CONCLUSION. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission has accordingly decided: — not to raise objections to individual aid to SATA Air Açores for a period of six months in an amount not exceeding EUR 133 million of liquidity needs of its essential activities related to the provision of public service obligations related to air transport to the Region Azores and to the management and operation of services of general interest in the airports in the same Azores Region, on the grounds that it is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) and Article 106(2)TFEU and — acting under the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, request the Portuguese Republic to submit, within one month of the date of receipt of this letter, its comments and to provide all such information as may help to assess the compatibility of the capital increases of SATA Air Açores subscribed by the Region of Azores since 2017 and of the guaranteed rescue loan to SATA Air Açores with all the conditions applicable to the rescue aid. The information should include, in particular:
1. evidence showing that the decision to carry out the capital increases in 2017 and thereafter was taken on the basis of economic evaluations comparable to those which, in similar circumstances, a rational market economy operator with characteristics similar to those of the Regional Government of Azores would have had carried out to determine the profitability or economic advantages of the capital increases;
2. in the absence of such economic evaluations, objective and verifiable evidence dating back to the period before or simultaneous to the capital increases and showing i) that the capital increases fall to be ascribed to the Regional Government of Azores acting as a private market operator, and not as public authority, ii) that it took a decision to make an investment in SATA, iii) the nature and subject-matter of the capital increases, the context, the objective pursued and the rules to which capital increases of the kind at issue are subject; evidence or information post-dating the decision to increase capital will not be taken into account;
3. observations with supporting evidence to the effect that the capital increases since 2017 were granted in exceptional and unforeseen circumstances of which XXXX is not responsible or that such circumstances thereafter should be taken into account to assess the compatibility of the rescue a...
CONCLUSION. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission has accordingly decided: — not to raise objections to individual aid to SATA Air Açores — Sociedade Açoriana de Transportes Aéreos S.A in an amount not exceeding EUR 255,5 million of liquidity needs of its essential activities related to the provision of public service obligations related to air transport to the Azores Region and to the management and operation of services of general interest in the airports in the same Azores Region, on the grounds that it is compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) and Article 106(2)TFEU and — acting under the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, request the Portuguese Republic to submit, within one month of the date of receipt of this letter, its comments and to provide all such information as may help to assess the compatibility of the restructuring aid with all the conditions applicable.
CONCLUSION. (109) The Commission thus concludes, on the one hand, that Measure 1 (Acquisition of MMD by PCC in 2008) does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
(110) On the other hand, the Commission has doubts as to the State aid character of the remaining Measures 2–5 as well as of their possible compatibility with the internal market.
CONCLUSION. (115) The compensation for the provision of the USO during the transitory regime in favour of ELTA amounts to State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
CONCLUSION. (125) The compensation for the provision of the USO for the years 2015 to 2019 (or 2016-2020) in favour of ELTA amounts to State aid within the meaning of 107(1) TFEU.
CONCLUSION. (156) In view of the above, the Commission concludes that the State compensations in the form of direct grant for the delivery of the universal service for the transitory regime 2013-2014 or 2013-2015 are compatible with the TFEU under Article 106(2) TFEU, as they meet all the applicable conditions of the 2012 SGEI Decision.
CONCLUSION. (205) In view of the above, the Commission concludes that the State compensations for the delivery of the universal service over 2015-2019 (or 2016-2020) meet all the conditions of the 2012 SGEI Framework set out in its sections 2.1 to 2.8.
(206) However, the Commission is concerned that the compensation fund envisaged for 2015-2019 (or 2016-2020) and in particular the level of the financial contributions from providers of services currently foreseen by the Greek authorities may raise serious competition distortions.
(207) Therefore, the Commission considers it necessary to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in Article 108(2) TFEU in relation to the compensation fund mechanism.
CONCLUSION. (212) On the basis of the currently available information and the elements described above, the Commission seeks clarification and solicits comments concerning the amount of compensation under the 2016 amendments and in particular the compensation for the entirety of the following costs:
(a) Boil-off costs: whether all the boil-off costs can be considered ‘economically justified’ costs linked to the SGEI and incurred efficiently for the period from 2016 to 2018; whether the compensation for the entirety of the boil-off costs under the 2016 amendments was ‘necessary’ for the operation of the SGEI; whether the Purchase Obligation determined, in any way whatsoever, the extent of the boil-off costs incurred by Litgas in connection with the SGEI; and
CONCLUSION. (34) Based on the information submitted by the Swedish au thorities, the Commission, after carrying out the preliminary assessment, is of the opinion that the financing by the municipality of Uppsala of a new arena in Uppsala - within the context of the project as outlined above – might constitute state aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. As outlined above, the Commission has doubts as regards the compatibility of the potential state aid with the internal market.
(35) Given these doubts and the impact of potential state aid on the investments of private operators it appears necessary that the Commission opens the formal investi gation procedure.
(36) Finally, the opening of the procedure enables interested third parties to comment on the questions raised by this project.
(37) In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, requests Sweden to submit its comments and to provide all such information as may help to assess the aid/measure, within one month of the date of receipt of this letter. It requests your authorities to forward a copy of this letter to the potential recipient of the aid immediately.
CONCLUSION. (57) Based on the information submitted by the complainant and by the Norwegian authorities, and taking into account the judgment of the EFTa Court, the authority has doubts as to whether the grants to the NDLa constitute State aid within the meaning of article 61(1) EEa. Furthermore, the authority has doubts regarding the compatibility of the measure with the functioning of the EEa agreement.
(58) Given these doubts and the impact of potential State aid on the investments of private operators it appears necessary that the authority opens the formal investigation procedure. Consequently, and in accordance with article 4(4) of Part II of Protocol 3, the authority is obliged to initiate the formal investigation procedure provided for in article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3.
(59) The decision to open a formal investigation procedure is without prejudice to the final decision of the authority, which may conclude that the measures in question are compatible with the functioning of the EEa agreement or that they do not constitute State aid.
(60) The opening of the procedure will also enable interested third parties to comment on the questions raised and on the impact of the measure on the relevant markets.
(61) In light of the foregoing considerations, the authority, acting under the procedure laid down in article 1(2) of Part I of Protocol 3, hereby invites the Norwegian authorities to submit their comments and to provide all documents, information and data needed for the assessment of the compatibility of the measures within one month from the date of receipt of this Decision.
(62) Further, the authority invites the Norwegian authorities to forward a copy of this Decision to the potential recipients of the aid immediately.
(63) The authority would like to remind the Norwegian authorities that, according to article 14 of Part II of Protocol 3, any incompatible aid unlawfully put at the disposal of the beneficiaries will have to be recovered, unless this recovery would be contrary to a general principle of EEa law. Moreover, according to article 15 Part II of Protocol 3, the powers of the authority to order the recovery of aid are subject to a limitation period of 10 years. This period begins on the day on which the unlawful aid is awarded. any action taken by the authority with regard to this unlawful aid shall interrupt the limitation period.
(64) attention is drawn to the fact that the authority will inform interested parties by publishing this letter and a m...