(213) As shown above, the principles of the Scheme have excluded airports located close to the country's largest airports (Arlanda in Stockholm, Landvetter in Göteborg and Skurup close to Malmö), thereby reducing potential overlaps.
(214) Although in a few cases some airports covered by the Scheme may be located closer than the indicative distance criteria mentioned in point 136, the Commission recalls that these airports are very small and therefore that the distortion of competition is likely to be very limited.
7.3.4.
Conclusion
(215) For the above reasons the Commission considers that the aid provided under the Local Airport Scheme in 2000 to 2010 was compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)c of the TFEU.
7.4. ALLEGED AID TO RYANAIR AND AMS
7.4.1.
Existence of aid
7.4.1.1.
Economic Activity and notion of undertaking
(216) By providing air transportation services, airlines are performing an economic activity and therefore constitute undertakings in the sense of Article 107(1) of the TFEU. It must accordingly be analysed whether the agreements between the airlines and the airport in question, if imputable to the state and involving a transfer of state resources, granted the former an economic advantage.
7.4.1.2.
State resources and imputability to the State
(217) The Court of Justice held in the abovementioned
Stardust Marine
judgment that the resources of an undertaking incorporated under private law, whose shares are in majority publicly owned, constitute state resources.
(218) Concerning imputability, in its Stardust Marine judgment the Court of Justice furthermore held that the fact that the state or a state entity is the sole or majority shareholder of an undertaking is not sufficient to find that a transfer of resources by that undertaking is imputable to its public shareholders. According to the Court of Justice, even if the state was in a position to control a public undertaking and to exercise a dominant influence over its operations, actual exercise of that control in a particular case could not be automatically presumed, since a public undertaking may also act with more or less independence, according to the degree of autonomy left to it by the state.
(219) According to the Court of Justice, indicators from which imputability might be inferred, are:
(a) the fact that the undertaking in question could not take the contested decision without taking account of the requirements of the public authorities;
(b) the fact that the undertaking had to take account of directives issued by governmental authorities;
(c) the integration of the public undertaking into the structures of the public administration;
(d) the nature of the public undertaking's activities and the exercise of these activities on the market in normal conditions of competition with private operators;
(e) the legal status of the undertaking;
(f) the intensity of the supervision exercised by the public authorities over the management of the undertaking; and
Feedback