shareholders of financial cooperatives as to investors in all similar deposit/savings products.

The Belgian State also insisted that — if the Commission were to conclude that the cooperative guarantee scheme represented State aid — the aid should be considered compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty. The Belgian State considered that it is not relevant whether ARCO is a financial institution in the meaning of the 2008 Banking Communication. According to the Belgian State, the crucial question that the Commission should answer is whether the cooperative guarantee scheme is an appropriate and necessary response to prevent a serious disturbance of the economy.

The Belgian State defended the viewpoint that the measure is necessary, that its effects are limited to the minimum and that there are burden sharing mechanisms in place.

First, the Belgian State developed the argument that the cooperative guarantee scheme is appropriate and necessary to reassure depositors in Belgium.

The Belgian State also strongly objected to the language that the Commission used in the Opening Decision, and in particular to the terms ‘capital instruments’ and ‘risk capital’ used in recital 62 and footnote 35 respectively.

When commenting on the compatibility of the measure, the Belgian State refers to the Commission's decision on Ethias. According to the Belgian State, the Commission accepted measures in favour of Ethias, including the extension of the deposit guarantee scheme to ‘branch 21’ products, as appropriate and necessary to prevent a serious disturbance to the Belgian economy.

Second, the Belgian State reiterated its view that the measure is proportionate. The financial cooperatives share the burden, inter alia, through their contributions to the Special Protection Fund. The Belgian State considered the level of remuneration for the guarantee to be reasonable and similar to the contributions for guarantee schemes of other protected institutions. The Belgian State disagreed that the voluntary character of the cooperative guarantee scheme could make the measure disproportionate.

The Belgian State submitted that if the Commission were to conclude that the measure is State aid, it should conclude that the measure was compatible liquidation aid. The Belgian State recalled that the Royal Decree of 7 November 2011 clearly provides that any payment by the Special Protection Fund in case of liquidation of any relevant cooperative would take place only after the issuance and the approval of the final order of the liquidation.

The Belgian State also defended the viewpoint that, because natural persons were not undertakings, the Commission's suspension injunction did not cover the payment of individuals after the liquidation of ARCO.

In a letter to the Commission dated 18 March 2014, which was after the time limit, Belgium made some further comments.

It argued that the Commission could not prohibit the payment of guarantees to individual shareholders. The Commission could not oblige Belgium to suspend any payments under the cooperative guarantee scheme nor could it recover the payments made under the scheme to individual shareholders.

Shareholders who were natural persons were not undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty and the payment of the guarantee to individual shareholders would have no impact on ARCO or the likelihood of the Belgian State recovering the aid received by these undertakings.

First as a preliminary observation, the Commission recalls that in recital 18 of the Opening Decision, it argued that the cooperative guarantee scheme benefitted financial cooperatives. However, a careful analysis of the chronology and the characteristics of the measure revealed that ARCO was the only real beneficiary from the measure as will be described in this section.

In the case at hand, the Commission observes that there is an important difference between ARCO and the other financial cooperatives which were potentially eligible to participate in the cooperative guarantee scheme.

In relation to the other financial cooperatives, the Commission notes that the cooperative guarantee scheme is a voluntary scheme, that the Council of Ministers had discretion over whether and if so on what conditions to admit an applicant financial cooperative to the cooperative guarantee scheme, that none of the other financial cooperatives applied to join the cooperative guarantee scheme and that some of them actively distanced themselves from it. The Commission also observes that no other financial cooperative had problems with its investments to the same extent as ARCO had with Dexia.

Therefore, the Commission concludes that the only real beneficiary with economic activities from the cooperative guarantee scheme is ARCO.

The Commission takes note of the binding and unambiguous language in the press releases of 10 October 2008 and 21 January 2009, which used terms such as ‘décidé’ and ‘l'engagement’, thus creating a legitimate expectation as to their fulfilment.

The press releases were also sent out via the official channels: the press release of 10 October 2008 was sent out by the services of the Minister of Finance, while the press release of 10 January 2009 was sent on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance. The repeated nature of the press communication strengthened the underlying message.

The Commission notes that it was clear already at the time of the press release of 10 October 2008 that the cooperative guarantee scheme would be designed as an extension of the deposit guarantee scheme. The press release of 21 January 2009 contains further technical details. As soon as the press release of 21 January 2009 was published, ARCO put it on its website. The latter step was clearly taken with a view to reassuring its individual shareholders. Moreover the Commission notes the consistency of the measure over time given that the measure has not materially changed between the initial announcement on 10 October 2008 and the final Royal Decree.

Based on the information in recitals 85 to 89, the Commission concludes that the announcement and the implementation of the cooperative guarantee scheme have to be dealt with as a single measure.

As stated in Article 107(1) of the Treaty, any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Members States, be incompatible with the internal market, save as otherwise provided in the Treaty.

The Commission is obliged to evaluate those four criteria and will do so in recitals 94 to 110.

After having established that the cooperative guarantee scheme is State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty, the Commission must establish if that aid could be found compatible with the internal market.

Article 107(1) of the Treaty provides that State aid shall be incompatible with the internal market and therefore be prohibited, save as otherwise provided in the Treaty. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of Article 107 of the Treaty subsequently define two categories of compatible aid.

First, Article 107(2) of the Treaty lists categories of State aid that are automatically exempted from the prohibition principle, but the cooperative guarantee scheme does not fall within any of those categories.

Second, Article 107(3) of the Treaty covers several categories of aid that may be considered compatible with the internal market. In theory, subparagraphs (b) or (c) of Article 107(3) of the Treaty could apply.

With respect to Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, the Commission has explained in guidelines how it will apply the exemption laid down in that provision to certain types of aid. The Commission observes, however, that the measure does not correspond to any of the types of aid covered by those guidelines. Moreover, neither Belgium nor ARCO have given any indication of an objective of common interest for the purposes of that provision. As such, the Commission should examine the possible compatibility of the measure only on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty.

With respect to Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty, the Commission observes that the Belgian State argues that, if the Commission concludes that the cooperative guarantee scheme involves State aid, the measure should be evaluated under Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty. That provision allows aid to be declared compatible with the internal market if the aid is needed to remedy a serious disturbance of the economy of a Member State.

• (a) Appropriateness

  The aid has to be well targeted in order to be able to effectively achieve the objective of remedying a serious disturbance in the economy. It would not be the case if the measure were not appropriate to remedy the disturbance.

• (b) Necessity

  The aid measure must, in its amount and form, be necessary to achieve the objective. Thus, it must be of the minimum amount necessary to reach the objective, and take the most appropriate form to remedy the disturbance.

• (c) Proportionality

  The positive effects of the measure must be properly balanced against the distortions of competition, in order for the distortions to be limited to the minimum necessary to reach the measure's objectives.

Based on the arguments developed in recitals 121 to 123 the Commission concludes that the cooperative guarantee scheme merely protects financial cooperatives and their individual shareholders from the consequences of their past investments. However, it is not an appropriate measure to avoid a serious disturbance of the Belgian economy.

As to whether the measure is necessary, the Commission recalls that the Belgian State had already taken significant measures to prevent a disturbance in its economy. It had already put in place other measures to stabilise the Belgian financial system and in particular the banks and other financial institutions in which financial cooperatives were investing. The Belgian Deposit Guarantee Scheme protected deposits up to a limit of EUR 100 000 and the Belgian State helped Fortis, KBC, Dexia and Ethias with recapitalisation, liquidity measures, impaired asset measures and ad hoc measures. The Commission concludes that it was not necessary to protect some individual shareholders in the case of financial cooperatives, which ultimately are limited liability companies.

The Commission also believes that the cooperative guarantee scheme creates undue distortions of the normal functioning of the market. The measure has allowed ARCO to protect its market position on the market for retail financial products and as a result competitors which could not rely on the cooperative guarantee scheme have or could have experienced a negative impact on their market share and profitability.

In conclusion, the measure cannot be considered compatible with the internal market because it is neither appropriate nor necessary nor proportionate for the purposes of Article 107(3)(b) of the Treaty and it does not come within the scope of any other provision governing compatibility of State aid.

• the maximum amount of capital outflow as per ARCO's articles of association, which is limited to 10 % of the total capital or to 10 % of its shareholders' base92,

• the fact that only individual shareholders are covered by the cooperative guarantee scheme,

• the specific design of the cooperative guarantee scheme, which on the one hand was voluntary, leaving to the financial cooperatives the choice to participate or not, while on the other hand allowing even financial cooperatives in high risk of bankruptcy or liquidation to apply for the scheme (as happened when, on 8 December 2011, shortly after they were admitted to the scheme, the General Meetings of ARCOFIN, ARCOPAR and ARCOPLUS approved the proposals of their executive boards to go into voluntary liquidation,

• the fact that, long before it went into liquidation, ARCO was already in an unsound financial situation, as it had — as described in recitals 38, 44 and 82 — heavily invested in shares of Dexia, a bank that in the autumn of 2008 had to be rescued from bankruptcy by the Belgian, French and Luxembourg governments, with the result that any significant drop in the value of Dexia shares was still detrimental to the financial position of ARCO, in particular because ARCO had leveraged its participation in the rescue of Dexia by taking on debt,

• and the fact that in 2011 ARCO paid the entry fee and the annual guarantee premium.

The Commission also takes into account that the advantage of the measure was partially diminished by the fact that ARCO, as constituted by the three legal entities ARCOPAR, ARCOFIN and ARCOPLUS, had to pay a one-off entry fee and a guarantee fee for one year, even though those payments only took place in the autumn of 2011, just before ARCO filed for liquidation.

The advantage obtained by the measure is hence the lower amount resulting from the following two calculations: (a) 10 % of the capital of the year with the lowest capital in the period from 10 October 2008 until 8 December 2011 minus the total amount of fees already paid; and (b) 10 % of the lowest number of shareholders in the period of 10 October 2008 until 8 December 2011 multiplied by the average share of capital per shareholder of the same year minus the total amount of fees already paid.

In order to be able to verify the aid calculations, the Commission requests Belgium to provide the Commission with a list of the numbers of shareholders of ARCOPAR, ARCOFIN and ARCOPLUS respectively for the period from 10 October 2008 until 8 December 2011, as registered at the end of each year.

In their additional comments submitted more than a year and a half after the deadline for submitting comments on the decision to open the procedure, the Belgian authorities did not provide any new information on the substance of the case. They claim that the Commission may not prohibit the payment of guarantees granted to individual shareholders, may not require the State to suspend any payment under the cooperative guarantee scheme and may not recover payments made under that scheme to individual shareholders

In support of their arguments the Belgian authorities noted that the individual shareholders were not undertakings within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty and considered that the payment of the guarantee to individual shareholders would have no impact on ARCO or the likelihood of the Belgian State recovering the aid.

In reply the Commission pointed out that the sums to be recovered under this Decision were indeed aid to ARCO.

They were therefore obliged to comply with the order contained in the decision to open the procedure to suspend implementation of the measure in question, and therefore not make any payment.

It is therefore also justified that Belgium should continue to abstain from making any payment under the aid measure.