PROCEDURE. (1) Following pre-notification contacts (1), on 13 August 2020, Portugal notified to the Commission its plans to grant rescue aid in favour of XXXX. Portugal amended and completed the notification on 14 August 2020.
(2) Portugal agreed exceptionally to waive the rights deriving from Article 342 TFEU in conjunction with Article 3 of the EC Regulation 1/1958 (2) and to have the decision adopted and notified pursuant to Article 297 TFEU in English.
PROCEDURE. 1.1. Besluit van de Commissie van 23 juli 2003 ver nietigd door het Gerecht van eerste aanleg
1. Op 3 december 2002 hebben de Belgische autoriteiten de Commissie in kennis gesteld (7) van een verhoging van het kapitaal van De Post, de Belgische exploitant van postdien sten. Na een inleidend onderzoek besloot de Commissie op 23 juli 2003 (8) geen bezwaar te maken tegen de aange melde maatregel. De Commissie was in haar besluit
PROCEDURE. (1) By decision of 18 December 2008 the European Commis sion approved in case N 615/08 emergency State aid from Germany to BayernLB in form of a risk shield of EUR 4,8 billion and a capital injection of EUR 10 billion on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU for a period of six months or until the submission of a credible and substantiated restruc turing plan for the bank (1). a výhledově vysoké náklady na financování vzhledem k ukončení platnosti záruk spolkové země Korutany a ukončení finanční podpory ze strany původního vlastníka
(1) Commission Decision of 18 December 2008 in case N 615/08
(2) In the same month, BayernLB's subsidiary Hypo Group Alpe Adria (HGAA) received EUR 700 million from BayernLB following large write-downs and losses. In addi tion, HGAA received EUR 900 million in Tier 1 Partizipa tionskapital (1) from the Republic of Austria on the basis of the Austrian emergency bank support scheme (2).
(3) On 29 April 2009, Germany notified a restructuring plan for BayernLB (including HGAA) to the Commission. At the same date Austria provided a viability plan for HGAA.
(4) In its decision of 12 May 2009 in case N 254/09 (3) the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure, raising doubts about the compatibility of the restructuring aid to BayernLB with the internal market, in particular whether the restructuring plan was apt to restore the viabi lity of BayernLB (“the opening decision”). In the same decision, the Commission questioned whether HGAA was fundamentally sound and it expressed doubts regar ding the compatibility with Article 87(3)(b) of the EC Treaty, now Article 107(3)(b) TFEU, of the aid granted to HGAA by Austria.
(5) Austria notified additional aid measures on 18 December 2009, including a temporary asset guarantee under the Austrian scheme, a capital injection and a provision of liquidity, see below point 19.
(6) In its decision of 23 December 2009 in cases C 16/09 and N 698/09 (4) (“the rescue decision”) the Commission extended the procedure in relation to the following measures in favour of HGAA which it at the same time found temporarily compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 107(3)(b) TFEU until the submission of a credible restructuring plan and its assessment by the Commission, but at most for a period of six months: a temporary guarantee of EUR 100 million, a recapitalisation of EUR 200 million by Land Carinthia, a further recapitalisation for a maximum amount of EUR 350 million and the liq...
PROCEDURE. (1) By decision of 2 June 2010 (4), the Commission temporarily authorised a recapitalisation of Educational Building Society (hereinafter “EBS”) as emergency aid subject to the condition that Irish authorities would submit an in-depth restructuring plan for EBS before 30 June 2010.
(2) On 31 May 2010, the Irish authorities submitted a restructuring plan for EBS.
(3) The Commission requested further information regarding the restructuring plan on 21 June and 9 July 2010. The Irish authorities responded on 9, 13 and 14 July, 26 August and 2 September 2010.
(4) The Commission services met with the Irish authorities and EBS on 31 August 2010.
PROCEDURE. (1) By letter dated 15 april 2010 Den Norske Forleggerforening, the Norwegian Publishers association (‘NPa’), sent a complaint alleging that illegal State aid has been granted to the Nasjonal digital læringsarena (‘NDLa’). The letter was received and registered by the authority on 16 april 2010 (Event No 553723). Following a telephone conference on 15 July 2011 the complainant provided additional information by email on the same day (Event No 608593).
PROCEDURE. (1) By letter dated 18 August 2020, the Commission informed Portugal that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the TFEU in respect of public financing of past capital increases of SATA and of planned rescue aid (the ‘Opening Decision’). The Opening Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (1). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid.
(2) By the same letter dated 18 August 2020, the Commission informed Portugal that it had decided not to raise objections to individual aid to SATA in the form or public guarantees or loans in an amount not exceeding EUR 133 million of liquidity needs related to the provision of public service obligations related to air transport to the Azores Region and to the operation of services of general interest in the airports in the same Region, on the grounds that it was compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) and Article 106(2) TFEU.
(3) On 17 February 2021, Portugal submitted a restructuring plan for SATA, which was updated on 10 March 2021. On 14 April 2021, Portugal notified its intention to grant restructuring aid supporting the restructuring plan.
(4) By letters dated 29 March 2021 and 16 April 2021, the Regional Government of Azores requested that the guarantees on loans that the Commission authorised on 18 August 2020 continue until 18 November 2021 and that more guarantees up to an additional amount of EUR 122,5 million be authorised for a seven-month period, pending the assessment of the restructuring plan.
(5) Portugal agreed exceptionally to waive the rights deriving from Article 342 TFEU in conjunction with Article 3 of the EC Regulation 1/1958 (2) and to have the decision adopted and notified pursuant to Article 297 TFEU in English.
PROCEDURE. (1) By letter of 21 July 2009, registered at the Commission the following day under number CP 231/2009, the Commission received a complaint from airline operator Ryanair Ltd, regarding alleged unlawful and illegal State aid through five measures stemming from the air travel tax, which is an excise duty established by Ireland.
(2) By letter of 28 July 2009, the Commission forwarded the complaint to the Irish authorities and asked for their position on the claims brought forward therein.
(3) By letter of 26 August 2009, the Irish authorities asked for an extension of the deadline to reply, which the Commission accepted in letter of 3 September 2009.
(4) On 15 October 2009, the Irish authorities responded to the letter of the Commission. Their reply was registered at the Commission on the same day.
(5) Since the alleged aid had been implemented without prior notification to the Commission, the case was registered as a non-notified measure, 2011/NN. The Commission carried out a preliminary investigation of that measure, pursuant to Article 108(3) TFEU.
(6) By Decision of 13 July 2011, adopted at the end of the preliminary investigation stage, the Commission found that four of the alleged aid measures (including the non-application of the air travel tax to transfer and transit passengers) did not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. By the same decision, it initiated a formal investigation concerning the fifth alleged aid measure, which concerned the difference in rates for flights to destinations located no more than 300 kilometres from Dublin Airport and all other flights.
(7) By application lodged at the Registry of the General Court on 24 September 2011, Ryanair Ltd brought an action for annulment in part of aforementioned Commission Decision in so far as it finds that the non-application of the Irish air travel tax to transfer and transit passengers does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
(8) On 25 July 2012 the Commission adopted its decision on the fifth aid measure. It found that Ireland had granted State aid in the form of a lower air travel tax applicable to flights to destinations no more than 300 kilometres from Dublin Airport between 30 March 2009 and 2011. Since that State aid was unlawful and incompatible with the internal market, the decision ordered Ireland to recover the incompatible aid from the beneficiaries.
(1) Judgment of 25.11.2014, Ryanair v Commission, T-512/11, EU:T:2014:989....
PROCEDURE. (1) On 10 April 2013, the Commission received a complaint alleging unlawful aid provided by Portsmouth City Council (‘PCC’) to MMD Shipping Services Ltd. (‘MMD’). Submission of a formal complaint was preceded by an informal submission by the complainant of 8 June 2012 and a meeting of 29 November 2012.
PROCEDURE. (1) On 13 July 2009, the Commission approved aid for the financing of the planning phase of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project (‘Fehmarn Belt’) (3).
(2) Following a prenotification phase, by letter dated 22 December 2014, the Danish authorities notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 108(3) of the Treaty the financing model of the Fehmarn Belt. On 13 February 2015, the Commission services sent a request for information to Denmark, which replied on 24 and 27 February, as well as 11 March 2015. The Commission services sent another request for information on 25 March 2015 and Denmark replied on 8 April 2015. On 13 April 2015 and 8 May 2015 the Commission services sent additional requests for information to Denmark. The latter submitted additional information on 19 and 27 May 2015, as well as on 8 July 2015.
(3) On 5 June 2014, 5 September 2014, 26 November 2014, 19 January 2015, and 22 April 2015, the Commission received five complaints (4) alleging that Denmark had granted unlawful and incompatible State aid for the planning, construction and operation of the Fehmarn Belt in favour of Femern A/S and A/S Femern Landanlæg (5). Non-confidential versions of the complaints were received on 23 July 2014, 22 December 2014, 18 February 2015 and 30 April 2015 respectively. The Commission services sent requests for information to Denmark on 25 July 2014, 19 September 2014, 8 January 2015, 13 February 2015, 2 and 25 March 2015, 13 April 2015 and 8 May 2015. Denmark submitted additional information on 3 September 2014, 16 October 2014, 20, 24 and 27 February 2015, 11 March 2015, 8 and 21 April 2015. The Commis- sion received additional information from the complainants on 25 September 2014, 4 February 2015, 22 May 2015 and 13 July 2015.
(4) On 23 July 2015, the Commission decided not to raise objections to the measures granted by Denmark to A/S Femern Lan- danlaeg and Femern A/S (‘Construction Decision’) (6). The operative part of that decision is divided in two parts. In the first part, the Commission concluded that the measures granted to A/S Femern Landanlæg for the planning, construction and operation of the road and rail hinterland connections in Denmark do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In the second part, the Commission concluded that, even if the measures granted to Femern A/S for the plan- ning, construction and operation of the Fixed Link did constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, they are c...
PROCEDURE. (1) On 14 October 2019, the Commission adopted a decision (hereinafter ‘the Opening Decision’) (1) to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation to a regional investment aid measure (hereinafter ‘the measure’ or ‘the notified measure’) in favour of Samsung SDI Magyarország Zrt (hereinafter ‘Samsung SDI’ or ‘the beneficiary’).