Vorherige Seite
    Commission Decision (EU) 2016/633 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.33961 (2012/C) ... (32016D0633)
    75 - 76
    Nächste Seite
    EU - Rechtsakte: 08 Competition policy
    (213) France argues that all the activities of Nîmes airport (including the commercial aviation activities) constitute services of general interest, particularly the economic and tourism development of the region, such that no amount granted to the airport’s operators can be regarded as State aid.
    (214) Furthermore, France maintains that, in its analysis of the contractual relations between the airport’s operators and Ryanair/AMS, the Commission has not taken into account the part of the payments made in respect of the public service missions assigned to the operators, in particular the promotion of the region and its economic and tourism development.
    (215) France also indicates that the airbase promised economic growth for the region and that, after its closure in 2011, it was decided to create an industrial hub connected to the airport, which could generate a new industrial fabric in the Languedoc-Roussillon region. In this context, France notes that these activities in themselves justify the airport being kept operational.

    6.1.2.   MEASURE 1: ASSESSMENT OF THE FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS MADE TO THE AIRPORT OPERATORS

    (216) France considers that the 1994 Guidelines should be applied to all the infrastructure aid received before the 2005 Guidelines entered into force. In addition, in its view, the
    Aéroports de Paris
    case-law is not applicable to the present case as that ruling concerned a large European hub and dealt with a legal issue unconnected with the problem of airport financing.
    (217) France takes the view that the Commission’s application of this doctrine resulted in legal uncertainty about the applicable rules, from the aforementioned judgment being delivered to the new Guidelines being adopted. As a result, according to France, out of the EUR [5-9] million paid by the public authorities between 2000 and 2010, EUR [0,8-2] million should be excluded from the Commission analysis, given that this financing was granted in line with the 1994 Guidelines and before the 2005 Guidelines were adopted.
    (218) With regard to the investments made during the CCI operating period, France makes clear that the entire airport, except for the passenger terminal, was used for the airbase’s military activities, with the commercial activity being secondary. France states that, until 2004, the costs associated with the infrastructure and common services were partly rebilled to the CCI by the Ministry of Defence according to the percentage of commercial traffic within the airport’s total traffic. The airbase subsequently rebilled in detail to the CCI the part of the costs attributable to the civilian operation of the airport. France also makes clear that the only work directly carried out by the CCI involved the expansion and adaptation of the passenger terminal and that this work was financed from the CCI’s own resources or through loans taken out in its name.
    (219) With regard to the investments made under the CDSP signed with VTAN, France notes that the CDSP provided for only part of these investments to be covered by the operator. Likewise, France notes that the short term of the delegation (six years) prevented an alternative solution and that no advantage was conferred on VTAN by the SMAN assuming responsibility for the investments. Finally, France explains that the equipment subsidy granted following closure of the airbase was intended to cover investments in sovereign activities and certification work on the airport that was not anticipated at the time when the CDSP was signed.
    Markierungen
    Leseansicht
    Verwendung von Cookies.

    Durch die Nutzung dieser Website akzeptieren Sie automatisch, dass wir Cookies verwenden. Cookie-Richtlinie

    Akzeptieren