and “to the extent that funds are not available from other sources on reasonable
terms”.
31 It is understandable how the first criterion might be somewhat problematic
to the maritime sector if it is construed narrowly and literally. It should be pointed
out that the EIB statute being part of EU law is subject to the so-called teleological
approach to the interpretation of legal provisions. It is worth recalling that
teleological interpretation in EU law does not refer exclusively to a purpose driven interpretation of the relevant legal rules. It refers to a particular systemic understanding of the EU
legal order that permeates the interpretation of all its rules.
32
It follows thus that the notion of “territories” would not be construed as requiring
that the project takes place on EU territories but that the investment’s benefits are felt
by EU stakeholders and that there should be some socio-economic connection with
EU based undertakings. In economic regulation jurisprudence in the EU, such as
competition law, the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) has taken the line that economic
effects or impact cannot be confined merely to the activities conducted in the territories
of the EU.
33 It is reasoned that this approach would follow here in the determination of
the EIB’s “territorial” lending competence. Indeed, the EU Parliament and Council in
a Decision
34 specifically makes reference to the EIB’s competence to finance projects
outside the EU. The EU actually sees the use of financial support as a foreign policy
tool. Recital 8 of the Decision for example states:
In its report the steering committee concluded that the EU guarantee is an efficient and
powerful policy instrument with high financial and political leverage and that it should be
maintained in order to cover risks of a political or sovereign nature. Some amendments to
Decision No 633/2009/EC were proposed in order to ensure maximum added value and
efficiency of the EIB’s external operations.
In the context of the Decision establishing an EU guarantee given to the EIB for
financing projects outside the EU, as a foreign policy tool, the EU publishes a list of
countries potentially eligible for financial support.
35 In conjunction with this, the
Decision also stresses that eligibility to receive EIB financing for climate-change
31 Art 16, Statute of the EIB.
32 Per Advocate General Miguel Poiares Maduro writing in a personal capacity (see Interpreting
European Law: Judicial Adjudication in a Context of Constitutional Pluralism, Article 8 (2007)
Vol. 1, Issue 2 European Journal of Legal Studies 5).
33 The matter of extra territorial reach of EU competition law has been extremely controversial for
obvious reasons—see generally C-89/85 A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and others v Commission [1988]
ECR 1-5913 (Woodpulp); T-102/96 Gencor Ltd v. Commission [1999] ECR II-753 (Gencor); and
more recently C-413/14 P Intel Corporation Inc v. Commission (Intel) ECLI:EU:C:2017:632.
Indeed, the CJEU has made it plain that, as regards the application of Article 101 TFEU, that the
fact that an undertaking participating in an agreement is situated in a third country does not prevent
the application of that provision if that agreement is operative on the territory of the internal market
(judgment of 25 November 1971, Béguelin Import, 22/71, EU:C:1971:113, para 11).
34 Decision No 1080/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011
granting an EU guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan
guarantees for projects outside the Union.
35 Annex I to Decision No 633/2009/EC.
Legal Aspects of Green Shipping Finance: Insights from the European. . .
141
terms”.
31 It is understandable how the first criterion might be somewhat problematic
to the maritime sector if it is construed narrowly and literally. It should be pointed
out that the EIB statute being part of EU law is subject to the so-called teleological
approach to the interpretation of legal provisions. It is worth recalling that
teleological interpretation in EU law does not refer exclusively to a purpose driven interpretation of the relevant legal rules. It refers to a particular systemic understanding of the EU
legal order that permeates the interpretation of all its rules.
32
It follows thus that the notion of “territories” would not be construed as requiring
that the project takes place on EU territories but that the investment’s benefits are felt
by EU stakeholders and that there should be some socio-economic connection with
EU based undertakings. In economic regulation jurisprudence in the EU, such as
competition law, the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) has taken the line that economic
effects or impact cannot be confined merely to the activities conducted in the territories
of the EU.
33 It is reasoned that this approach would follow here in the determination of
the EIB’s “territorial” lending competence. Indeed, the EU Parliament and Council in
a Decision
34 specifically makes reference to the EIB’s competence to finance projects
outside the EU. The EU actually sees the use of financial support as a foreign policy
tool. Recital 8 of the Decision for example states:
In its report the steering committee concluded that the EU guarantee is an efficient and
powerful policy instrument with high financial and political leverage and that it should be
maintained in order to cover risks of a political or sovereign nature. Some amendments to
Decision No 633/2009/EC were proposed in order to ensure maximum added value and
efficiency of the EIB’s external operations.
In the context of the Decision establishing an EU guarantee given to the EIB for
financing projects outside the EU, as a foreign policy tool, the EU publishes a list of
countries potentially eligible for financial support.
35 In conjunction with this, the
Decision also stresses that eligibility to receive EIB financing for climate-change
31 Art 16, Statute of the EIB.
32 Per Advocate General Miguel Poiares Maduro writing in a personal capacity (see Interpreting
European Law: Judicial Adjudication in a Context of Constitutional Pluralism, Article 8 (2007)
Vol. 1, Issue 2 European Journal of Legal Studies 5).
33 The matter of extra territorial reach of EU competition law has been extremely controversial for
obvious reasons—see generally C-89/85 A. Ahlström Osakeyhtiö and others v Commission [1988]
ECR 1-5913 (Woodpulp); T-102/96 Gencor Ltd v. Commission [1999] ECR II-753 (Gencor); and
more recently C-413/14 P Intel Corporation Inc v. Commission (Intel) ECLI:EU:C:2017:632.
Indeed, the CJEU has made it plain that, as regards the application of Article 101 TFEU, that the
fact that an undertaking participating in an agreement is situated in a third country does not prevent
the application of that provision if that agreement is operative on the territory of the internal market
(judgment of 25 November 1971, Béguelin Import, 22/71, EU:C:1971:113, para 11).
34 Decision No 1080/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011
granting an EU guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan
guarantees for projects outside the Union.
35 Annex I to Decision No 633/2009/EC.
Legal Aspects of Green Shipping Finance: Insights from the European. . .
141