Tekes preliminary comments on the first draft of the General Block Exemption Regulation (published 8th of May 2013)

Transcription

1 1 Tekes preliminary comments on the first draft of the General Block Exemption Regulation (published 8th of May 2013) This document contains Tekes comments on the first draft of the General Block Exemption regulation, in particular its provisions on aid for SMEs as well as aid for research and development and innovation. Tekes the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation is the main public funding organisation for research, development and innovation in Finland. Introduction The first draft of the General Block Exemption Regulation (hereafter GBER) is a clear step forward. Several aid instruments have been combined and provisions are clearer, shorter and simpler. Furthermore, we have noticed that several comments that we presented in our earlier paper have been taken into account. Comments on Articles Article 1: Scope According to paragraph 2 (a) the GBER does not apply to aid schemes for which the planned or effective yearly public expenditure exceeds 0,01 % of national gross domestic product (GDP) for the Member State concerned for the previous calendar year and in so far as the planned or effective annual budget of the scheme in question exceeds EUR 100 million. Schemes exceeding these thresholds shall be notified. We do agree that it is important to focus Commission ex ante scrutiny of aid measures on cases with the biggest impact on the internal market. However, in our opinion large aid schemes do not automatically lead to distortion on the market. Large schemes have typically a large number of beneficiaries, many of them SMEs, but not necessary large amounts of aid per single beneficiary. Instead of large schemes as such, the focus should be on large amounts and cumulation of aid for single beneficiaries. We see that setting the thresholds as proposed creates two problems: First, the threshold that depends on the GDP of the Member State concerned treats the Member States unequally. Second, the threshold of EUR 100 million is problematic as instead of several smaller aid schemes Member States should aim at creating bigger, more flexible schemes. This would lessen the bureaucracy on the side of both authorities and aid recipients. We are worried that the proposed notification threshold of EUR 100 million would lead to situation where aid schemes would have smaller budgets and narrower scopes in order to avoid the notification obligation. This would lessen the flexibility of the aid schemes and their ability to adapt to changes in the market. Several small schemes instead a big one would also increase bureaucracy.

2 2 Furthermore, would implementing this requirement in the context of structural funds lead into additional and unnecessary bureaucracy? National/regional programmes are already negotiated and accepted in a dialogue between a Member state and the Commission. Would this mean that on top of this dialogue, there would have to be an additional notification procedure before these programmes could be launched? It is also unclear when the aid schemes would be considered identical or similar so that they should be notified. For instance, R&D&I schemes are usually very similar and they can be implemented by different authorities in the same Member State. Furthermore, the notification of aid schemes exceeding the thresholds of effective public expenditure and annual budget may create legal uncertainty for aid beneficiaries and granting authorities, for example in cases where schemes are continued and later exceed the notification threshold. As such provision was not in the present GBER, we think that monitoring of aid in accordance with Articles 10 to 13 should be enough to ensure that the aid schemes and measure do not distort the market. Thus we believe that this provision is not necessary and should be removed. In the paragraph 4 (d) it is proposed that the GBER could be applied to ad hoc aid granted to large companies. In our opinion, ad hoc aid to large companies should always be notified. Thus, the proposed provision should not be added to the section d). In the paragraph 5 (a) we hope that the Commission could clarify what is meant by predominantly established. It is understandable that the Member States cannot limit the principles of free movement but it must be possible to require at least that the aid recipient is established in the Member State and also that the aided activity or project is carried out in the Member State providing the aid. Furthermore, this should be consistent with the requirement concerning regional aid, where it is required (Article 15 paragraph 6 that the aided activity remains in the assisted region at least for five years (or three years in the case of a SME) after the completion of the project. Article 4 Notification thresholds It is not clear in the Article how the proposed thresholds are interpreted in the case of collaborative projects between several undertakings. As it is written, we understand that when there are more participants in a project, the thresholds are multiplied by the number of undertakings. For example if there are three undertakings (SMEs) in a project of experimental development with a total amount of aid of EUR 15 million, equally shared between the undertakings (aid of EUR 5 million per undertaking, per project), the threshold is not exceeded and no notification would be necessary. However, if one undertaking in a similar project would receive an aid exceeding EUR 10 million, the aid should be notified according to the proposed Article. It is unclear in this situation whether the notification requirement is limited to only this one undertaking or does it apply to the whole project. Article 5 Transparency of aid It is good that the GBER only applies to transparent aid of which the gross grant equivalent can be calculated. Providing clearly defined rules and simple calculation methods is well in accordance with the objective to simplify and streamline the rules and it is a good way to promote the use of instruments such

3 3 as loans, guarantees and repayable advances which are typically partly or completely reimbursable and therefore often less distortive Article 6 Incentive effect We welcome the proposal that aid has incentive effect when the work or project is started only after the aid application has been submitted to the authority granting the aid. In the earlier issues paper it was proposed that the aid would have incentive effect only if aided work or project had been started after the decision granting the aid. Such provision would have been too strict, making it more difficult to undertakings to start preparing for important projects with flexible schedule regardless of, often slow, decisions of aid granting authorities. We assume that the proposed Annex IV is not a mandatory template, but rather a description of the information required. Most Member states collect this information, but not in the exact format of Annex IV. Furthermore, since centralized State aid databases are not currently available in Member states, and information about aid in the form of taxes is typically both challenging to calculate and protected by law, the requirement to declare all received aid during the previous three years looks challenging if not unrealistic. This will also raise a number of questions as to how information provided by an applicant can be verified (without a centralized State aid database) and what the eventual repercussions of omitting to inform all aid could be. At least this requirement should be reconsidered in view of requirements for monitoring of aid. An appropriate transition period to allow Member states to comply should also be considered. The regulation should clarify how it is defined when the work on the project or the activity has started. The definition of start of works currently foreseen in Annex I, definition 24, only refers to investments so it seems more suitable for regional and investment aid. It is usually necessary to make preparations and planning before the start of the project and such preparatory activities should be allowed before the application is submitted. Thus we propose that it is defined that the work on the project has not started when (a) no major commitments have been made before the application and (b) no final, legally binding decision has been made on the start of the project before the application. It should be explicitly stated though that letters of intent or other arrangements conditional on the aid decision are allowed. No costs incurred before the aid application should be accepted as eligible costs. We believe that these principles are clear and sufficient enough to verify that the work on the project has not started and that the incentive effect is real. Specific requirements on incentive effect applicable to large companies proposed in the subparagraph 3 of the Article are well justifiable and should be retained. It is good that there are a number of choices how to verify the incentive effect of aid to large companies. Article x SME status According to the Article, an SME cannot benefit from any exemptions or more favorable conditions applied to SMEs if it loses its SME status within certain years from the grant of the aid due to becoming a partner or linked enterprise with a large enterprise. We understand that the aim of the provision is to prevent

4 4 situations in which a large company can enjoy for a long time the aid granted to an SME it has bought or where aid is misused by getting first the aid and then arranging an acquisition or other similar arrangement. In the present SME definition, there is already a transition time of two consecutive accounting periods, after which an undertaking loses its SME status if it exceeds the thresholds of the SME definition in both accounting periods. It is unclear to us, if the transition period proposed in this Article is different from the one in the SME definition, and if so, why, as well as if the proposed period starts only after the transition period of the SME definition. In our opinion, the Commission should consider if the transition period of two accounting periods would be suitable for this provision. This would be both consistent with the transition period defined in the SME definition and an appropriate compromise between additional bureaucracy, sufficient time to allow fluent transition after the organizational rearrangement and the need to prevent potential misuse of this provision. The time period should be calculated from the grant of the aid. It should be noted, that most mergers and acquisitions especially those between SMEs are positive and even essential market development, particularly in new and emerging businesses. This type of consolidation is a vital part of the structural development of new business sectors, and should not be prevented or made more difficult in any way by the proposed rules. Article 9 Cumulation In our opinion, it is good that the provisions on cumulation have been made simpler so that aid without identifiable eligible costs (such as risk finance aid) may be cumulated with any other State aid measure with identifiable eligible costs. As well it is welcomed that simultaneous aid is allowed as long as they concern different eligible costs or as long as the aid intensity allowed is not exceeded. We would like to point out that in paragraph 5, there is an incorrect reference to paragraph 1(b). The correct reference would be to paragraph 2 (b). Article 10 Publication and information The aim to publish the information on state aid measures as proposed in Article 10 is good as such. However, we would like to draw attention to the specific features of R&D&I aid. Granting of public funding to R&D&I activities of an undertaking may already as such be considered as a trade secret of a company. This is why we suggest that this information is published annually by the end of the first quarter of the following year. This would also lessen the administrative burden of the aid authorities. To our knowledge few or no Member state has a single State aid website or single website retrieving information from several websites at this time. We believe that Member states will not be able to comply with the paragraph 1 (c) of publishing information on each individual aid award on a single State aid website, unless the 2 year transition period is extended to cover paragraph 1 (c). Furthermore, for the sake of clarity, Annex V paragraph (1) should also refer to Article 10(1)(c). Article 19 SME s access to finance: risk finance aid

5 5 In our opinion the proposed Article allows diverse ways of risk finance (including co-investments) as well as financing of different types of companies. These changes reflect market practices and are a positive step forward as they allow member States a larger margin of flexibility to design investment measures. It is good that in the paragraph 9 the total amount of risk finance is EUR 10 million per eligible SME instead of yearly threshold of EUR 1,5 million. The thresholds for investments from private investors defined in Paragraph 10 are reasonable, as are the limitations presented in paragraph 11. However, we have some concerns regarding Article 19, paragraph 13. These are related to the manager s independence and the private investors involvement in investment decisions. According to Article 19 paragraph 13 (a), the manager must be independent, professional and obliged by law or contract to act with the diligence of a professional manager and in good faith. The proposed rules do not clearly define what independent means in this context. In specific markets, such as industrial technologies, cleantech or cybersecurity, it is difficult to find specialized independent managers with deep enough knowledge of the market. Risk capital investments in these markets are therefore often managed by the investors (which may be companies active in these markets). According to the proposed par. 13 (a), a public-private risk capital measure managed by a subsidiary of the private investor would not benefit from the exemption. We believe that the future regulation should take these market failures into account by making the manager s independence requirement more flexible. Suggested formulation (a) the manager must be an independent professional, or commit by law or contract to act independently, and must be obliged by law or contract to act with the diligence of a professional manager and in good faith Furthermore, the manager s independence requirement laid down in paragraph 13 (a) does not appear to be coherent with paragraph 13 (c), which states that the manager shall receive a remuneration linked to performance, or shall share part of the investment risks by co-investing own resources on the same risk conditions as the public investor. It appears that the general rule is the manager s independence while the possibility for the manager to invest its own resources is an exception to such rule only in cases where its remuneration is not linked to performance. In our opinion, the regulation should specify under what conditions the manager can become an investor itself. Particularly under which conditions the manager is considered independent with regards to a target SME. Independence would require, that no investment can be made to an SME where (a) prior to the first investment decision the manager is already an investor, owner or has other direct or indirect interest, or (b) with regards to follow up investments, the manager controls more than [e.g. 10] % of the SME, excluding the share controlled by the financial intermediary managed by the manager. Paragraph 13 (e) provides that private investors shall be represented in the governance bodies of the investment intermediary in proportion to their participation but shall not be involved in the day-to-day financing decisions. This rule reflects the practice of investment funds, where an independent manager is in charge of taking financing decisions independently from the investors. However, if the measure takes the form of a co-investment, the day-to-day management of the investment (including market screening) lies on the manager whereas the final decisions on investments and divestitures are normally taken by the

6 6 investors (represented e.g. in a steering committee or board of directors) based on the proposals of the manager. In this regard, we suggest that the Commission clarifies the meaning of day-to-day financing decision. Private investors should as a group be allowed to be involved in the actual selection of SMEs the financial intermediary invests in, as long as the investors are independent from these SMEs (no prior direct or indirect invested interest). This would be more consistent with the fact that the draft regulation allows different forms of risk capital investments other than the participation into investment funds. Article 20 SME s access to finance: aid for start-ups In our opinion, the proposed maximum levels of loans and guarantees are suitable. However, we propose that the maximum level of grants is increased to EUR 0.5 million as this way the maximum amount allowed to small and innovative enterprises would be EUR 1 million as in the present GBER. We find the proposed regional bonuses of 50 to 100 % too high. Suitable level would be maximum 20 to 25 %. This would mean 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7 million for all start-ups and 1.0, 1.2 and 1.4 million for young innovative start-ups depending on the assisted status of the region. Article 23 Aid for research and development projects It is important that references to technology have been abandoned and that the provisions on R&D&I aid now cover also non-technological fields. In our opinion, the basic aid intensities are good. However, the aid intensity applied to feasibility studies is now 50 %, also for SMEs, which we find unjustified. SMEs should be encouraged to make a feasibility study before entering R&D&I projects, which is why we propose that the bonuses listed in paragraph 6 also apply to feasibility studies. At this moment, it is proposed that the bonuses only apply to industrial research and experimental development. In the paragraph 3 it is proposed that the net revenues of a commercially usable prototype or pilot from the first five years of commercial use shall be deducted from the eligible costs ex ante or ex post. It is reasonable that the revenues must be deducted but it is good that the time period for this obligation is limited to a certain time. However we noticed some unclear issues in this paragraph which would need further clarification. First, it is unclear what is meant by commercial use. This should be clearly defined in this paragraph. For example, if the prototype or pilot is used mainly for research or testing purposes and only to a small extent commercially, does this constitute commercial use? Second, we hope that it could be clarified that the revenues are deducted from the eligible costs of the project in which the prototype or pilot was created. Third, if the revenues are deducted ex ante, is the aid authority obliged to monitor ex post whether these estimated revenues are later exceeded? If such monitoring obligation is established, it will remarkably increase the bureaucracy. Fourth, the period of five years is counted from the first commercial use which may lead to very long obligation to follow and report the revenues depending on when the commercial use begins. For example if the prototype is tested for three years after the project and only after that it is used commercially, this would lead to monitoring obligation of eight years. We propose that the time limit is counted from the end of the project and that the period is shorter, three years. If the time period is counted from the end of the project, there is no need to define commercial use.

7 7 Suggested formulation Where an aided project results in a commercially usable prototype or pilot, the net revenues from the first three years from the end of the project shall be deducted ex ante or ex post from the eligible costs of the project where the prototype or pilot was created. We consider the regional bonus proposed in paragraph 6 (c) good and reasonable but we find the wording of the Article difficult to understand. Article 24 Investment aid for research infrastructures We welcome the proposed new provision on research infrastructures. We would have hoped that the provision had been wider, covering with certain restrictions also the aid to users of infrastructure. However, we understand that the Commission wants to gain experience on the new aid through notifications. The Commission could consider including provisions on aid to users so far as the aid can be clearly defined and limited, as we have proposed in our earlier comments. We hope that the Commission could further clarify the purpose and reasoning of this Article, especially relating to the following issues: 1) If the infrastructure is owned by a public research organization, are its contributions to developing this infrastructure in the form of investments, personnel and/or other costs calculated as State aid? 2) Is the proposed level of aid consistent with that available for undertakings under GBER for their similar investments? 3) If the infrastructure is used for both economic and non-economic activities do the eligible costs include the whole investment or only the part of the costs based on the share of the capacity that is planned to be used for economic activities? 4) Is the main purpose of the provision to cover research infrastructure developed primarily for economic activities? We suggest that the eligible costs under this provision would be limited to investment costs to the extent the research infrastructure is used for economic activities. This would allow additional investments for the purposes of non-economic activities, which would not be regarded as State aid. The aid would therefore more clearly focus on investment aid for research infrastructures to the extent they are used for economic activities, which seems to be the underlying focus of this provision, but it should be more clearly stated. This in mind the proposed levels of aid intensity seem appropriate. Furthermore, we paid attention to the provision that undertakings which have financed at least 50% the investment costs of the research infrastructure may have preferential access to such infrastructure. In the proposed Article we noticed that the duration of the preferential access is not defined. Thus it is unclear, whether it is enough that the duration and other limits of the preferential access are proportionate according to Article 7. In our opinion, the preferential access should be limited either to certain time period or to certain share of the capacity of the research infrastructure. We trust that in the R&D&I framework it is defined on which conditions funding or use of research infrastructure contains no state aid. Especially this is important in cases of dual use infrastructures with

8 8 only ancillary economic use of the infrastructure and in cases where it is possible to separate the economic and non-economic activities and the public funding only supports the non-economic activities. Article 25 Innovation aid for SMEs We welcome the merging of all innovation aid instruments to the same Article. The proposed aid intensity of 50 percent is reasonable. However, we paid attention to the eligible costs which still contain several limited types of cost which only to limited extent cover the own costs of an aid recipient. This makes the Article look quite fragmented. In order to make this article easier to use we propose that the types of activities that can be funded by this instrument are defined in a wider and more flexible way, with less need to detailed provisions and definitions. This would make the provision more understandable and flexible, while keeping to the original purpose. We propose that the innovation aid can be granted to three types of slightly broader class of activities related to innovation: 1) to obtaining, validating patents and other industrial property rights; 2) to activities to enhance the innovation capabilities of an organization, including secondment of highly-qualified personnel and process or organizational innovation; 3) to activities preparing for commercial launch such as advisory and support services, including market research, knowledge transfer, agreements, testing and certification, as well as participation in a fair or exhibition. Furthermore, it is suggested that these are based on two new definitions, which partly replace the definitions of innovation advisory and support services as well as complement the other related definitions. These two new definitions would allow additional flexibility between and beyond previously rather limited innovation aids. The suggested formulation would also ensure that all current forms of innovation aid are in the new regulation. We also propose that eligible costs cover the same costs as in R&D project. Suggested new formulation The eligible activities shall be eligible: (a) obtaining and validating patents and other industrial property rights; (b) developing the innovation capability of the organisation; (c) preparing for commercial launch of a new or significantly improved product or service, excluding marketing, investments or any other direct commercial costs. The eligible costs shall be the following: (a) personnel costs; (b) costs of instruments, equipment, buildings and land to the extent and for the period used for the innovation project; (c) costs of consultancy, training and equivalent services used exclusively for the innovation activity; (d) additional overheads and other operating costs, including costs of materials, supplies and similar products, incurred directly as a result of the innovation project;

9 9 Suggested new definitions 'innovation capability' means the organisation s ability to identify market needs and opportunities, come up with novel ideas and develop them in to new or significantly improved products and services, including but not limited to organisational arrangements (including organisational innovation), innovation and business processes (including process innovation), access to networks and other relevant collaborative arrangements, skilled staff and access to other qualified human resources (including training, consultancy, and secondment of highly qualified personnel), and ability to acquire, manage, transfer and protect (including trade in intellectual property rights and licensing agreements) relevant knowledge; 'preparing for commercial launch' means preparatory activities necessary for launching a new or significantly improved product or service to the market, including but not limited to access to office space, data banks, libraries and laboratories, market research, quality labelling, testing and certification, and participation in a fair or exhibition presenting new or significantly improved products and/or services; Comments on Annex I Definitions Definition 15: Intangible assets We suggest that the proposed references to technology are replaced with knowledge and skills for the sake of consistency and to better cover all relevant intangible assets. Suggested formulation 'intangible assets' means assets entailed by the transfer of knowledge and skills through the acquisition of patent rights, licences, know-how or unpatented knowledge; Definition 16: Large enterprises The reference should be to Annex II instead of Annex I. Definition 20: Repayable advance In our opinion it is good that the use of repayable advance as an aid instrument is made more attractive. The Commission should nevertheless clarify if the repayable advance need not be paid back if the aided project totally fails technically or commercially. We assume that this is the correct interpretation as the aid would not have any negative effect on the market if the project failed. Definition 23: small and medium-sized enterprise The definition of an SME refers to Annex II which is in accordance with the SME definition from In view of continuously strengthening global competition and ensuring a level playing field between European SMEs and their international competitors, we ask the Commission to consider if the thresholds of the definition could be increased in accordance with our earlier comments. Currently the definitions applied in Europe and e.g. in the USA leave European companies with 250 to 500 employees at a clear disadvantage. Definition 57: Financial intermediary

10 10 The Commission should clarify the definition of financial intermediary. Financial intermediaries such as fund-of-funds that are established for the purpose of implementing the risk finance measure can take two different forms: (1) those that act similar to any other financial intermediary, or (2) those that act as State aid authorities similar to State aid Agencies. If this definition is interpreted to cover also the latter, then organisational set ups for exactly the same purpose are treated unequally (agency vs. fund-of-funds), which makes no sense. Member States should be allowed to establish specific types of financial intermediaries, e.g. fund-of-funds, that act merely as vehicles in facilitating the implementation of the risk finance measure in a similar fashion than a State aid authority would. Investments by these in real financial intermediaries should be made using open and transparent selection criteria. No other investments in financial markets or companies should be allowed. These entities should not primarily be profit seeking, but address market failures and seek longer term impact. We propose a new formulation of this definition taking into account the above said: Suggested new formulation 'financial intermediary' means any financial intermediary, regardless of its form and ownership, including fund-of-funds, private equity investment funds, public investment funds and entities entrusted by the Member State for the purposes of implementing the risk finance measure, except entities defined (or that act) as State aid authorities; Definition 58 The Commission should define more closely what is meant by first commercial sale. Young innovative companies should be allowed to practice secondary economic activities (e.g. services outside the scope of their pursued main business) to have some form of income aside from capital and State aid, without it being interpreted as first commercial sale. Such secondary economic activities should be allowed and the first commercial sale should only relate to starting of the actual pursued main business. Thus, we propose that the definition is modified to allow limited sales and other secondary economic activities limited in scope: Suggested new formulation 'first commercial sale' means the first sale by a company on a product or service market, excluding limited sales to test the market and any secondary economic activity which is limited in scope; Definition 75: Arms-length This definition is used also in Section 2 Aid for SMEs and should thus be in general definitions instead of definitions for aid for R&D&I. Definition 77: Experimental development In our opinion it is good that provisions on prototypes and demonstrations are added to the definition of the experimental development. This makes it possible to grant aid to pilots and demonstrations of

11 11 commercial scale that are necessary in many sectors in order to proof the functioning of new innovative solutions. We propose that the word technical is abandoned from the definition as this word unnecessarily leaves outside this definition innovative solutions that are not primarily technical but to which it is necessary to demonstrate their functioning in large scale and in real life context prior to commercial exploitation. Definition 80: Industrial research We suggest that the proposed references to manufacturing and technical products are extended to better cover research aiming at new services. Suggested formulation small scale pilots to test and validate the performance, when necessary for the industrial research and notably for generic validation, insofar as such prototypes and pilots cannot be used commercially Definition 83: Innovative enterprise This definition should be under Definitions for Aid for SMEs. Definition 87: Research and knowledge-dissemination organisation We welcome the addendum of innovation intermediaries to the definition of research organisation. This is in accordance what we have proposed in our earlier comments. There are two concerns we would like to raise on this definition. First, according to the definition, the dissemination should be on a non-exclusive basis. We cannot support this proposal as there are many situations in which exclusive rights are essential for commercial exploitation, for example in case of start ups. Naturally the exclusivity should be limited to the market and field needed, the market price should be paid, and the exclusivity should be limited to commercial use while the use in research would still be possible to the research organisation. Granting exclusive rights within such limits would not contradict the research and knowledge-dissemination organisations primary objective of dissemination. Thus we propose that the limitation to non-exclusive basis is removed. Secondly, there is a new requirement that the economic activities of the research organisation may represent only a non-essential proportion of the budget devoted to independent research. This requirement may lead to a situation where many European research institutes will no longer comply with the definition of research organisation. To many institutes contract research is an important source of income and they use contract research projects also to identify industry needs and build relevant competencies. If this definition limits the degree to which research organisations are allowed to engage in economic activities, the income of the research organisations will be reduced and the need for basic funding will increase. If the decline in income from contract research is not compensated by more basic funding, less research will be performed. Respectively, if the research institutes continue to engage in contract research to the same extent as today, they will not any longer be defined as research organisations according to the new definition. This will have several negative consequences. Amongst them will be a greater extent of uncertainty concerning which activities will be regarded as economic and non-

12 12 economic, as they will no longer be able to lean on the description of the non-economic activities of research organisation. Nor will they benefit from the fact that the possibility of higher aid intensities in effective collaboration projects between undertakings and research organisations may make such projects more attractive to undertakings. In our understanding the requirements for (a) separate accounting and (b) no funds from non-economic activities can be transferred directly or indirectly to economic activities are sufficient to ensure that economic activities do not receive unfair advantage compared to similar activities on the market. We suggest that the new requirement that economic activities of a research organisation may represent only a non-essential proportion of the budget devoted to independent research, is removed. Suggested new formulation; Other The entity may pursue economic activities as long as these contribute to its primary goal in that they are not prejudicial to the independence of the entity's primary activities, are intrinsically linked to the primary activities, are carried out on market terms, and all profits (after investments to the development of facilities necessary for the economic activities) are reinvested in the RO s primary activities. As there are no provisions on innovative public procurement in the GBER, we assume that the conditions under which innovative public procurement is not considered to contain state aid are introduced in the R&D&I framework.