CONCLUSION. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission, first, withdraws Decision C(2018) 6268 final of 28 September 2018 in Case SA.51981 (2018/FC) – Denmark – Complaint about alleged unlawful aid to Femern A/S and A/S Femern Landanlaeg in so far as it relates to alleged unlawful aid granted to Femern A/S (this concerns the measures granted to Femern A/S that are considered in Sec- tions 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5 of that decision). Second, the Commission needs to examine further, in particular, whether Xxxxxxx A/S is engaged in an economic activity, whether the other conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU are met with regard to the measures granted or allegedly granted to Xxxxxxx A/S described in Section 2.4 above, whether possible aid measures constitute individual aid or a scheme and whether those measures can be declared compatible with the internal market. In view of the doubts raised as to the compatibility with the internal market of those measures, the Commission decides to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 108(2) TFEU. Therefore, the Commission requires Denmark, within one month of receipt of this letter, to provide all documents, updated and com- plete information and data needed for the further assessment of the economic or non-economic character of the activity of Femern A/S and the extent to which the other conditions of Article 107(1) TFEU are met in relation to all of the measures, as well as the com- patibility with the internal market of those measures. Otherwise the Commission will adopt a decision on the basis of the information in its possession. It requests your authorities to forward a copy of this letter to the recipient of the aid immediately. The Commission warns Denmark that it will inform interested parties by publishing this letter and a meaningful summary of it in the Official Journal of the European Union. It will also inform interested parties in the EFTA countries which are signatories to the EEA Agreement, by publication of a notice in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union and will inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority by sending a copy of this letter. All such interested parties will be invited to submit their comments within one month of the date of such publication.
CONCLUSION. (104) In order to allow the Commission to take a final view on the viability of EBS the following aspects of the restruc turing plan need to be further justified: (i) the evolution of mortgage lending in Ireland in the medium-term, more specifically the attitude of foreign-owned banks on the retail mortgage- and deposit market; (ii) the level of impairment of mortgage loans; (iii) the liquidity position of EBS; (iv) developments on the corporate deposit market; (v) impairments on commercial loan book in run-off; (vi) the cost-income ratio and (vii) cost of wholesale funding in the medium-term.
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. (127) In conclusion, the Commission has insufficient information to conclude whether the aid will be limited to the minimum necessary, in view of the discrepancy between the objective of the recapitalisation (that EBS should be able to respect its capital ratio requirements (Core Tier 1 ratio of 8 %)) and the forecasts of the restructuring plan which foresee that EBS will largely exceed its capital ratio requirement (Core Tier 1 ratio exceeds […] over the period).
CONCLUSION. (142) The Commission doubts that sufficient measures are taken to offset the distortive effects of the aid, considering the high amount of aid EBS received both in absolute terms (including the aid element in guar antees) and in terms of risk-weighted assets. The Commission furthermore doubts whether the lack of supply on the mortgage lending market will really last several years and whether it adequately justifies the limited restructuring undertaken by EBS. The Commission thus invites third parties to comment on these issues.
CONCLUSION. (143) On the basis of the forgoing, the Commission has doubts on the viability of EBS, and also currently doubts whether the aid is limited to the minimum and whether the measures limiting the distortion of competition are sufficient. The Commission therefore doubts at this stage that the restructuring plan fulfils all the conditions laid down in the Restructuring Communication.
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.
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: