# Jurnalul Oficial C 82/18 f

| | ISSN 1977-1029 |
| --- | --- |
| Jurnalul Oficial
  al Uniunii Europene | C 82 |
| | |
| Ediţia în limba română | Comunicări şi informări | Anul 6518 februarie 2022 |

ISSN 1977-1029

Jurnalul Oficial

al Uniunii Europene

C 82

Ediţia în limba română

Comunicări şi informări

Anul 6518 februarie 2022

---

| Cuprins | Pagina |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Comunicări |
| | COMUNICĂRI PROVENIND DE LA INSTITUȚIILE, ORGANELE ȘI ORGANISMELE UNIUNII EUROPENE |
| | Comisia Europeană |
| 2022/C 82/01 | Autorizație pentru ajutoarele de stat acordate în conformitate cu dispozițiile articolelor 107 și 108 din Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene – Cazuri în care Comisia nu ridică obiecţii (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2022/C 82/02 | Autorizație pentru ajutoarele de stat acordate în conformitate cu dispozițiile articolelor 107 și 108 din Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene – Cazuri în care Comisia nu ridică obiecţii | 20 |

Cuprins

Pagina

II   Comunicări

COMUNICĂRI PROVENIND DE LA INSTITUȚIILE, ORGANELE ȘI ORGANISMELE UNIUNII EUROPENE

Comisia Europeană

2022/C 82/01

Autorizație pentru ajutoarele de stat acordate în conformitate cu dispozițiile articolelor 107 și 108 din Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene – Cazuri în care Comisia nu ridică obiecţii (
  1
  )

1

1

2022/C 82/02

Autorizație pentru ajutoarele de stat acordate în conformitate cu dispozițiile articolelor 107 și 108 din Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene – Cazuri în care Comisia nu ridică obiecţii

20

---

| | V   Anunţuri |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURI REFERITOARE LA PUNEREA ÎN APLICARE A POLITICII ÎN DOMENIUL CONCURENŢEI |
| | Comisia Europeană |
| 2022/C 82/03 | Ajutor de stat – Ungaria – Ajutorul de stat SA.48556 (2019/C) (ex 2018/N) – Ajutor regional pentru investiții în favoarea Samsung SDI – Invitație de a prezenta observații în temeiul articolului 108 alineatul (2) din Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene (
  1
  ) | 21 |

V   Anunţuri

PROCEDURI REFERITOARE LA PUNEREA ÎN APLICARE A POLITICII ÎN DOMENIUL CONCURENŢEI

Comisia Europeană

2022/C 82/03

Ajutor de stat – Ungaria – Ajutorul de stat SA.48556 (2019/C) (ex 2018/N) – Ajutor regional pentru investiții în favoarea Samsung SDI – Invitație de a prezenta observații în temeiul articolului 108 alineatul (2) din Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene (
  1
  )

1

21

---

| | Rectificări |
| --- | --- |
| 2022/C 82/04 | Rectificare la Autorizație pentru ajutoarele de stat acordate în conformitate cu dispozițiile articolelor 107 și 108 din Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene – Cazuri în care Comisia nu ridică obiecții ( JO C 500, 10.12.2021 ) | 36 |

Rectificări

2022/C 82/04

Rectificare la Autorizație pentru ajutoarele de stat acordate în conformitate cu dispozițiile articolelor 107 și 108 din Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene – Cazuri în care Comisia nu ridică obiecții ( JO C 500, 10.12.2021 )

( JO C 500, 10.12.2021 )

36

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text cu relevanță pentru SEE. |

---

(1)   Text cu relevanță pentru SEE.

1

| RO | |
| --- | --- |

RO

---

II Comunicări

COMUNICĂRI PROVENIND DE LA INSTITUȚIILE, ORGANELE ȘI ORGANISMELE UNIUNII EUROPENE

Comisia Europeană

| 18.2.2022 | RO | Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene | C 82/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2022

RO

Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene

C 82/1

---

Autorizație pentru ajutoarele de stat acordate în conformitate cu dispozițiile articolelor 107 și 108 din Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene

Cazuri în care Comisia nu ridică obiecţii

(Text cu relevanță pentru SEE)

(2022/C 82/01)

| Data adoptării deciziei | 20.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.57969 |
| Stat membru | România |
| Regiune | |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | Romania – Modification of State Aid N 437/2009 and SA.45976 (2016/NN) for promoting high-efficiency cogeneration |
| Temei legal | Government Decision no. 1.215/2009 on the establishment of criteria and conditions necessary for the implementation of the support scheme for promoting high efficiency cogeneration based on heat demand, as modified and completed by the Government Decisions GD 494/2014, GD no. 925/2016, GD no. 129/2017 and GD no. 846/2018. |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Protecția mediului, Eficiență energetică |
| Forma de ajutor | |
| Buget | Buget global: 11 148 000 000 RON |
| Valoare | |
| Durată (perioadă) | pâna la 31.12.2033 |
| Sectoare economice | Producţia de energie electrică |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Ministry of Energy |
| Academiei Street, no. 39-41, Bucharest, district 1, zip code 010013 |

Data adoptării deciziei

20.12.2021

Ajutorul nr.

SA.57969

Stat membru

România

Regiune

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

Romania – Modification of State Aid N 437/2009 and SA.45976 (2016/NN) for promoting high-efficiency cogeneration

Temei legal

Government Decision no. 1.215/2009 on the establishment of criteria and conditions necessary for the implementation of the support scheme for promoting high efficiency cogeneration based on heat demand, as modified and completed by the Government Decisions GD 494/2014, GD no. 925/2016, GD no. 129/2017 and GD no. 846/2018.

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Protecția mediului, Eficiență energetică

Forma de ajutor

Buget

Buget global: 11 148 000 000 RON

Valoare

Durată (perioadă)

pâna la 31.12.2033

Sectoare economice

Producţia de energie electrică

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Ministry of Energy

Academiei Street, no. 39-41, Bucharest, district 1, zip code 010013

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 20.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.58731 |
| Stat membru | Austria |
| Regiune | Austria |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | RRF Austria – Operating aid to electricity from RES in Austria |
| Temei legal | Erneuerbaren-Ausbau-Gesetz- EAG Elektrizitätswirtschafts- und organisationsgesetz 2010 (EIWOG 2010) |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Protecția mediului, Energie din surse regenerabile |
| Forma de ajutor | Grant/subvenționare a ratei dobânzii |
| Buget | Buget global: 10 000 000 000 EUR
  Buget anual: 1 000 000 000 EUR |
| Valoare | 100 % |
| Durată (perioadă) | pâna la 1.1.2031 |
| Sectoare economice | Producţia de energie electrică |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | EAG-Förderabwicklungsstelle (EAG Funding Processing Office) |
| — |

Data adoptării deciziei

20.12.2021

Ajutorul nr.

SA.58731

Stat membru

Austria

Regiune

Austria

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

RRF Austria – Operating aid to electricity from RES in Austria

Temei legal

Erneuerbaren-Ausbau-Gesetz- EAG Elektrizitätswirtschafts- und organisationsgesetz 2010 (EIWOG 2010)

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Protecția mediului, Energie din surse regenerabile

Forma de ajutor

Grant/subvenționare a ratei dobânzii

Buget

Buget global: 10 000 000 000 EUR

Buget anual: 1 000 000 000 EUR

Valoare

100 %

Durată (perioadă)

pâna la 1.1.2031

Sectoare economice

Producţia de energie electrică

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

EAG-Förderabwicklungsstelle (EAG Funding Processing Office)

—

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 20.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.59197 |
| Stat membru | Franţa |
| Regiune | Franţa |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | RRF France – Régime cadre pour la prévention et la réparation des dommages causés par des organismes nuisibles ou des maladies végétales aux forêts en lien avec des phénomènes climatiques extrêmes |
| Temei legal | Articles D 156-7 à D 156-11 du Code forestier Article L 251-3 du Code rural et de la pêche maritime |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Ajutoare pentru prevenirea și repararea pagubelor cauzate pădurilor de incendii forestiere, de calamități naturale, de fenomene meteorologice nefavorabile care pot fi asimilate unei calamități naturale, de alte fenomene meteorologice nefavorabile, de organisme dăunătoare plantelor și de evenimente catastrofale, Ajutoare pentru măsuri forestiere și intervenții specifice al căror obiectiv principal este să contribuie la menținerea sau la refacerea ecosistemului forestier și a biodiversității sau a peisajului tradițional |
| Forma de ajutor | Garanție, Grant direct |
| Buget | Buget global: 500 000 000 EUR
  Buget anual: 0 EUR |
| Valoare | 80 % |
| Durată (perioadă) | pâna la 31.12.2027 |
| Sectoare economice | Silvicultură şi exploatare forestieră |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Ministère de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation |
| 3, rue Barbet de Jouy 75007 PARIS |

Data adoptării deciziei

20.12.2021

Ajutorul nr.

SA.59197

Stat membru

Franţa

Regiune

Franţa

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

RRF France – Régime cadre pour la prévention et la réparation des dommages causés par des organismes nuisibles ou des maladies végétales aux forêts en lien avec des phénomènes climatiques extrêmes

Temei legal

Articles D 156-7 à D 156-11 du Code forestier Article L 251-3 du Code rural et de la pêche maritime

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Ajutoare pentru prevenirea și repararea pagubelor cauzate pădurilor de incendii forestiere, de calamități naturale, de fenomene meteorologice nefavorabile care pot fi asimilate unei calamități naturale, de alte fenomene meteorologice nefavorabile, de organisme dăunătoare plantelor și de evenimente catastrofale, Ajutoare pentru măsuri forestiere și intervenții specifice al căror obiectiv principal este să contribuie la menținerea sau la refacerea ecosistemului forestier și a biodiversității sau a peisajului tradițional

Forma de ajutor

Garanție, Grant direct

Buget

Buget global: 500 000 000 EUR

Buget anual: 0 EUR

Valoare

80 %

Durată (perioadă)

pâna la 31.12.2027

Sectoare economice

Silvicultură şi exploatare forestieră

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Ministère de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation

3, rue Barbet de Jouy 75007 PARIS

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 20.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.61149 |
| Stat membru | Letonia |
| Regiune | Letonia |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | Support scheme for energy intensive industry for 2021 in Latvia |
| Temei legal | Cabinet Regulation No. 831 of 22 December 2020 "Amendments to the Cabinet Regulation No 395 of 14 July 2015„Procedures by Which Energy-Intensive Manufacturing Companies acquire the Right to Reduced Participation for the Payment of the Mandatory Procurement Component” |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Protecția mediului, Dezvoltare sectorială |
| Forma de ajutor | Grant direct |
| Buget | Buget global: 7 000 000 EUR
  Buget anual: 7 000 000 EUR |
| Valoare | 85 % |
| Durată (perioadă) | 1.1.2021 – 31.12.2021 |
| Sectoare economice | INDUSTRIA PRELUCRĂTOARE, INDUSTRIA EXTRACTIVĂ |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | The State Construction Control Bureau, Republic of Latvia |
| Kr. Valdemāra Street 157, LV-1013 |

Data adoptării deciziei

20.12.2021

Ajutorul nr.

SA.61149

Stat membru

Letonia

Regiune

Letonia

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

Support scheme for energy intensive industry for 2021 in Latvia

Temei legal

Cabinet Regulation No. 831 of 22 December 2020 "Amendments to the Cabinet Regulation No 395 of 14 July 2015„Procedures by Which Energy-Intensive Manufacturing Companies acquire the Right to Reduced Participation for the Payment of the Mandatory Procurement Component”

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Protecția mediului, Dezvoltare sectorială

Forma de ajutor

Grant direct

Buget

Buget global: 7 000 000 EUR

Buget anual: 7 000 000 EUR

Valoare

85 %

Durată (perioadă)

1.1.2021 – 31.12.2021

Sectoare economice

INDUSTRIA PRELUCRĂTOARE, INDUSTRIA EXTRACTIVĂ

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

The State Construction Control Bureau, Republic of Latvia

Kr. Valdemāra Street 157, LV-1013

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 23.9.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.62193 |
| Stat membru | Franţa |
| Regiune | Franţa |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | Covid-19: Compensation du dommage subi par Brittany Ferries en raison de l'épidémie de COVID-19 |
| Temei legal | Les bases juridiques pouvant être utilisées par l’État français seront les suivantes, selon le format de l’aide qui sera retenu: – Loi no 2005-1719 du 30 décembre 2005 de finances pour 2006, notamment ses articles 46 et 48; – Arrêtés du 21 décembre 2020 et du 13 janvier 2021 portant report de crédits; – Code monétaire et financier, notamment ses articles L313-13 à L313-20; – Loi no 2020-289 du 23 mars 2020 de finances rectificative pour 2020; – Loi no 2010-237 du 9 mars 2010 de finances rectificative pour 2010. Concernant l’aide que la région Bretagne envisage d’octroyer, les bases légales sont les suivantes: – Les articles L. 4211-1, 6o et L. 1511-2 du code général des collectivités territoriales, relatifs à l’octroi des aides aux entreprises et plus largement au développement économique, dans la région; – La délibération du conseil régional no 21_DFE_SBUD_05 du 9 avril 2021 portant décision modificative no 1 au budget de l’exercice 2021; – Une convention formalisera l’octroi de l’aide. |
| Tipul măsurii | Ajutor ad hoc
  SA BAI Brittany Ferries |
| Obiectiv | Compensarea pagubelor cauzate de dezastre naturale sau de situații excepționale |
| Forma de ajutor | Credit preferențial, Grant direct, Creanțe subordonate |
| Buget | Buget global: 0 EUR
  Buget anual: 0 EUR |
| Valoare | 0 % |
| Durată (perioadă) | Începând cu data de 30.6.2021 |
| Sectoare economice | Transporturi maritime şi costiere de pasageri |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Ministère de l'économie, des finances et de la relance |
| 139 rue de Bercy– 75572 Paris Cedex 12 |

Data adoptării deciziei

23.9.2021

Ajutorul nr.

SA.62193

Stat membru

Franţa

Regiune

Franţa

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

Covid-19: Compensation du dommage subi par Brittany Ferries en raison de l'épidémie de COVID-19

Temei legal

Les bases juridiques pouvant être utilisées par l’État français seront les suivantes, selon le format de l’aide qui sera retenu: – Loi no 2005-1719 du 30 décembre 2005 de finances pour 2006, notamment ses articles 46 et 48; – Arrêtés du 21 décembre 2020 et du 13 janvier 2021 portant report de crédits; – Code monétaire et financier, notamment ses articles L313-13 à L313-20; – Loi no 2020-289 du 23 mars 2020 de finances rectificative pour 2020; – Loi no 2010-237 du 9 mars 2010 de finances rectificative pour 2010. Concernant l’aide que la région Bretagne envisage d’octroyer, les bases légales sont les suivantes: – Les articles L. 4211-1, 6o et L. 1511-2 du code général des collectivités territoriales, relatifs à l’octroi des aides aux entreprises et plus largement au développement économique, dans la région; – La délibération du conseil régional no 21_DFE_SBUD_05 du 9 avril 2021 portant décision modificative no 1 au budget de l’exercice 2021; – Une convention formalisera l’octroi de l’aide.

Tipul măsurii

Ajutor ad hoc

SA BAI Brittany Ferries

Obiectiv

Compensarea pagubelor cauzate de dezastre naturale sau de situații excepționale

Forma de ajutor

Credit preferențial, Grant direct, Creanțe subordonate

Buget

Buget global: 0 EUR

Buget anual: 0 EUR

Valoare

0 %

Durată (perioadă)

Începând cu data de 30.6.2021

Sectoare economice

Transporturi maritime şi costiere de pasageri

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Ministère de l'économie, des finances et de la relance

139 rue de Bercy– 75572 Paris Cedex 12

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 1.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.63946 |
| Stat membru | Germania |
| Regiune | BRANDENBURG, BERLIN |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | aid to Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg |
| Temei legal | Shareholder resolution of 10 December 2021, Article 272 (2) of the German Commercial Code, Article 48 of the Law on Limited Liability Companies and the budget laws of the Land Berlin, the Land Brandenburg and the Federal Government. |
| Tipul măsurii | Ajutor ad hoc
  Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg GmbH |
| Obiectiv | Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei |
| Forma de ajutor | Instrumente de capitaluri proprii |
| Buget | Buget global: 1 717 000 000 EUR
  Buget anual: 0 EUR |
| Valoare | 100 % |
| Durată (perioadă) | |
| Sectoare economice | Transporturi aeriene |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | State of Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für Finanzen |
| Klosterstraße 59, 10179 Berlin |
| — |
| State of Brandenburg: Ministerium der Finanzen und für Europa des Landes Brandenburg |
| Heinrich-Mann-Allee 107, 14473 Potsdam |
| — |
| Federal government: Bundesministerium für Digitales und Verkehr |
| Invalidenstraße 44, 10115 Berlin |

Data adoptării deciziei

1.2.2022

Ajutorul nr.

SA.63946

Stat membru

Germania

Regiune

BRANDENBURG, BERLIN

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

aid to Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg

Temei legal

Shareholder resolution of 10 December 2021, Article 272 (2) of the German Commercial Code, Article 48 of the Law on Limited Liability Companies and the budget laws of the Land Berlin, the Land Brandenburg and the Federal Government.

Tipul măsurii

Ajutor ad hoc

Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg GmbH

Obiectiv

Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei

Forma de ajutor

Instrumente de capitaluri proprii

Buget

Buget global: 1 717 000 000 EUR

Buget anual: 0 EUR

Valoare

100 %

Durată (perioadă)

Sectoare economice

Transporturi aeriene

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

State of Berlin: Senatsverwaltung für Finanzen

Klosterstraße 59, 10179 Berlin

—

State of Brandenburg: Ministerium der Finanzen und für Europa des Landes Brandenburg

Heinrich-Mann-Allee 107, 14473 Potsdam

—

Federal government: Bundesministerium für Digitales und Verkehr

Invalidenstraße 44, 10115 Berlin

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 24.1.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.64772 |
| Stat membru | Danemarca |
| Regiune | Danemarca |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | Ændring af refusionsordningen for sandsugere. |
| Temei legal | Lov om beskatning af søfolk (sømandsbeskatningsloven), jf. lovbekendtgørelse nr. 131 af 7. februar 2020, som ændret ved lov nr. 1583 af 27. december 2019 (Udvidelse af sømandsfradrag til søfolk på forsknings- og havundersøgelsesskibe) |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Dezvoltare sectorială |
| Forma de ajutor | Alte forme de avantaj fiscal |
| Buget | Buget global: 152 000 000 DKK
  Buget anual: 19 000 000 DKK |
| Valoare | 0 % |
| Durată (perioadă) | 1.1.2022 – 31.12.2029 |
| Sectoare economice | Transporturi pe apă |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Skatteministeriet |
| Nicolai Eigtveds Gade 28 1402 København K |

Data adoptării deciziei

24.1.2022

Ajutorul nr.

SA.64772

Stat membru

Danemarca

Regiune

Danemarca

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

Ændring af refusionsordningen for sandsugere.

Temei legal

Lov om beskatning af søfolk (sømandsbeskatningsloven), jf. lovbekendtgørelse nr. 131 af 7. februar 2020, som ændret ved lov nr. 1583 af 27. december 2019 (Udvidelse af sømandsfradrag til søfolk på forsknings- og havundersøgelsesskibe)

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Dezvoltare sectorială

Forma de ajutor

Alte forme de avantaj fiscal

Buget

Buget global: 152 000 000 DKK

Buget anual: 19 000 000 DKK

Valoare

0 %

Durată (perioadă)

1.1.2022 – 31.12.2029

Sectoare economice

Transporturi pe apă

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Skatteministeriet

Nicolai Eigtveds Gade 28 1402 København K

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 7.1.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.100474 |
| Stat membru | Germania |
| Regiune | Germania |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | Richtlinie der Beauftragten der Bundesregierung für Kultur und Medien „German Motion Picture Fund” (GMPF) |
| Temei legal | § § 23, 44 Bundeshaushaltsordnung (BHO) in Verbindung mit dem jeweils geltenden jährlichen Haushaltsgesetz (s. Anlage 6) |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Cultură, Conservarea patrimoniului |
| Forma de ajutor | Grant direct |
| Buget | Buget global: 150 000 000 EUR
  Buget anual: 75 000 000 EUR |
| Valoare | 20 % |
| Durată (perioadă) | 1.1.2022 – 31.12.2023 |
| Sectoare economice | Activităţi de producţie cinematografică, video şi de programe de televiziune |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Filmförderungsanstalt (FFA) |
| Große Präsidentenstraße 9, 10178 Berlin |

Data adoptării deciziei

7.1.2022

Ajutorul nr.

SA.100474

Stat membru

Germania

Regiune

Germania

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

Richtlinie der Beauftragten der Bundesregierung für Kultur und Medien „German Motion Picture Fund” (GMPF)

Temei legal

§ § 23, 44 Bundeshaushaltsordnung (BHO) in Verbindung mit dem jeweils geltenden jährlichen Haushaltsgesetz (s. Anlage 6)

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Cultură, Conservarea patrimoniului

Forma de ajutor

Grant direct

Buget

Buget global: 150 000 000 EUR

Buget anual: 75 000 000 EUR

Valoare

20 %

Durată (perioadă)

1.1.2022 – 31.12.2023

Sectoare economice

Activităţi de producţie cinematografică, video şi de programe de televiziune

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Filmförderungsanstalt (FFA)

Große Präsidentenstraße 9, 10178 Berlin

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 13.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.100494 |
| Stat membru | Letonia |
| Regiune | Letonia |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | Equity investments in the companies whose operations have been affected by the Covid-19 impact |
| Temei legal | Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 458 Riga, 14 July 2020„Regulations on equity investments in the companies whose operations have been affected by the Covid-19 impact” |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei |
| Forma de ajutor | Alte forme de aport de capital |
| Buget | Buget global: 100 000 000 EUR
  Buget anual: 100 000 000 EUR |
| Valoare | |
| Durată (perioadă) | pâna la 30.6.2022 |
| Sectoare economice | Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | JSC Development Finance Institution Altum |
| Dome Square 4, Riga, LV-1050 |

Data adoptării deciziei

13.12.2021

Ajutorul nr.

SA.100494

Stat membru

Letonia

Regiune

Letonia

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

Equity investments in the companies whose operations have been affected by the Covid-19 impact

Temei legal

Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No. 458 Riga, 14 July 2020„Regulations on equity investments in the companies whose operations have been affected by the Covid-19 impact”

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei

Forma de ajutor

Alte forme de aport de capital

Buget

Buget global: 100 000 000 EUR

Buget anual: 100 000 000 EUR

Valoare

Durată (perioadă)

pâna la 30.6.2022

Sectoare economice

Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

JSC Development Finance Institution Altum

Dome Square 4, Riga, LV-1050

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 15.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.100598 |
| Stat membru | Letonia |
| Regiune | Letonia |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | COVID-19 – LV – Support to taxpayers for the continuation of their activity under the conditions of the crisis caused by Covid-19 |
| Temei legal | Regulation No 675 „Support to taxpayers for the continuation of their activity under the conditions of the crisis caused by Covid-19,” as amended by the Council of Ministers on 10 November 2021 and 17 December 2021 (list of Sectors included in Annex III and Annex IV of Regulation No 675) |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei |
| Forma de ajutor | Grant direct |
| Buget | Buget global: 64 000 000 EUR
  Buget anual: 64 000 000 EUR |
| Valoare | |
| Durată (perioadă) | pâna la 30.6.2022 |
| Sectoare economice | COMERŢ CU RIDICATA ŞI CU AMĂNUNTUL; REPARAREA AUTOVEHICULELOR ŞI MOTOCICLETELOR, TRANSPORT ŞI DEPOZITARE, HOTELURI ŞI RESTAURANTE, Activităţi de producţie cinematografică, video şi de programe de televiziune; înregistrări audio şi activităţi de editare muzicală, Activităţi de difuzare şi transmitere de programe, TRANZACŢII IMOBILIARE, ACTIVITĂŢI PROFESIONALE, ŞTIINŢIFICE ŞI TEHNICE, Activităţi ale direcţiilor(centralelor), birourilor administrative centralizate; activităţi de management şi de consultanţă în management, ACTIVITĂŢI DE SERVICII ADMINISTRATIVE ŞI ACTIVITĂŢI DE SERVICII SUPORT, Activităţi ale agenţiilor turistice şi a tur-operatorilor; alte servicii de rezervare şi asistenţă turistică, Activităţi de investigaţii şi protecţie, Alte activităţi de servicii suport pentru întreprinderi n.c.a., Activităţi de servicii suport combinate, Activităţi de curăţenie, Activităţi de organizare a expoziţiilor, târgurilor şi congreselor, Activităţi de servicii suport pentru întreprinderi n.c.a., SĂNĂTATE ŞI ASISTENŢĂ SOCIALĂ, ÎNVĂŢĂMÂNT, ACTIVITĂŢI DE SPECTACOLE, CULTURALE ŞI RECREATIVE, Reparaţii de calculatoare, de articole personale şi de uz gospodăresc, Activităţi referitoare la sănătatea umană, ACTIVITĂŢI ALE ORGANIZAŢIILOR ŞI ORGANISMELOR EXTRATERITORIALE, ACTIVITĂŢI ALE GOSPODĂRIILOR PRIVATE ÎN CALITATE DE ANGAJATOR DE PERSONAL CASNIC; ACTIVITĂŢI ALE GOSPODĂRIILOR PRIVATE DE PRODUCERE DE BUNURI ŞI SERVICII DESTINATE CONSUMULUI PROPRIU, Repararea calculatoarelor şi a echipamentelor de comunicaţii, Reparaţii de articole personale şi de uz gospodăresc, Alte activităţi de servicii |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Valsts ieņēmumu dienests/ State Revenue Services |
| Talejas iela 1, Rīga, LV-1978 |

Data adoptării deciziei

15.12.2021

Ajutorul nr.

SA.100598

Stat membru

Letonia

Regiune

Letonia

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

COVID-19 – LV – Support to taxpayers for the continuation of their activity under the conditions of the crisis caused by Covid-19

Temei legal

Regulation No 675 „Support to taxpayers for the continuation of their activity under the conditions of the crisis caused by Covid-19,” as amended by the Council of Ministers on 10 November 2021 and 17 December 2021 (list of Sectors included in Annex III and Annex IV of Regulation No 675)

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei

Forma de ajutor

Grant direct

Buget

Buget global: 64 000 000 EUR

Buget anual: 64 000 000 EUR

Valoare

Durată (perioadă)

pâna la 30.6.2022

Sectoare economice

COMERŢ CU RIDICATA ŞI CU AMĂNUNTUL; REPARAREA AUTOVEHICULELOR ŞI MOTOCICLETELOR, TRANSPORT ŞI DEPOZITARE, HOTELURI ŞI RESTAURANTE, Activităţi de producţie cinematografică, video şi de programe de televiziune; înregistrări audio şi activităţi de editare muzicală, Activităţi de difuzare şi transmitere de programe, TRANZACŢII IMOBILIARE, ACTIVITĂŢI PROFESIONALE, ŞTIINŢIFICE ŞI TEHNICE, Activităţi ale direcţiilor(centralelor), birourilor administrative centralizate; activităţi de management şi de consultanţă în management, ACTIVITĂŢI DE SERVICII ADMINISTRATIVE ŞI ACTIVITĂŢI DE SERVICII SUPORT, Activităţi ale agenţiilor turistice şi a tur-operatorilor; alte servicii de rezervare şi asistenţă turistică, Activităţi de investigaţii şi protecţie, Alte activităţi de servicii suport pentru întreprinderi n.c.a., Activităţi de servicii suport combinate, Activităţi de curăţenie, Activităţi de organizare a expoziţiilor, târgurilor şi congreselor, Activităţi de servicii suport pentru întreprinderi n.c.a., SĂNĂTATE ŞI ASISTENŢĂ SOCIALĂ, ÎNVĂŢĂMÂNT, ACTIVITĂŢI DE SPECTACOLE, CULTURALE ŞI RECREATIVE, Reparaţii de calculatoare, de articole personale şi de uz gospodăresc, Activităţi referitoare la sănătatea umană, ACTIVITĂŢI ALE ORGANIZAŢIILOR ŞI ORGANISMELOR EXTRATERITORIALE, ACTIVITĂŢI ALE GOSPODĂRIILOR PRIVATE ÎN CALITATE DE ANGAJATOR DE PERSONAL CASNIC; ACTIVITĂŢI ALE GOSPODĂRIILOR PRIVATE DE PRODUCERE DE BUNURI ŞI SERVICII DESTINATE CONSUMULUI PROPRIU, Repararea calculatoarelor şi a echipamentelor de comunicaţii, Reparaţii de articole personale şi de uz gospodăresc, Alte activităţi de servicii

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Valsts ieņēmumu dienests/ State Revenue Services

Talejas iela 1, Rīga, LV-1978

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 6.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.100633 |
| Stat membru | Letonia |
| Regiune | Letonia |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | Latvia COVID-19: Tax Deferrals due to the Lockdown |
| Temei legal | Section 4 of the Law on the Suppression of Consequences of the Spread of COVID-19 Infection |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei |
| Forma de ajutor | Amânarea plății impozitului |
| Buget | Buget global: 21 900 000 EUR
  Buget anual: 21 900 000 EUR |
| Valoare | |
| Durată (perioadă) | pâna la 30.6.2022 |
| Sectoare economice | Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | The State Revenue Service |
| Talejas Str. 1, Riga, Latvia, LV-1978 |

Data adoptării deciziei

6.12.2021

Ajutorul nr.

SA.100633

Stat membru

Letonia

Regiune

Letonia

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

Latvia COVID-19: Tax Deferrals due to the Lockdown

Temei legal

Section 4 of the Law on the Suppression of Consequences of the Spread of COVID-19 Infection

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei

Forma de ajutor

Amânarea plății impozitului

Buget

Buget global: 21 900 000 EUR

Buget anual: 21 900 000 EUR

Valoare

Durată (perioadă)

pâna la 30.6.2022

Sectoare economice

Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

The State Revenue Service

Talejas Str. 1, Riga, Latvia, LV-1978

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 16.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.100635 |
| Stat membru | România |
| Regiune | |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | Prolongation of the scheme RES District heating projects, State Aid SA.55433 (2020/N) |
| Temei legal | Governmental Decision no. 1037 / 2020 on the approval of the State aid scheme for supporting the production and distribution in centralised system of green thermal energy from less exploited renewable sources, respectively biomass, biogas, geothermal energy |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Eficiență energetică |
| Forma de ajutor | Grant/subvenționare a ratei dobânzii |
| Buget | Buget global: 742 425 000 RON |
| Valoare | 100 % |
| Durată (perioadă) | pâna la 31.12.2023 |
| Sectoare economice | Furnizarea de abur şi aer condiţionat |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Ministry of Investments and European Projects |
| Sos. București-Ploiesti, nr. 1 – 1B, Victoria Office, Intrarea Menuetului, nr. 7, Sector 1, Bucuresti |

Data adoptării deciziei

16.12.2021

Ajutorul nr.

SA.100635

Stat membru

România

Regiune

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

Prolongation of the scheme RES District heating projects, State Aid SA.55433 (2020/N)

Temei legal

Governmental Decision no. 1037 / 2020 on the approval of the State aid scheme for supporting the production and distribution in centralised system of green thermal energy from less exploited renewable sources, respectively biomass, biogas, geothermal energy

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Eficiență energetică

Forma de ajutor

Grant/subvenționare a ratei dobânzii

Buget

Buget global: 742 425 000 RON

Valoare

100 %

Durată (perioadă)

pâna la 31.12.2023

Sectoare economice

Furnizarea de abur şi aer condiţionat

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Ministry of Investments and European Projects

Sos. București-Ploiesti, nr. 1 – 1B, Victoria Office, Intrarea Menuetului, nr. 7, Sector 1, Bucuresti

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 2.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.100663 |
| Stat membru | Cehia |
| Regiune | |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | COVID 19 – Amendment to Mode A of the wage subsidy scheme „Antivirus” |
| Temei legal | Resolution of the Government of the Czech Republic No. 353 of 31 March 2020, as amended, adopted in accordance with Act No. 435/2004 Coll., Employment Act. |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei |
| Forma de ajutor | Grant direct |
| Buget | Buget global: 27 500 000 000 CZK |
| Valoare | |
| Durată (perioadă) | 14.10.2020 – 30.6.2022 |
| Sectoare economice | Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs |
| Na Poříčním právu 1/376, 128 01 Praha 2, Czech Republic |

Data adoptării deciziei

2.12.2021

Ajutorul nr.

SA.100663

Stat membru

Cehia

Regiune

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

COVID 19 – Amendment to Mode A of the wage subsidy scheme „Antivirus”

Temei legal

Resolution of the Government of the Czech Republic No. 353 of 31 March 2020, as amended, adopted in accordance with Act No. 435/2004 Coll., Employment Act.

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei

Forma de ajutor

Grant direct

Buget

Buget global: 27 500 000 000 CZK

Valoare

Durată (perioadă)

14.10.2020 – 30.6.2022

Sectoare economice

Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs

Na Poříčním právu 1/376, 128 01 Praha 2, Czech Republic

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 21.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.100743 |
| Stat membru | Germania |
| Regiune | |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | COVID19 modifications to schemes SA.56790, SA.59289, SA.56814, SA.58504, SA.56787, SA.58021, SA.57100, and SA.57447 |
| Temei legal | Legal basis of schemes SA.56790, SA.59289, SA.56814, SA.58504, SA.56787, SA.58021, SA.57100, and SA.57447 |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei |
| Forma de ajutor | Grant direct, Credit preferențial, Avans rambursabil, Garanție, Alte forme de aport de capital |
| Buget | |
| Valoare | |
| Durată (perioadă) | pâna la 30.6.2022 |
| Sectoare economice | Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie |
| Scharnhorststraße 34-37, D-10115 Berlin |

Data adoptării deciziei

21.12.2021

Ajutorul nr.

SA.100743

Stat membru

Germania

Regiune

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

COVID19 modifications to schemes SA.56790, SA.59289, SA.56814, SA.58504, SA.56787, SA.58021, SA.57100, and SA.57447

Temei legal

Legal basis of schemes SA.56790, SA.59289, SA.56814, SA.58504, SA.56787, SA.58021, SA.57100, and SA.57447

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei

Forma de ajutor

Grant direct, Credit preferențial, Avans rambursabil, Garanție, Alte forme de aport de capital

Buget

Valoare

Durată (perioadă)

pâna la 30.6.2022

Sectoare economice

Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie

Scharnhorststraße 34-37, D-10115 Berlin

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 8.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.100752 |
| Stat membru | Portugalia |
| Regiune | |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | Mapa dos auxílios com finalidade regional para Portugal (1 de janeiro de 2022 – 31 de dezembro de 2027) |
| Temei legal | N/A |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Dezvoltarea regională (inclusiv cooperarea teritorială) |
| Forma de ajutor | |
| Buget | |
| Valoare | 50 % |
| Durată (perioadă) | 1.1.2022 – 31.12.2027 |
| Sectoare economice | Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Direção-Geral dos Assuntos Europeus |
| Rua da Cova da Moura, 1, 1350-115 Lisboa |

Data adoptării deciziei

8.2.2022

Ajutorul nr.

SA.100752

Stat membru

Portugalia

Regiune

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

Mapa dos auxílios com finalidade regional para Portugal (1 de janeiro de 2022 – 31 de dezembro de 2027)

Temei legal

N/A

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Dezvoltarea regională (inclusiv cooperarea teritorială)

Forma de ajutor

Buget

Valoare

50 %

Durată (perioadă)

1.1.2022 – 31.12.2027

Sectoare economice

Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Direção-Geral dos Assuntos Europeus

Rua da Cova da Moura, 1, 1350-115 Lisboa

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 14.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.100845 |
| Stat membru | Slovacia |
| Regiune | |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | COVID-19: Prolongation and amendment of schemes SA.59240 and SA.62256 |
| Temei legal | Multiple |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei |
| Forma de ajutor | |
| Buget | |
| Valoare | |
| Durată (perioadă) | pâna la 30.6.2022 |
| Sectoare economice | Transporturi aeriene, HOTELURI ŞI RESTAURANTE |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Ministerstvo dopravy a výstavby Slovenskej republiky |
| Námestie slobody č. 6, P.O.BOX 100, 810 05 Bratislava, Slovenská republika |

Data adoptării deciziei

14.12.2021

Ajutorul nr.

SA.100845

Stat membru

Slovacia

Regiune

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

COVID-19: Prolongation and amendment of schemes SA.59240 and SA.62256

Temei legal

Multiple

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei

Forma de ajutor

Buget

Valoare

Durată (perioadă)

pâna la 30.6.2022

Sectoare economice

Transporturi aeriene, HOTELURI ŞI RESTAURANTE

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Ministerstvo dopravy a výstavby Slovenskej republiky

Námestie slobody č. 6, P.O.BOX 100, 810 05 Bratislava, Slovenská republika

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 17.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.100937 |
| Stat membru | Lituania |
| Regiune | |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | COVID-19: Prolongation of Deferral of social security contributions (SA.58885 as prolonged by SA.63496) / Socialinio draudimo įmokų mokėjimų atidėjimas |
| Temei legal | Valstybinio socialinio draudimo fondo valdybos 2020 m. lapkričio 25 d. įsakymu Nr. V – 618 patvirtintos Valstybinio socialinio draudimo fondo valstybės pagalbos teikimo įmonėms, nukentėjusioms nuo COVID – 19 protrūkio, taisyklės |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei |
| Forma de ajutor | Amânarea plății impozitului |
| Buget | Buget global: 100 000 000 EUR |
| Valoare | |
| Durată (perioadă) | 1.1.2022 – 30.6.2022 |
| Sectoare economice | Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Valstybinio socialinio draudimo fondo valdyba prie Socialinės apsaugos ir darbo ministerijos |
| Konstitucijos pr. 12-101, 09308 Vilnius Lietuva |

Data adoptării deciziei

17.12.2021

Ajutorul nr.

SA.100937

Stat membru

Lituania

Regiune

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

COVID-19: Prolongation of Deferral of social security contributions (SA.58885 as prolonged by SA.63496) / Socialinio draudimo įmokų mokėjimų atidėjimas

Temei legal

Valstybinio socialinio draudimo fondo valdybos 2020 m. lapkričio 25 d. įsakymu Nr. V – 618 patvirtintos Valstybinio socialinio draudimo fondo valstybės pagalbos teikimo įmonėms, nukentėjusioms nuo COVID – 19 protrūkio, taisyklės

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei

Forma de ajutor

Amânarea plății impozitului

Buget

Buget global: 100 000 000 EUR

Valoare

Durată (perioadă)

1.1.2022 – 30.6.2022

Sectoare economice

Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Valstybinio socialinio draudimo fondo valdyba prie Socialinės apsaugos ir darbo ministerijos

Konstitucijos pr. 12-101, 09308 Vilnius Lietuva

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 17.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.100941 |
| Stat membru | Croația |
| Regiune | |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | COVID-19: Prolongation of the scheme SA.64716 (2021/N) |
| Temei legal | Act on Agriculture (Official Gazette 118/2018, 42/2020 and 127/20. – Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, 52/21) |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei |
| Forma de ajutor | |
| Buget | |
| Valoare | |
| Durată (perioadă) | pâna la 30.6.2022 |
| Sectoare economice | Creşterea păsărilor |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Ministry of Agriculture |
| Ulica grada Vukovara 78, 10000 Zagreb |

Data adoptării deciziei

17.12.2021

Ajutorul nr.

SA.100941

Stat membru

Croația

Regiune

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

COVID-19: Prolongation of the scheme SA.64716 (2021/N)

Temei legal

Act on Agriculture (Official Gazette 118/2018, 42/2020 and 127/20. – Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, 52/21)

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei

Forma de ajutor

Buget

Valoare

Durată (perioadă)

pâna la 30.6.2022

Sectoare economice

Creşterea păsărilor

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Ministry of Agriculture

Ulica grada Vukovara 78, 10000 Zagreb

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 1.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.101055 |
| Stat membru | Italia |
| Regiune | |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | COVID-19: Aid to companies holding port concessions |
| Temei legal | Article 199, paragraph 10-sexies of Decree Law 34/2020 converted into Law 77/2020 and amended by Article 4, paragraph 5, letter d) of Decree Law 121/2021, converted into Law 156/2021 |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei, Compensarea pagubelor cauzate de dezastre naturale sau de situații excepționale |
| Forma de ajutor | Grant direct |
| Buget | Buget global: 22 417 487 EUR
  Buget anual: 22 417 487 EUR |
| Valoare | |
| Durată (perioadă) | pâna la 30.6.2022 |
| Sectoare economice | Transporturi pe apă |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Ministry of Sustainable Infrastructure and Mobility |
| Viale dell'Arte n. 16 – 00144 ROMA |

Data adoptării deciziei

1.2.2022

Ajutorul nr.

SA.101055

Stat membru

Italia

Regiune

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

COVID-19: Aid to companies holding port concessions

Temei legal

Article 199, paragraph 10-sexies of Decree Law 34/2020 converted into Law 77/2020 and amended by Article 4, paragraph 5, letter d) of Decree Law 121/2021, converted into Law 156/2021

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei, Compensarea pagubelor cauzate de dezastre naturale sau de situații excepționale

Forma de ajutor

Grant direct

Buget

Buget global: 22 417 487 EUR

Buget anual: 22 417 487 EUR

Valoare

Durată (perioadă)

pâna la 30.6.2022

Sectoare economice

Transporturi pe apă

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Ministry of Sustainable Infrastructure and Mobility

Viale dell'Arte n. 16 – 00144 ROMA

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 11.1.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.101133 |
| Stat membru | Belgia |
| Regiune | |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | COVID-19: bridge loans in the Flemish Region |
| Temei legal | Decision of the Flemish Government regarding the granting of a bridge loan for undertakings |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei |
| Forma de ajutor | Credit preferențial |
| Buget | Buget global: 100 000 000 EUR
  Buget anual: 100 000 000 EUR |
| Valoare | |
| Durată (perioadă) | pâna la 30.6.2022 |
| Sectoare economice | Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Agentschap Innoveren & Ondernemen (VLAIO) |
| Koning Albert II-laan 35, bus 12 |

Data adoptării deciziei

11.1.2022

Ajutorul nr.

SA.101133

Stat membru

Belgia

Regiune

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

COVID-19: bridge loans in the Flemish Region

Temei legal

Decision of the Flemish Government regarding the granting of a bridge loan for undertakings

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei

Forma de ajutor

Credit preferențial

Buget

Buget global: 100 000 000 EUR

Buget anual: 100 000 000 EUR

Valoare

Durată (perioadă)

pâna la 30.6.2022

Sectoare economice

Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Agentschap Innoveren & Ondernemen (VLAIO)

Koning Albert II-laan 35, bus 12

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 9.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.101400 |
| Stat membru | Lituania |
| Regiune | Lituania |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | State Aid SA.101400(2022/N) – Lithuania COVID-19: Reintroduction of the „Direct COVID-loans” scheme (SA.60379) and new aid in the form of investment support towards a sustainable recovery |
| Temei legal | Draft Order amending Order No 4-45 of the Minister of Economy and Innovation of Republic of Lithuania of 19 January 2021 ‘On the Approval of the Scheme of the Financial Incentive Instrument „Direct COVID-19 Loans” |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei, Dezvoltare sectorială |
| Forma de ajutor | Credit preferențial, Grant/subvenționare a ratei dobânzii |
| Buget | Buget global: 435 000 000 EUR
  Buget anual: 435 000 000 EUR |
| Valoare | |
| Durată (perioadă) | pâna la 31.12.2022 |
| Sectoare economice | Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Ministry of the Economy and Innovation of the Republic of Lithuania |
| Gedimino Ave. 38, 01104 Vilnius, Lithuania |

Data adoptării deciziei

9.2.2022

Ajutorul nr.

SA.101400

Stat membru

Lituania

Regiune

Lituania

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

State Aid SA.101400(2022/N) – Lithuania COVID-19: Reintroduction of the „Direct COVID-loans” scheme (SA.60379) and new aid in the form of investment support towards a sustainable recovery

Temei legal

Draft Order amending Order No 4-45 of the Minister of Economy and Innovation of Republic of Lithuania of 19 January 2021 ‘On the Approval of the Scheme of the Financial Incentive Instrument „Direct COVID-19 Loans”

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei, Dezvoltare sectorială

Forma de ajutor

Credit preferențial, Grant/subvenționare a ratei dobânzii

Buget

Buget global: 435 000 000 EUR

Buget anual: 435 000 000 EUR

Valoare

Durată (perioadă)

pâna la 31.12.2022

Sectoare economice

Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Ministry of the Economy and Innovation of the Republic of Lithuania

Gedimino Ave. 38, 01104 Vilnius, Lithuania

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 2.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.101417 |
| Stat membru | Luxemburg |
| Regiune | Luxemburg |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | COVID-19: Amendments to the schemes SA.59428 and SA.59322, as already amended |
| Temei legal | Modification of existing aid schemes SA.59428 and SA.59322 – Loi du 19 décembre 2020 ayant pour objet la mise en place d’une contribution temporaire de l’État aux coûts non couverts de certaines entreprises – Loi du 19 décembre 2020 ayant pour objet la mise en place d’une nouvelle aide de relance |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei |
| Forma de ajutor | Grant direct |
| Buget | Buget global: 300 000 000 EUR
  Buget anual: 300 000 000 EUR |
| Valoare | |
| Durată (perioadă) | pâna la 30.6.2022 |
| Sectoare economice | Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Ministry of the Economy (DG Classes Moyennes) |
| 19-21 boulevard Royal – L-2914 |

Data adoptării deciziei

2.2.2022

Ajutorul nr.

SA.101417

Stat membru

Luxemburg

Regiune

Luxemburg

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

COVID-19: Amendments to the schemes SA.59428 and SA.59322, as already amended

Temei legal

Modification of existing aid schemes SA.59428 and SA.59322 – Loi du 19 décembre 2020 ayant pour objet la mise en place d’une contribution temporaire de l’État aux coûts non couverts de certaines entreprises – Loi du 19 décembre 2020 ayant pour objet la mise en place d’une nouvelle aide de relance

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei

Forma de ajutor

Grant direct

Buget

Buget global: 300 000 000 EUR

Buget anual: 300 000 000 EUR

Valoare

Durată (perioadă)

pâna la 30.6.2022

Sectoare economice

Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Ministry of the Economy (DG Classes Moyennes)

19-21 boulevard Royal – L-2914

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 25.1.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.101574 |
| Stat membru | Germania |
| Regiune | Germania |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | Modification to scheme SA.56814 |
| Temei legal | Gesetz zur Errichtung eines Finanzmarkt- und eines Wirtschaftsstabilisierungsfonds (Stabilisierungsfondsgesetz – StFG) and Gesetz zur Änderung des Stabilisierungsfondsgesetzes und des Wirtschaftsstabilisierungsbeschleunigungsgesetzes (SA 56814) |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei |
| Forma de ajutor | Garanție, Alte forme de aport de capital, Creanțe subordonate |
| Buget | Buget global: 150 000 000 EUR |
| Valoare | |
| Durată (perioadă) | pâna la 30.6.2022 |
| Sectoare economice | Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Bundesministerium der Finanzen |
| Wilhelmstraße 97, 10117 Berlin |

Data adoptării deciziei

25.1.2022

Ajutorul nr.

SA.101574

Stat membru

Germania

Regiune

Germania

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

Modification to scheme SA.56814

Temei legal

Gesetz zur Errichtung eines Finanzmarkt- und eines Wirtschaftsstabilisierungsfonds (Stabilisierungsfondsgesetz – StFG) and Gesetz zur Änderung des Stabilisierungsfondsgesetzes und des Wirtschaftsstabilisierungsbeschleunigungsgesetzes (SA 56814)

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei

Forma de ajutor

Garanție, Alte forme de aport de capital, Creanțe subordonate

Buget

Buget global: 150 000 000 EUR

Valoare

Durată (perioadă)

pâna la 30.6.2022

Sectoare economice

Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Bundesministerium der Finanzen

Wilhelmstraße 97, 10117 Berlin

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

| Data adoptării deciziei | 7.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.101601 |
| Stat membru | Letonia |
| Regiune | |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | COVID-19 – LV – Amendments to SA.100605: Reduction of the lease payment for lessees of publicly-owned property |
| Temei legal | Cabinet Regulation No 453 of 14 July 2020 as amended, Property and a Property of a Capital Company Controlled by a Public Person due to the Spread of Covid-19 |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei |
| Forma de ajutor | Grant direct |
| Buget | |
| Valoare | |
| Durată (perioadă) | 1.1.2022 – 14.4.2022 |
| Sectoare economice | Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Latvia |
| Smilsu street 1, Riga, Latvia |

Data adoptării deciziei

7.2.2022

Ajutorul nr.

SA.101601

Stat membru

Letonia

Regiune

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

COVID-19 – LV – Amendments to SA.100605: Reduction of the lease payment for lessees of publicly-owned property

Temei legal

Cabinet Regulation No 453 of 14 July 2020 as amended, Property and a Property of a Capital Company Controlled by a Public Person due to the Spread of Covid-19

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei

Forma de ajutor

Grant direct

Buget

Valoare

Durată (perioadă)

1.1.2022 – 14.4.2022

Sectoare economice

Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Latvia

Smilsu street 1, Riga, Latvia

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---

| 18.2.2022 | RO | Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene | C 82/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2022

RO

Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene

C 82/20

---

Autorizație pentru ajutoarele de stat acordate în conformitate cu dispozițiile articolelor 107 și 108 din Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene

Cazuri în care Comisia nu ridică obiecţii

(2022/C 82/02)

| Data adoptării deciziei | 4.11.2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Ajutorul nr. | SA.59209 |
| Stat membru | Finlanda |
| Regiune | Finlanda |
| Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului) | COVID-19: Maatalouden alkutuotannon yritysten väliaikainen tuki |
| Temei legal | Valtionavustuslaki 688/2001 |
| Tipul măsurii | Schemă |
| Obiectiv | Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei |
| Forma de ajutor | Grant direct |
| Buget | Buget global: 70 000 000 EUR
  Buget anual: 48 000 000 EUR |
| Valoare | 0 % |
| Durată (perioadă) | pâna la 30.6.2021 |
| Sectoare economice | Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor |
| Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului | ELY-keskus |
| PL 1000, 50101 Mikkeli (Keha-keskus) |

Data adoptării deciziei

4.11.2020

Ajutorul nr.

SA.59209

Stat membru

Finlanda

Regiune

Finlanda

Titlu (şi/sau numele beneficiarului)

COVID-19: Maatalouden alkutuotannon yritysten väliaikainen tuki

Temei legal

Valtionavustuslaki 688/2001

Tipul măsurii

Schemă

Obiectiv

Remedierea unei perturbări grave a economiei

Forma de ajutor

Grant direct

Buget

Buget global: 70 000 000 EUR

Buget anual: 48 000 000 EUR

Valoare

0 %

Durată (perioadă)

pâna la 30.6.2021

Sectoare economice

Toate sectoarele economice care pot beneficia de ajutor

Numele şi adresa autorităţii de acordare a ajutorului

ELY-keskus

PL 1000, 50101 Mikkeli (Keha-keskus)

Alte informaţii

Textul deciziei în limba (limbile) originală (originale), din care au fost înlăturate toate informaţiile confidenţiale, poate fi consultat pe site-ul:

https://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---

V Anunţuri

PROCEDURI REFERITOARE LA PUNEREA ÎN APLICARE A POLITICII ÎN DOMENIUL CONCURENŢEI

Comisia Europeană

| 18.2.2022 | RO | Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene | C 82/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2022

RO

Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene

C 82/21

---

AJUTOR DE STAT – UNGARIA

Ajutorul de stat SA.48556 (2019/C) (ex 2018/N) – Ajutor regional pentru investiții în favoarea Samsung SDI

Invitație de a prezenta observații în temeiul articolului 108 alineatul (2) din Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene

(Text cu relevanță pentru SEE)

(2022/C 82/03)

Prin scrisoarea din data de 29 iunie 2021, reprodusă în versiunea lingvistică autentică în paginile care urmează prezentului rezumat, Comisia a comunicat Ungariei decizia sa de a iniția procedura prevăzută la articolul 108 alineatul (2) din Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene referitor la măsurile menționate anterior.

Părțile interesate își pot prezenta observațiile privind măsura pentru care Comisia extinde procedura în termen de o lună de la data publicării prezentului rezumat și a scrisorii de mai jos, la adresa:

| Commission européenne |
| --- |
| Direction générale de la concurrence |
| Greffe des aides d’État |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Fax: +32 22961242 |
| Stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu |

Commission européenne

Direction générale de la concurrence

Greffe des aides d’État

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Fax: +32 22961242

Stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu

Aceste observații vor fi comunicate Ungariei. Păstrarea confidențialității privind identitatea părții interesate care prezintă observațiile poate fi solicitată în scris, precizându-se motivele care stau la baza solicitării.

TEXTUL REZUMATULUI

La 14 octombrie 2019, Comisia a inițiat procedura oficială de investigare deoarece avea îndoieli cu privire la compatibilitatea cu piața internă a unui ajutor regional pentru investiții în valoare de 108 milioane EUR pe care Ungaria intenționează să îl acorde companiei Samsung SDI pentru o investiție de 1,2 miliarde EUR în vederea extinderii capacității unei fabrici existente în Göd (Ungaria) care produce baterii pentru vehicule electrice. În etapa examinării prealabile, Ungaria a susținut că ajutorul era justificat de necesitatea de a compensa un dezavantaj net de 173 de milioane EUR în ceea ce privește locația din Ungaria în comparație cu o locație alternativă a investiției în Xi’an, China, unde Samsung SDI controlează prin intermediul unei întreprinderi comune o altă unitate de producție de baterii pentru vehicule electrice.

În decizia de inițiere a procedurii (1), opinia preliminară a Comisiei a fost că ajutorul nu era crucial pentru o decizie pozitivă privind locația în favoarea Ungariei, din cauza îndoielilor cu privire la dimensiunea și existența pretinsului decalaj de viabilitate în favoarea Chinei și a credibilității scenariului de investiții contrafactual.

În observațiile prezentate în urma inițierii procedurii oficiale de investigare, Samsung SDI și Ungaria au prezentat noi argumente și dovezi – revocând declarații anterioare contradictorii – cu privire la factorii relevanți pentru decizia Samsung de a investi în Ungaria și au modificat substanțial descrierea justificării ajutorului.

Ungaria consideră că este oportun să se revizuiască nu numai elementele cu privire la care Comisia și-a exprimat îndoielile în cursul deciziei de inițiere a procedurii (și anume diferența de costuri de investiții și credibilitatea aprovizionării locale etc.), ci și alți factori, inclusiv unii noi care nu au fost prezentați anterior, despre care se presupune că ar fi putut afecta riscul antreprenorial al scenariilor privind locația care au fost avute în vedere.

Având în vedere noile informații prezentate de Ungaria și de Samsung SDI, Comisia extinde domeniul de aplicare al deciziei inițiale de inițiere a procedurii pentru a prezenta aceste noi elemente și a pune în discuție îndoielile care rezultă din acestea, precum și pentru a permite tuturor părților terțe interesate să prezinte observații cu privire la noile dovezi prezentate de Ungaria și de Samsung SDI.

Ungaria și Samsung SDI prezintă, în esență, patru argumente noi și documente justificative suplimentare în sprijinul acestora. În primul rând, acestea recunosc că un scenariu mai realist de aprovizionare locală în China ar fi fost să se presupună că beneficiarul ar fi putut achiziționa aproximativ [25-30] (*1) până la [31-35] % (comparativ cu 100 %) din echipamentele de investiții la nivel local. În al doilea rând, acestea susțin că beneficiarul ar fi putut beneficia în China de un grant pentru investiții de [15-20] % din costurile de investiții eligibile, astfel cum reiese dintr-o ofertă de subvenție informală primită de la guvernul local chinez înainte de decizia de investiție. În al treilea rând, acestea susțin că ar fi fost legitim ca Samsung SDI să utilizeze – în evaluarea scenariului ce are în vedere China – o rată medie a impozitului pe profit mult mai mică, de 15 % (în comparație cu cea utilizată efectiv, de 25 %), ceea ce ar fi sporit în mod semnificativ avantajul comparativ al investiției contrafactuale din China. În al patrulea rând, la invitația Comisiei din decizia de inițiere a procedurii de a recalcula decalajul de viabilitate pe baza unor ipoteze mai realiste privind aprovizionarea locală, acestea susțin că o recalculare a decalajului de viabilitate pe baza unei abordări probabilistice (ținând seama, de asemenea, de noile elemente descrise mai sus) ar constitui o reflectare mai realistă a procesului decizional al Samsung. În fine, Comisia observă că noile documente justificative furnizate de Ungaria arată că în căutarea locației pentru proiectul de investiții au fost luate în considerare și o serie de situri de investiții de tip greenfield din Europa (în Polonia, Slovacia, Ungaria și Republica Cehă) și un altul în Asia. În urma unei evaluări interne, se pare că situl de tip greenfield din Polonia – situat într-o regiune eligibilă pentru ajutor regional în temeiul articolului 108 alineatul (3) litera (a) din TFUE – a fost menținut ca fiind competitiv, cel puțin într-o primă etapă, împreună cu locațiile din Göd (Ungaria) și din Xi’an (China).

Îndoieli suplimentare cu privire la compatibilitatea măsurii de ajutor

Comisia ridică îndoieli suplimentare cu privire la toate elementele noi prezentate de autoritățile maghiare și de beneficiar.

În primul rând, în acest stadiu, Comisia are îndoieli cu privire la faptul că procentele asumate privind aprovizionarea locală cuprinse între [25-30] % și [31-35] %, pot fi acceptate ca fiind realiste în China la momentul deciziei de investiție. Acest lucru se datorează faptului că dovezile prezentate de beneficiar pentru a justifica aceste cifre se bazează pe experiențe privind investiții mai puțin inovatoare și mai mici în China, care la prima vedere nu par să fie transferabile către investiția notificată și – cel puțin parțial – nu ar fi putut fi cunoscute de beneficiar la momentul deciziei de investiție, deoarece acestea au fost obținute și coroborate ex post. De asemenea, Comisia are îndoieli cu privire la aplicarea corectă și la valoarea majorării de [18-22] % la recalcularea decalajului de viabilitate în scenariul care are în vedere Ungaria.

În al doilea rând, pe baza elementelor de probă disponibile, Comisia are îndoieli cu privire la faptul că oferta invocată de grant pentru investiții, de [15-20] %, din partea Chinei, a constituit un factor relevant pentru decizia de investiție. Acest lucru se datorează faptului că dovezile furnizate sugerează că oferta de ajutor din partea Chinei se referea la un proiect de investiții diferit de scenariul contrafactual prezentat. În plus, documentele interne ale Samsung SDI prezentate recent par să sugereze că beneficiarul urmărea, la momentul deciziei de investiții, strategii de investiții regionalizate care necesitau construirea unei capacități separate de producție de baterii pentru vehicule electrice, situate atât în Europa, cât și în China, și deservind atât SEE (plus [...]), cât și piața geografică chineză.

În al treilea rând, în acest stadiu, Comisia consideră că utilizarea inițială de către Samsung SDI a unei rate a impozitului pe venit de 25 % în China la calcularea decalajului de viabilitate a constituit o abordare precaută solidă și, pe baza dovezilor disponibile, nu vede niciun argument convingător pentru care ar fi putut/ar fi trebuit să procedeze altfel. Comisia observă că temeiurile juridice pentru ambele scutiri fiscale invocate expirau la sfârșitul anului 2020 și nu este clar de ce beneficiarul consideră că s-ar fi putut presupune – la momentul deciziei de investiție din noiembrie 2017 – că oricare dintre acestea ar fi prelungite după această dată, în timp ce cea mai mare parte a veniturilor din investiții s-ar fi materializat după această dată.

Îndoielile de mai sus cu privire la credibilitatea măsurilor de sprijin public din partea Chinei care au fost invocate sunt accentuate și mai mult de faptul că beneficiarul nu le-a cuantificat și nici măcar nu le-a menționat în rapoartele prezentate în principalele etape decizionale din 26 octombrie și 27 noiembrie 2017.

Comisia consideră că îndoielile de mai sus, precum și faptul că Samsung SDI nu a informat autoritățile chineze cu privire la decizia de a investi în Ungaria, ci, probabil, a continuat negocierile privind subvențiile cel puțin până în mai 2018, când a primit o ofertă de subvenție nouă și îmbunătățită – deși încă informală – din partea Chinei, sugerează că Samsung nu avea în vedere în China o investiție contrafactuală reală, concurentă cu o investiție în Europa, ci urma, la momentul deciziei de investiție, strategii de investiții regionalizate care impuneau localizarea capacității de producție pe fiecare dintre piețele sale țintă (și anume China, Europa și [...]). Prin urmare, Comisia are îndoieli cu privire la credibilitatea investiției contrafactuale în China.

În al patrulea rând, Comisia consideră, în acest stadiu, că abordarea probabilistică propusă pentru a recalcula decalajul de viabilitate nu pare a fi compatibilă cu orientările Samsung SDI din 2016 privind investițiile în unități de producție și nu reflectă procesul decizional efectiv.

În fine, Comisia observă că noile documente interne prezentate recent arată – în contradicție cu cele susținute inițial de beneficiar – că a fost avut în vedere un sit european competitiv suplimentar în Polonia și că, în acest stadiu, nu poate exclude faptul că ajutorul pentru situl maghiar, eligibil pentru ajutor regional în temeiul articolului 107 alineatul (3) litera (c) din TFUE, ar fi putut avea un efect de contrabalansare a coeziunii prin atragerea de investiții dintr-o regiune poloneză mai puțin dezvoltată.

Din motivele de mai sus, Comisia ridică îndoieli cu privire la compatibilitatea ajutorului și consideră că este necesar să se extindă sfera investigației oficiale pentru a include aceste noi elemente și îndoielile respective.

Părțile interesate sunt invitate să își prezinte observațiile cu privire la ajutor și, în special, cu privire la aspectele identificate mai în detaliu în scrisoarea anexată adresată Ungariei.

TEXTUL SCRISORII

The Commission wishes to inform Hungary that, having examined the comments on the opening decision on the measure referred to above submitted by your authorities and by the aid beneficiary, as well as the additional information submitted subsequently by your authorities, it has decided to extend the scope of the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

1.   PROCEDURE

| (1) | On 14 October 2019, the Commission adopted a decision (hereinafter ‘the Opening Decision’) (2) 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’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

| (2) | Hungary submitted comments on the Opening Decision on 30 January 2020, presented its observations on third party comments on 9 July 2020, and replied on 3 November 2020 to a request for information from the Commission dated 25 August 2020. Samsung SDI submitted comments on the Opening Decision on 3 May 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

2.   DESCRIPTION OF THE FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE

2.1   Subject matter of the Opening Decision and doubts raised as to the compatibility of the measure with the internal market

| (3) | The Opening Decision was based on the information at the disposal of the Commission at the moment of its adoption, as provided by Hungary. On that basis, the Commission raised doubts regarding the incentive effect of the aid and the credibility of the alternative (Chinese) investment scenario presented by Hungary (see section 3.4.1.4 of the Opening Decision). In particular, the Commission took the preliminary view that the proposed regional aid was not crucial for a positive location decision in favour of Hungary. This was because the Commission had doubts as to the size and existence of the claimed gap of EUR 173 million in the net present value (‘NPV’) of the investment in favour of China, which was largely based on significant differences in investment costs between the two alternative investment locations, justified by Hungary and the beneficiary on the basis of a ‘local sourcing policy’ (3) which however was prima facie considered unrealistic by the Commission in the Opening Decision. In addition, the Commission could not exclude that a combination of strategic factors such as the quickly expanding European market, the proximity to European customers, the risk of forced transfer of technology and the hostile political and economic climate in China to South Korean undertakings, would not have constituted overriding strategic considerations that would have led the company to locate its investment in Hungary in any event, even in the absence of aid. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

| (4) | The Commission also raised doubts regarding the contribution of the aid to regional development (see section 3.4.1.1 of the Opening Decision), the appropriateness of the form of aid (see section 3.4.1.3 of the Opening Decision), and the proportionality of the aid (see section 3.4.1.5 of the Opening Decision). Finally, the Commission could not exclude that the investment concerned caused a relocation of Samsung SDI’s battery pack production activities from Austria to Hungary, which would constitute a manifest negative effect on trade within the meaning of paragraph 122 of the Guidelines on regional State aid for 2014-2020 (‘the RAG’) (4) (see section 3.4.2.4 of the Opening Decision). |
| --- | --- |

(4)

2.2   Additional information submitted by Hungary and Samsung SDI after the adoption of the Opening Decision

| (5) | In their comments on the Opening Decision, Hungary and Samsung SDI rescinded certain statements (see recital (13)) made during the preliminary assessment phase and presented new claims and evidence concerning the assumptions made by the beneficiary in the counterfactual scenario. That new information had not been shared with the Commission in the course of the preliminary examination, and was thus not reflected in the Opening Decision. Partially, the new statements contradict earlier information reflected in the Opening Decision, or underpinning the tentative Commission conclusions in it. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

| (6) | Hungary claims the newly submitted information was relevant for Samsung SDI’s decision to invest in Hungary as it related to factors that could affect the entrepreneurial risks of the location scenarios under consideration. Therefore, Hungary contends that the Commission is required to consider such new information when conducting the comprehensive assessment of the counterfactual scenario in order to verify the incentive effect of the proposed aid, as required by paragraph 69 of the RAG. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

| (7) | The new evidence and claims are summarised in sections 2.2.1 to 2.2.4 below: |
| --- | --- |

(7)

2.2.1.   Local sourcing in Xi’an (China) between [25-30] (*2)
  % and [31-35] %

| (8) | Hungary explained that, although Samsung SDI’s local sourcing counterfactual analysis was based on a premise which reflected the company’s settled policy (i.e. full local sourcing), Samsung SDI’s Investment Committee ex-ante assessment ‘may have been [...] too presumptive regarding its local sourcing capabilities’. At the same time, Hungary challenges the Commission’s assumption that Samsung SDI would not have sourced any equipment in China if it had chosen Xi’an as the investment location. Instead, it claims that, based on Samsung SDI’s ex-post calculations (5), a proportion of local sourcing of equipment /assets between [25-30] % and [31-35] % (6) of the eligible investment expenditure would have been realistic in Xi’an. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

| (9) | The minimum local sourcing of [25-30] % is based on the hypothesis that:






  a) | Samsung SDI would have sourced about [15-20] % of the value of the equipment necessary for the counterfactual investment in Xi’an from Chinese suppliers from which Samsung SDI had already purchased similar equipment in China for its factory in Tianjin (7). In support of this claim, Hungary and Samsung SDI provided the names of [5-10] Chinese suppliers for equipment and machinery which had supplied its Tianjin factory and provided partial records on equipment transactions spanning from 2015 to 2019, as well as summaries of the technical characteristics of those equipment.
  and |
| --- | --- | --- |

(9)

a)

Samsung SDI would have sourced about [15-20] % of the value of the equipment necessary for the counterfactual investment in Xi’an from Chinese suppliers from which Samsung SDI had already purchased similar equipment in China for its factory in Tianjin (7). In support of this claim, Hungary and Samsung SDI provided the names of [5-10] Chinese suppliers for equipment and machinery which had supplied its Tianjin factory and provided partial records on equipment transactions spanning from 2015 to 2019, as well as summaries of the technical characteristics of those equipment.

and

| b) | Samsung SDI would have sourced about [10-15] % of the value of the equipment necessary for the counterfactual investment in Xi’an from Chinese suppliers without a transaction record with Samsung SDI in China, but that had sold to other Chinese customers, including EV battery manufacturers, equipment based on the same technology as used in the counterfactual investment project. In support of this claim, Hungary provided the names of 4 Chinese producers, summaries of the technical characteristics of their respective equipment, as well as summaries of meetings with them that took place in between 2014 and 2019. |
| --- | --- |

b)

Samsung SDI would have sourced about [10-15] % of the value of the equipment necessary for the counterfactual investment in Xi’an from Chinese suppliers without a transaction record with Samsung SDI in China, but that had sold to other Chinese customers, including EV battery manufacturers, equipment based on the same technology as used in the counterfactual investment project. In support of this claim, Hungary provided the names of 4 Chinese producers, summaries of the technical characteristics of their respective equipment, as well as summaries of meetings with them that took place in between 2014 and 2019.

| (10) | The upper local sourcing bound of [31-35] % is based on the hypothesis that, in addition to the scenarios described in recital (9) a) and b) above






  c) | Samsung SDI would have also sourced about [3-8] % of the value of the equipment necessary for the counterfactual investment in Xi’an from Chinese suppliers without a transaction record with Samsung SDI in China, but that had sold to other Chinese customers, including EV battery manufacturers, equipment used in the same production processes as those used in the counterfactual investment project. In support of this claim, Hungary provided the names of 2 Chinese producers and summaries of meetings with them that took place in between 2014 and 2019. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(10)

c)

Samsung SDI would have also sourced about [3-8] % of the value of the equipment necessary for the counterfactual investment in Xi’an from Chinese suppliers without a transaction record with Samsung SDI in China, but that had sold to other Chinese customers, including EV battery manufacturers, equipment used in the same production processes as those used in the counterfactual investment project. In support of this claim, Hungary provided the names of 2 Chinese producers and summaries of meetings with them that took place in between 2014 and 2019.

| (11) | Hungary presents two further arguments in support of its claim that local sourcing in China was realistic at the time of the investment decision in November 2017. First, it contends that during 2015-2016 Samsung SDI had achieved a local sourcing ratio of machinery/equipment between [10-15] % and [25-30] % in its Tianjin plant. (8). Hungary considers that those investments constituted a relevant benchmark for the notified investment project because the respective manufacturing lines have ‘similar characteristics’ and ‘rely on analogous machinery and equipment’. Second, Hungary presents circumstantial evidence on the level of technological development in the Chinese equipment/machinery market in 2017, namely: (1) evidence as to the number of patent filings related to the manufacturing of batteries in China which, according to Hungary, had increased by 323.3 % over the period 2010-2016, and (2) evidence regarding China’s share of the world battery electric vehicle market which, according to Hungary, had increased from 9 % in 2013 to 64 % in 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

| (12) | Concerning the share of local sourcing that could have been more credibly assumed in Göd, Hungary does not present any new evidence and maintains that it has ‘no ground to question that local sourcing was a credible ex-ante assumption for Samsung SDI at the time it decided to invest in Göd’. It considers that it is ‘irrelevant how the sourcing of equipment and machinery for Hungary played out ex post, compared to what Samsung had initially envisaged in line with its settled local sourcing policy’. Finally, Hungary contends that since the assumed costs of local sourcing from South Korean suppliers were virtually identical to those of sourcing in the European Economic Area (‘the EEA’) (barring the transport costs), a local sourcing percentage lower than 100 % in Hungary would have a very limited impact on the ex-ante NPV outcome of the investment in Hungary. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

2.2.2.   Public support for the proposed alternative location in China

| (13) | The Commission notes that, when it inquired — during the preliminary assessment phase — about potential public support for the investment project in its alternative location in China, the Hungarian authorities answered on 11 December 2018 that although ‘[...] there were some unofficial and informal discussions on possible subsidies in China, there is no documentation on these discussions. The Chinese system is a considerably different system than the strongly formalized European one — as there are no written general rules. Central and local governments act case by case [...]. Furthermore, HQ [Samsung SDI’s Headquarters team in South Korea] had difficulties in Xi’an because the Chinese Government sanctions the xEV [hybrid electric vehicles] battery industry. The Chinese Government does not provide any subsidy for xEV, which has battery cells manufactured by non-Chinese companies. [...]. During the decision-making procedure, the beneficiary didn’t get any subsidy offer or documentation from the Chinese Government. As such a huge investment needs exact timing and planning this would have been hard to execute with [...] Chinese aid possibilities.’ |
| --- | --- |

(13)

| (14) | In their comments on the Opening Decision, the Hungarian authorities and Samsung SDI retracted the above statement and explained that Samsung SDI’s local management team in Hungary — which had been responsible for supporting Hungary with the notification — were ignorant of HQ strategy and the situation in China. They declared that major errors, misunderstandings, and the transmission of wrong information had occurred, and subsequently changed substantial parts of the narrative justifying the necessity of the aid by introducing two new claims, namely that (1) a direct investment grant covering [15-20] % of the investment costs would have been available in China and (2) if the investment had been carried out in China it would probably have benefitted from a corporate income tax (CIT) rate of 15 % (instead of a standard rate of 25 %). |
| --- | --- |

(14)

2.2.2.1.   Potential investment grant in China of [15-20] % of investment costs

| (15) | In contradiction with statements made during the preliminary examination phase (please see recital (13) above), Hungary now submits that Samsung SDI could also benefit in China from an investment grant of ‘up to (9)
  [15-20] % of investment costs’, as evidenced by an unsigned, unstamped subsidy offer from the Gaoxin local government, dated 23 February 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

| (16) | Hungary explained that, in the document referred to above, the Gaoxin local government offered essentially two options (10) to the beneficiary. The first option provided for ‘preferential policies’ pursuant to which the aid grantor would provide funds ‘of [15-20] % of the total project investment’ and ensure that (unspecified) ‘[...] the past MoU (11)
  would be complemented with additional aid’. It would also exempt Samsung SDI from ‘infrastructure costs in Xi’an’, which averaged ‘[200-300] yuan/m2
  ’. In addition, the Gaoxin government would provide some unquantified service support relating to the [...]. The document also specifies that Samsung SDI is expected to construct a [...] at its own cost. Under the second option, the aid grantor offers to construct [...]. However, under this option, none of the subsidies offered under the first option would be available. The offer from the Gaoxin local government does not provide any details on the characteristics of the aided investment project, nor the financial terms under which the buildings would be subsequently leased/sold to Samsung SDI. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

| (17) | In addition to the Chinese subsidy offer described in recital (16), the Hungarian authorities submitted, at the Commission’s request, further evidence documenting the course of the negotiations between Samsung SDI and the Gaoxin local government from January to July 2017, as well as the internal documents concerning Samsung SDI’s investment plan for its second plant in Xi’an from the same period. Hungary also provided an updated (but still unstamped and unsigned) aid offer dated 23 May 2018 in which the Gaoxin local government commits to provide subsidies ‘on a similar scale to the first project’ (i.e. [25-30] % of eligible investment costs) for Samsung SDI’s second battery plant in Xi’an, as well as a [...] dedicated for the beneficiary’s use. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

| (18) | The investment in Xi’an, China, as demonstrated by the documentary evidence submitted by Samsung SDI and the Hungarian authorities, either in the course of the preliminary assessment phase or later on, after the opening of the formal investigation procedure, would have the following characteristics:






  (a) | Firstly, the Chinese counterfactual investment notified to the Commission has investment costs of EUR [850-950] million and consists of [6-10] production lines. At the same time, several Samsung SDI internal documents (12) submitted after the Opening Decision describe an investment project in Xi’an with investment costs of around USD [650-750] million (app. EUR [500-600] million), consisting of ‘[2-5] additional production lines’. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(18)

(a)

Firstly, the Chinese counterfactual investment notified to the Commission has investment costs of EUR [850-950] million and consists of [6-10] production lines. At the same time, several Samsung SDI internal documents (12) submitted after the Opening Decision describe an investment project in Xi’an with investment costs of around USD [650-750] million (app. EUR [500-600] million), consisting of ‘[2-5] additional production lines’.

| (b) | Secondly, according to the implementation timeline envisaged for the Xi’an counterfactual investment by Samsung SDI on 21 September 2017 (13), construction works were planned to start in [...] 2018 and the start of production was planned for [...] 2020. At the same time, as evidenced by an email report of 21 July 2017 documenting the subsidy negotiation process with the Gaoxin local government (14), the timeline of the allegedly same Xi’an investment appears to be aligned with and dependent on the timing of the expected withdrawal of the subsidies for the acquisition of electric vehicles in China (and thus aligned and dependent on the opening of the Chinese EV market to foreign battery producers). Thus, the respective email report explains that ‘...in practice, since SDI already operates a factory in Xi’an, SDI will make additional investment in Xi’an if the investment is decided, and the investment period will be before December 2018, at the latest,

  considering that the subsidy will be abolished from January 2021
  ’. In this case start of works is thus envisaged six months later than the notified counterfactual investment (i.e. at the latest by end of 2018), and the start of production envisaged one year later than the notified counterfactual investment (i.e. by [...] 2021). Finally, as described in point (c) below, the full implementation of the investment in Xi’an was not to take place before — and therefore was dependant on — the ‘resolution of Chinese policy risk’, which the Commission understands to mean the withdrawal of the Chinese protectionist measures against foreign EV battery manufacturers targeting the Chinese battery market (see recitals (137) and (139) of the Opening Decision). |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Secondly, according to the implementation timeline envisaged for the Xi’an counterfactual investment by Samsung SDI on 21 September 2017 (13), construction works were planned to start in [...] 2018 and the start of production was planned for [...] 2020. At the same time, as evidenced by an email report of 21 July 2017 documenting the subsidy negotiation process with the Gaoxin local government (14), the timeline of the allegedly same Xi’an investment appears to be aligned with and dependent on the timing of the expected withdrawal of the subsidies for the acquisition of electric vehicles in China (and thus aligned and dependent on the opening of the Chinese EV market to foreign battery producers). Thus, the respective email report explains that ‘...in practice, since SDI already operates a factory in Xi’an, SDI will make additional investment in Xi’an if the investment is decided, and the investment period will be before December 2018, at the latest,

  considering that the subsidy will be abolished from January 2021
  ’. In this case start of works is thus envisaged six months later than the notified counterfactual investment (i.e. at the latest by end of 2018), and the start of production envisaged one year later than the notified counterfactual investment (i.e. by [...] 2021). Finally, as described in point (c) below, the full implementation of the investment in Xi’an was not to take place before — and therefore was dependant on — the ‘resolution of Chinese policy risk’, which the Commission understands to mean the withdrawal of the Chinese protectionist measures against foreign EV battery manufacturers targeting the Chinese battery market (see recitals (137) and (139) of the Opening Decision).

| (c) | Thirdly, as described in the notification (see recital (9) of the Opening Decision), although the counterfactual investment was located in China, it was intended to provide electric batteries only for the EEA and [...] geographical market, and not the Chinese geographical market. However, the Commission notes that a report from Samsung SDI’s Directors’ meeting of 3 March 2017 to discuss incentive negotiation results for the second plant in Xi’an suggests that the investment subject to the subsidy discussions with the Gaoxin local Government was in fact targeting the Chinese geographical market. In particular, the above-mentioned report indicates that ‘... minimizing [...] is necessary until resolution of Chinese policy risk’. It results from this document that Samsung SDI was attempting to hedge against the mentioned ‘Chinese policy risk’ by trying to convince the Chinese local government to provide a subsidy of [25-30] % of the investment costs and construct, from its own resources, the fixed assets (i.e. [...]) needed by Samsung in Xi’an. Upon finalization of the construction, Samsung intended to [...] the respective fixed assets until the ‘resolution of the policy risk’, at which point Samsung would be prepared to buy them. Given the refusal of the Chinese aid grantor to meet both of Samsung’s demands (see the options described in recital (16)), Samsung’s planning team proposes to accept the Chinese option 1 (i.e. the [15-20] % subsidy) but hold off ‘[...]’ until ‘policy risk resolution’. Instead, it proposes to proceed only with land purchase, the construction planning phase (e.g. designs, authorisation), and the construction of the [...]. According to this action plan, the investment decision was to be made only once the policy risk is resolved. On the basis of the above, the Commission understands the above-mentioned ‘Chinese policy risk’ to refer to the Chinese protectionist measures in force at that time against foreign EV battery manufacturers who were seeking to sell their products on the Chinese market (see recitals (137) and (139) of the Opening Decision). This interpretation is coherent with the comments of Hungary and Samsung SDI on the Opening Decision claiming that this Chinese policy risk would not have been relevant enough to hold up the investment decision if that respective investment was targeting export markets. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Thirdly, as described in the notification (see recital (9) of the Opening Decision), although the counterfactual investment was located in China, it was intended to provide electric batteries only for the EEA and [...] geographical market, and not the Chinese geographical market. However, the Commission notes that a report from Samsung SDI’s Directors’ meeting of 3 March 2017 to discuss incentive negotiation results for the second plant in Xi’an suggests that the investment subject to the subsidy discussions with the Gaoxin local Government was in fact targeting the Chinese geographical market. In particular, the above-mentioned report indicates that ‘... minimizing [...] is necessary until resolution of Chinese policy risk’. It results from this document that Samsung SDI was attempting to hedge against the mentioned ‘Chinese policy risk’ by trying to convince the Chinese local government to provide a subsidy of [25-30] % of the investment costs and construct, from its own resources, the fixed assets (i.e. [...]) needed by Samsung in Xi’an. Upon finalization of the construction, Samsung intended to [...] the respective fixed assets until the ‘resolution of the policy risk’, at which point Samsung would be prepared to buy them. Given the refusal of the Chinese aid grantor to meet both of Samsung’s demands (see the options described in recital (16)), Samsung’s planning team proposes to accept the Chinese option 1 (i.e. the [15-20] % subsidy) but hold off ‘[...]’ until ‘policy risk resolution’. Instead, it proposes to proceed only with land purchase, the construction planning phase (e.g. designs, authorisation), and the construction of the [...]. According to this action plan, the investment decision was to be made only once the policy risk is resolved. On the basis of the above, the Commission understands the above-mentioned ‘Chinese policy risk’ to refer to the Chinese protectionist measures in force at that time against foreign EV battery manufacturers who were seeking to sell their products on the Chinese market (see recitals (137) and (139) of the Opening Decision). This interpretation is coherent with the comments of Hungary and Samsung SDI on the Opening Decision claiming that this Chinese policy risk would not have been relevant enough to hold up the investment decision if that respective investment was targeting export markets.

| (19) | Hungary claims that although the Chinese subsidy offer was not specific to a certain investment project, Samsung SDI had nevertheless sufficient reasons to expect that it would receive a subsidy of at least [15-20] % and possibly more for any ramp-up investment in Xi’an, given that its 2014 investment agreement for the construction of Samsung SDI’s first Chinese EV battery plant stipulated that funding ‘will increase by the same ratio’ if Samsung SDI’s Chinese Joint venture were to make additional investments in Xi’an. (15) In answer to the question why the alleged aid offer was not presented to Samsung SDI’s decision-makers, Hungary and the beneficiary provided internal documents, for the first time disclosed to the Commission on 3 May 2020 (i.e. after the adoption of the Opening Decision), which reveal that an additional step in the decision-making process (see section 2.12.4. of the Opening Decision) took place during an internal meeting to discuss ‘New investment review for EU/[...] (16)’, held on 21 September 2017 and attended by a number of senior Samsung SDI managers, including Samsung SDI’s CFO. The report presented in that meeting and prepared by the Automotive and ESS (17) Business Division’s planning team contains — among others — a brief reference to an incentive offer of ‘[15-20] % of the investment amount offered by the Chinese Government in Feb 2017’, which shows — in Hungary’s opinion — that Samsung SDI was aware of the potential Chinese subsidy. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

| (20) | The Commission notes that the minutes of that meeting do not contain any indication that the respective subsidy offer was discussed, nor do they indicate instructions for follow-up. However, the respective minutes do contain an instruction for Samsung’s planning team that they should ‘develop plan to exploit the existing sites’ merits’, ‘review final site candidates (Göd in Hungary and Xi'an in China)’, and ‘keep in mind the factor that it could be helpful to diversify major sites in each continent so that production capability is not concentrated in one or two sites when it comes to suggestion for the new location. Cell production currently concentrated in Ulsan and Xi’an.’ |
| --- | --- |

(20)

| (21) | Hungary explains in its comments of 30 January 2020 on the Opening Decision that the quoted Chinese offer did not constitute ‘sufficiently firm assurances that it [Samsung] might benefit from an attractive additional subsidy in China if it were to invest further in Xi’an’, but nevertheless maintains that ‘the possibility that the granting of such aid would materialize was by no means unrealistic’. The fact that Samsung SDI’s did not quantify and include the Chinese subsidy in the viability gap comparison is, according to the Hungarian authorities, the result of a ‘conservative approach in view of the uncertainty surrounding the Chinese offer compared to the Hungarian offer’. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

| (22) | Hungary submits that on 23 May 2018 (18), i.e. almost six months after Samsung SDI’s location decision of 27 November 2017 in favour of Hungary, the Chinese authorities — who had allegedly not yet become aware of the fact that Samsung SDI had already opted for Göd as the location for its investment — on their own initiative, reiterated and improved (19) their offer for the ramping up of the investment in Xi’an (see recital (17)). |
| --- | --- |

(22)

| (23) | To the question why Samsung SDI had not informed the Chinese authorities of its decision to implement the investment project in Hungary, Hungary answered that ‘Samsung SDI never excluded that, depending on market circumstances, there could subsequently also be additional investment projects in EV battery production, including possibly in China’, and thus it was not in Samsung’s ‘best interest to inform the Chinese authorities of the investment in Göd’. The Commission notes that, according to several press reports (20), (21), Samsung SDI did indeed pursue an important ramp-up investment in Xi’an at the end of 2018. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

2.2.2.2.   Corporate income tax in China of 15 % instead of 25 %

| (24) | In its comments on the Opening Decision, Hungary explained that Samsung SDI’s assumption — in the NPV calculations submitted in the notification — of a corporate income tax (‘CIT’) rate differential of 16 percentage points between Hungary (CIT rate: 9 %) and China (CIT rate: 25 %) that generated a NPV advantage of approximately [480-520] million euros (in present value) in favour of Hungary was based on a rather conservative estimate of the CIT in China. Hungary claims that it would have been legitimate for Samsung SDI to take a much lower average tax rate of 15 % in China as basis for its NPV calculations, and explains that this lower Chinese CIT rate would have significantly increased the advantage of an investment in Xi’an. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

| (25) | Hungary further submits that a 10 percentage points reduction from the basic corporate income tax rate of 25 % was offered under the Chinese law in application at the time of the location decision, up until 31 December 2020, to any enterprise located in the Western Regions (22) that applied for it, was engaged in certain industrial activities, and achieved 70 % of its revenues from its main business. It appears that Samsung SDI had qualified and benefited from this lower CIT rate of 15 % for the years 2011 to 2016, until the Chinese tax authorities decided (without stating any specific reasons for this change) to remove the production of EV batteries from the Foreign Investment Industrial Guidance Catalogue for the years 2017/2018, with the effect that in those years the basic CIT rate of 25 % applied to EV battery producers located in the ‘Western Regions’, including Samsung SDI. The reduced corporate income tax rate of 15 % was applied again to Samsung SDI, after the catalogue was revised again by the Chinese Government in 2019. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

| (26) | Samsung SDI explained — but did not provide any documentary evidence to that effect — that it expected in 2017 the delisting from the catalogue to be reverted by 2019, when it estimated that the Chinese government would want to support the domestic EV battery cell production industry (because such a measure would not only benefit Samsung SDI, but also its Chinese competitors). Furthermore, the Commission notes that Samsung SDI and Hungary did not provide any documentary evidence or justification as to why they consider that it was foreseeable — at the time of the location decision in November 2017 — that the legislative provisions for this advantageous, time-limited derogation (until 2020) from the normal CIT rate would be renewed and become applicable also after 2020, when most revenues from the envisaged counterfactual investment would have been generated. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

| (27) | Hungary submitted that Samsung SDI had also considered (23), in June 2017, an alternative possibility to benefit from a reduced corporate tax rate, again of 15 %, under the ‘High and New Technology Enterprise’ (HNTE) regime (24), which was also limited to a time period ending by December 2020. The benefit of that advantageous tax regime was subject to certain conditions (25) (of which two were not fulfilled by Samsung SDI at that time (26) that, according to Samsung SDI, could have been met ‘through further actions’. Samsung SDI claims that it was reasonably confident that it would be able to benefit from the HNTE regime even though, ultimately, it decided not to pursue the HTNE track since it expected low profits in 2017-2018. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

| (28) | Samsung SDI submits that the allegedly foreseeable change of the Chinese CIT rate as a result of Samsung SDI’s future qualification under the HNTE regime was considered by the SDI Headquarters planning team (27) — and mentioned on 21 September 2017 in the internal meeting (28) mentioned in recital (19) — but that this element was ultimately not factored into the viability gap calculations submitted to SDI’s Investment Committee and to Samsung SDI’s Chief Executive Officer in the successive decision-making steps leading to the location and investment decision. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

| (29) | Just as for the invoked CIT reduction for Western Regions, Samsung SDI and Hungary did not provide evidence as to why they consider that it was foreseeable — at the time of the location decision in November 2017 — that the validity of the HTNE regime (expiring in 2020) would be prolonged and remain applicable after 2020, when most revenues from the envisaged counterfactual investment would have been generated. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

2.2.3.   Discrete and probabilistic approach for plausible viability gap calculations

| (30) | In its Opening Decision, the Commission considered that the viability gap presented by the Hungarian authorities in the notification documents should be recalculated based on the more realistic hypothesis of 0 % local sourcing for both investment scenarios (i.e. Hungary and China). |
| --- | --- |

(30)

| (31) | Hungary’s position is that a recalculation is not needed ‘essentially because the cost of local sourcing in the EEA for Göd was almost identical to the cost of local sourcing from South Korea’ and thus any share of local sourcing assumed in Hungary would have a minimal impact on the NPV of the investment to be made in Hungary. However, Hungary explained that it was prepared to compare a few other plausible viability scenarios, strictly on a ‘without prejudice basis’, with the purpose to illustrate how the viability gap between Hungary and China would remain significant in these scenarios and that, as a result, the State aid offered to Samsung SDI by the Hungarian authorities would maintain its incentive effect. More specifically, Samsung SDI recalculated the NPV gaps, envisaging two approaches: a ‘discrete’ approach and a ‘probabilistic’ one. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

| (32) | Under the discrete approach, Samsung SDI calculated two NPV gaps without any local sourcing in China or Hungary (i.e. the Commission’s suggestion in the Opening Decision), but taking into account either a local Chinese grant of [15-20] % of the investment, or a 15 % CIT rate. Samsung argues that these recalculations lead to viability gaps that are comparable or in excess of the original gap of EUR 173 million, which was submitted to the Investment Committee and based on which the location decision of 27 November 2017 was made. A third NPV gap recalculated based on [31-35] % local sourcing in China (and 0 % local sourcing in Hungary, no subsidy and a 25 % CIT rate in China) leads to an NPV gap that is lower than the original one but on par with the amount of State aid proposed by Hungary. Finally, a fourth NPV gap recalculated based on [25-30] % local sourcing in China (and 0 % local sourcing in Hungary, no subsidy and a 25 % CIT rate in China) leads to an NPV gap that is lower than both the original NPV gap and the amount of State aid proposed by Hungary. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

| (33) | Samsung SDI argues that the discrete methodology above does not accurately reflect the decision-making process leading to the investment. Instead, it considers that a probabilistic approach would be a more realistic reflection that takes into account all factors that were relevant to Samsung SDI when it decided on the location of the investment. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

| (34) | The three ‘probabilistic scenarios’ proposed by Samsung SDI combine the three different factors (i.e. local sourcing of [25-30] % in China, a [15-20] % Chinese grant, and a 15 % CIT rate) to which different probability coefficients are applied to reflect the uncertainty relating to the materialisation of these factors. The proposed probability coefficients are 100 % for the factor relating to [25-30] % local sourcing in China for all three scenarios, and alternatively 25 % or 0 % for the other two factors (in two scenarios) or both 25 % (in the third scenario). Samsung explains all three resulting recalculated NPV gaps are in the range of the original NPV gap, and all three are higher than the amount of State aid proposed by Hungary. In view of the above, Hungary argues the State aid that it proposed to Samsung SDI maintains its incentive effect. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

| (35) | The Commission notes that in Samsung SDI’s NPV recalculation scenarios above, the NPV of the investment to be made in Hungary is recalculated (and thus significantly reduced) on the basis of a 0 % local sourcing policy which leads to investment costs increased by [18-22] % as compared to the notified values due to the application of a [18-22] % mark-up justified by Samsung on the basis of the fact that its headquarters in South Korea needs to act as intermediary in the procurement of equipment sourced from South Korea. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

2.2.4.   Additional potential locations in the EEA

| (36) | In its comments on the Opening Decision, Samsung SDI submitted new documents (29) that show that the location search for the investment project had not only included Samsung SDI’s existing three battery cell plants in China, South Korea, and Hungary (as claimed in the notification and during the preliminary assessment phase), but that also greenfield investment sites had been considered in China (Wuxi), Poland (Środa), Slovakia (Sereď), Hungary (Tatabánya) and the Czech Republic (Most Joseph). Samsung SDI explained that these other possibilities were excluded ‘at an early stage’ in the decision-making process. The Commission notes that except for the locations mentioned above, no other locations in Asia or in America (30) are considered. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

| (37) | The internal Samsung SDI document cited above shows thus that several sites in Europe and China were assessed using a quantitative evaluation (taking into accounts investment costs and annual costs) and a qualitative evaluation (taking into account ‘labor environment, industrial infrastructure, State aid, others’). While the Czech, Slovak, and another Hungarian greenfield sites appear to have been excluded after these evaluations, a possible greenfield site in Poland appears to have been retained, at least in a first stage, (together with the Hungarian existing site in Göd and the existing Chinese site in Xi’an) as competitive after these two evaluations. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

| (38) | The Commission notes that the retained alternative EEA site (i.e. the greenfield site in Środa, Poland) is located in a more disadvantaged area than the chosen Göd area in Hungary. (31) |
| --- | --- |

(38)

2.2.5.   Conclusions

| (39) | In the light of new information presented by Hungary and Samsung SDI, the Commission extends the scope of the formal investigation procedure initiated by the Opening Decision to cover the new elements submitted by Hungary and Samsung SDI, as well as the Commission’s doubts concerning those new elements, and to allow all interested third parties to comment on the new evidence presented by Hungary and Samsung SDI as relevant for the compatibility assessment. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

3.   ASSESSMENT

3.1.   Local sourcing in Xi’an (China) between [25-30] % and [31-35] %

| (40) | The Commission notes that Samsung SDI and the Hungarian authorities currently admit that the hypothesis of 100 % local sourcing in China might have been unrealistic at the moment of the location decision, and that a correction to substantially reduced quotas of [25-30] % to [31-35] % is proposed instead. The evidence put forward to justify these numbers (see recitals (9) to (11)) is based on:






  (a) | the sourcing experience with [5-10] Chinese suppliers, from 2015 to 2019 (so partly after the location 2017 decision), of another factory in Tianjin (China) owned by Samsung SDI which was set up in 1996 and produced batteries for mobile devices (32); |
| --- | --- | --- |

(40)

(a)

the sourcing experience with [5-10] Chinese suppliers, from 2015 to 2019 (so partly after the location 2017 decision), of another factory in Tianjin (China) owned by Samsung SDI which was set up in 1996 and produced batteries for mobile devices (32);

| (b) | partly ex-post evidence regarding the capabilities achieved by 4 Chinese suppliers of equipment/machinery using ‘the same technology’ as Samsung SDI and |
| --- | --- |

(b)

partly ex-post evidence regarding the capabilities achieved by 4 Chinese suppliers of equipment/machinery using ‘the same technology’ as Samsung SDI and

| (c) | mostly ex-post evidence regarding the capabilities of other 2 Chinese suppliers offering ‘equipment used in the same production processes’ as the ones employed by Samsung SDI in the notified investment project. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

mostly ex-post evidence regarding the capabilities of other 2 Chinese suppliers offering ‘equipment used in the same production processes’ as the ones employed by Samsung SDI in the notified investment project.

| (41) | With regards to point (a) of recital (40), the Commission considers that it is doubtful that Samsung SDI’s experience concerning significantly smaller (33) investments for less sophisticated batteries for mobile devices would be fully transferable to the EV pouch battery cells manufacturing business based on innovative processes and equipment introduced in the sector for the first time world-wide (see recital (21) of the Opening Decision). The Commission further notes that the invoked [10-15] % to [25-30] % local sourcing rates in the Tianjin factory were only achieved after nearly 20 years of operation of the plant and some of the invoked transactions occurred after the location decision. It is also not clear to what extent the respective numbers cover machinery/equipment or also spare parts or services used in the production process. |
| --- | --- |

(41)

| (42) | Concerning the arguments under points (b) and (c) of recital (40), the Commission observes that they rely on ex-post assembled evidence (partially referring to experiences in 2018 and 2019) that were mostly not available to Samsung SDI at the moment when the investment and location decision was prepared in 2017. The Commission recalls that in the course of the preliminary examination, when the Commission inquired why Samsung did not choose to source (significantly cheaper) equipment and machinery from China for the Hungarian investment, the Hungarian authorities answered on 31 May 2019 that ‘[...] notwithstanding the improvements compared to the past, the contacted Chinese suppliers did still not fully meet SDI's [...] requirements’. The Commission notes that the above conclusion was based on Samsung SDI’s technical assessment (34) of five Chinese equipment manufacturers (which are however different from the ones invoked in recitals (9) and (10)) in January 2017 (i.e. preceding the investment decision) (please see also recital (50) of the Opening Decision). |
| --- | --- |

(42)

| (43) | Furthermore, the Commission notes that the shares of local sourcing proposed under points (a) to (c) of recital (40) are based on estimations that take account of only a sample (35) and not the entire equipment required for the investment project. The Commission considers at this stage that this sample cannot be considered representative of the entire investment project since it appears to correspond, to a large extent, to the first (and less innovative) of the two successive phases of the investment project (36). It is thus not clear why Samsung SDI considers that its local sourcing simulation covering largely the first investment phase would be transferable to the second (more innovative) phase of the investment (37). |
| --- | --- |

(43)

| (44) | The Commission also notes that the Samsung SDI’s ‘local sourcing policy’ does not seem to have been applied in the past for greenfield investments based on new innovative technologies (such as, for example, their first EV battery investments in Xi’an and Göd). The Commission recalls that the technology for phase 2 was still under development in Samsung SDI’s South Korean research facilities at the time of the preliminary examination (see recital (20) of the Opening Decision). The Commission therefore strongly doubts at this stage that any local sourcing could have been assumed in November 2017 (i.e. at the time of the location decision) to take place in China with regard to equipment for phase 2 of the investment that should reflect some [50-60] % of all investment expenditure. The Commission also notes that the disclosure of details of needed equipment for phase 2 would entail a strong risk of intellectual property theft (see recital (43) of the Opening Decision). |
| --- | --- |

(44)

| (45) | The Commission considers at this stage that, if the scenario of partial local sourcing in China — for phase 1 of the investment — should be assessed as realistic at the time of the investment/location decision to a certain extent, Hungary does not convincingly explain why the machinery/equipment needs in Hungary should not be sourced from much cheaper Chinese suppliers (instead from South Korea). In such a case the viability gap between the two locations would prima facie be limited to differences in transport costs for the concerned machinery/equipment. |
| --- | --- |

(45)

| (46) | Finally, the Commission notes that Hungary does not submit any data as to the share of local sourcing that could have reasonably been assumed in the Hungarian investment scenario on the basis of the justification that a share of local sourcing below 100 % would have had a minimal impact on the NPV of the Hungarian project. The Commission has serious doubts with regard to that assessment and notes that in all viability gap recalculations, the Hungarian investment costs for machinery and equipment are increased by [18-22] % (in Hungary’s comments to the Opening Decision) compared to the initial prices (as presented in the planning documents and notification), which has a significant (negative) impact on the NPV of the investment project to be made in Hungary (please see recital (37) of the present decision). Hungary informs that this is due to the application of the assumption that all equipment for the Hungarian scenario would be sourced via the Samsung headquarters in South Korea (i.e. that there would be no local sourcing in Hungary). The Commission notes that the [18-22] % mark-up used is substantially higher than the medial value of the mark-up calculated by a December 2018 Deloitte study submitted by Samsung SDI (medial value of [13-18] %). That study also shows that the mark-up used for SDI Hungary in 2017 was [14-18] % (not [18-22] %). It is also unclear why the mark-up used for Hungarian subsidiary was higher than the mark-up (of [12-15] %) used for similar transactions with Samsung SDI’s joint venture in China. |
| --- | --- |

(46)

| (47) | On the basis of the above, the Commission has doubts as to the correct application of the [18-22] % mark-up in the recalculation of the viability gap and maintains its doubt expressed in the Opening Decision on whether the [18-22] % mark-up results in a market conform price and does not artificially inflate the eligible costs of the scenario in which the investment is located in Hungary. |
| --- | --- |

(47)

3.2.   Public support for alternative location in China

3.2.1.   Potential investment grant in China of [15-20] % of investment costs

| (48) | The Commission notes that the invoked Chinese grant aid offer from February 2017 was neither signed, nor stamped, nor was it specific (38) to the envisaged counterfactual investment project, and is conditional upon the construction of a [...] by Samsung SDI, which would likely imply important additional investment costs. |
| --- | --- |

(48)

| (49) | The Commission also notes a number of inconsistencies between the investment project described in reports documenting the subsidy negotiation with the Gaoxin local government and the counterfactual Chinese investment described in the notification. These inconsistencies refer to essential characteristics of the investment project, i.e. its scope and investment amount (see recital (18) point (a)), the implementation timeline (see recital (18) point (b)), and its target market (see recital (18) point (c)) — and suggest that the Chinese subsidy offer and the entire negotiation with the Chinese local authorities concerned — contrary to what Samsung SDI and the Hungarian authorities claim — a different investment project than the Chinese counterfactual to the Hungarian investment. |
| --- | --- |

(49)

| (50) | The Commission therefore has strong doubts that the Chinese aid offer described in recital (16) refers to the counterfactual Chinese investment notified to the Commission. At this stage, it rather appears that the Chinese aid offer and the respective negotiation process with the Chinese authorities in 2017 envisaged a smaller investment, with a different timeline, aiming to ramp up EV battery production capacity in Xi’an to serve the Chinese market, and not for the notified counterfactual investment that was aiming to supply EV batteries for the European and [...] markets. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

| (51) | The Commission notes that, although the Chinese aid grant offer was very briefly mentioned in a single internal company document submitted for the decision-making steps of the notified investment (see section 2.12.4. ‘The decision making process’ in the Opening Decision and the additional step described in recital (19)), it was never actually included in the NPV comparisons between the alternative investment scenarios. By contrast, the Hungarian aid offer was included in the respective comparisons and is presented as a key factor justifying the investment decision in favour of Hungary. At this stage, the Commission interprets the minutes of the meeting of Samsung directors of 21 September 2017 where the Chinese subsidy offer was presented (see recitals (19) and (20)) as guidance from Samsung SDI’s top management that overall production capacity should not remain concentrated in Ulsan (South Korea) and Xi’an (China), as was the case at the time (39), despite the many advantages of the Xi’an site described in the report. The Commission notes that, possibly in implementation of the above guidance to prioritise a regional diversification of the undertaking’s global production capacities, in the forth and fifth(last) decision-making steps which followed the September meeting (see recitals (68) and (69) of the Opening Decision) no reference whatsoever is made to the Chinese subsidy offer although the Hungarian aid offer of EUR 106 million features in the documents submitted to Samsung SDI’s Chief Executive Officer on 27 November 2017 as a ‘decision factor’. |
| --- | --- |

(51)

| (52) | The Commission notes that Samsung SDI admits (see recital (23)) that after it had taken the location decision in favour of Hungary, it never informed the Chinese authorities about it. The Commission notes that according to Samsung SDI, no negotiations took place with the Chinese authorities between the location decision for Hungary in November 2017 and May 2018 when the second subsidy offer was received (see recital (22)). The Commission considers it highly unlikely that the Chinese authorities, on their own initiative and without further discussions with Samsung SDI suddenly increased their subsidy offer of February 2017 in May 2018, i.e. more than 8 months after the last documented interaction (40) between Samsung SDI and the Chinese aid grantor. The Commission therefore invites Hungary to submit all communication, whatever its form, between Samsung SDI, respectively its joint venture in Xi’an, and the responsible local government authorities in China that took place after July 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(52)

| (53) | The Commission considers at this stage that the corroboration of the facts and doubts expressed above suggests that Samsung was not envisaging in China a real counterfactual investment, competing with an investment in Europe, but was pursuing, at the latest as from July 2017, regionalised investment strategies that required manufacturing capacity to be located in each of its target markets (i.e.China, Europe, and [...]). This doubt is further reinforced by the minutes of the internal high-level Samsung meeting on 21 September 2017 (see recitals (20) and (21)) which might be understood as guidance to the ‘[...]’, by a high level steering group charged with reviewing investment strategies to serve the rapidly expanding EU and [...] markets, to enable a positive location decision in favour of Europe. This guidance might explain why the grant offer of February 2017, and the claimed possibility of a reduced CIT rate (see section 2.2.2.2), both mentioned in the documents for the high-level meeting of 21 September 2017, were not factored in into the calculations submitted for the following planning steps, or even mentioned there. |
| --- | --- |

(53)

| (54) | The Commission reminds that Samsung SDI in fact admits that it never excluded (see recital (23)) an additional investment (41) in China, which appears to be a plausible explanation of why Samsung SDI did not inform the Chinese authorities of the investment in Göd. |
| --- | --- |

(54)

| (55) | Under the hypothesis of regionalised investment strategies, the investment decision for the Chinese market (ramping up of the Xi’an facility) appears to have been delayed not because the aid proposed by Hungary rendered the implementation of the investment in Europe more viable, but because the conditions to open the access of South Korean EV battery producers to the domestic Chinese market were not yet given. |
| --- | --- |

(55)

| (56) | Indeed, the Commission notes that, according to a press report, China’s pledge to phase out subsidies for electric cars and plug-in hybrids by 2020 and the publication in May 2018 of a new ‘white list’ (42) of approved battery suppliers by two Chinese auto industry associations constituted important signals that China was starting to open its car battery market to foreign producers. The timing of the second Chinese subsidy offer of May 2018 appears thus to have not been coincidental. It appears that in June 2019, China decided to not apply anymore the respective ‘white list’ (43), (44). |
| --- | --- |

(56)

| (57) | In view of the above, the Commission considers, at this stage, that only the regionalised investment strategy can explain why Samsung SDI decision-makers — although at least the planning team and senior executives were aware of it — dismissed the Chinese subsidy offer of [15-20] % in the course of the decision-making process for the notified investment while putting a significant emphasis on the aid offer of 9.1 % from Hungary, which was presented as a ‘key decision factor’ in the report to Samsung SDI’s Chief Executive Officer in November 2017. |
| --- | --- |

(57)

3.2.2.   Corporate income tax (CIT) in China of 15 % instead of 25 %

| (58) | Hungary and Samsung SDI also argue that a CIT rate of 15 % instead of 25 % could have been legitimately used in the calculations underpinning the NPV viability gap, and anticipated by Samsung SDI at the time of the investment decision, either on the basis of the Chinese policies for the Western Regions, or based on the possibility that Samsung SDI could have qualified for a reduced CIT rate under the HNTE regime. |
| --- | --- |

(58)

| (59) | The Commission notes that Samsung SDI does not provide convincing arguments as to why it could have reasonably foreseen in 2017 that any of the abovementioned favourable measures would have been prolonged, under the same or comparable conditions, beyond their expiration date in 2020, when most of the revenues from the notified investment would have been generated. |
| --- | --- |

(59)

| (60) | It appears in fact that the rules for qualifying for the invoked reduced CIT rate for the Western Regions were highly volatile at the moment of the investment decision, as evidenced by the fact that its benefits were unexpectedly withdrawn to the EV battery industry that qualified for it in China in 2017 and 2018 without any official justification (see recital (25)). It would thus prima facie appear implausible to assume that Samsung SDI, instead of adopting a sound precautionary approach, instead chose to rely on an extension of such favourable tax treatment without any grounds for such reliance. |
| --- | --- |

(60)

| (61) | Concerning the alternative possibility to benefit from a reduced CIT rate under the HNTE regime invoked by Samsung SDI, the Commission notes that — as it results from its internal analysis — Samsung SDI did not comply at the moment of the investment decision with two of its conditions (see footnote 26). Prima facie, it appears doubtful that Samsung SDI would have been prepared to fulfil the respective conditions, in particular the required transfer of intellectual property rights to a Chinese joint venture (see footnote 26), and the implementation of a major effort in research and development, exceeding 3 % of sales. |
| --- | --- |

(61)

| (62) | Finally, the Commission considers at this stage that, if Samsung SDI had seen in 2017 a realistic chance to benefit from a continued tax reduction, it would have probably pointed out the significant effect of that reduction in quantitative terms in the NPV comparisons between the alternative investment locations. |
| --- | --- |

(62)

3.3.   Discrete and probabilistic approach for plausible viability gap calculations

| (63) | Hungary argues that that even if it were to admit — as the Commission suggests in the Opening Decision — that local sourcing was not credible at all in either investment scenario, a recalculation of the viability gap on the basis of either a Chinese grant of [15-20] %, or a CIT rate of 15 % in China, would result in an NPV viability gap comparable to the original one of EUR 173 million. With regard to the above, the Commission evokes the doubts it already raised in sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 regarding both invoked public support measures in China. |
| --- | --- |

(63)

| (64) | Hungary and Samsung SDI equally argue that a recalculated viability gap based on [25-30] to [31-35] % local sourcing in China and 0 % local sourcing in Hungary would result in a viability gap of EUR [80-85] to [105-110]. The gap based on [31-35] % local sourcing in China, although smaller than the original one, would nevertheless remain higher than the aid proposed by the Hungarian authorities, which means that its incentive effect would be maintained. The Commission notes however that a recalculated gap based on the lower bound of the [25-30] % local sourcing estimation in China (i.e. [25-30] %) would lead to an updated NPV gap of EUR [80-85] which is lower than the proposed aid (i.e. EUR 108 in present value, see recital (26) of the Opening Decision, which means the respective aid is not proportionate, as it would not be limited to the minimum required to compensate for the net disadvantage of Hungary (see recital (145) of the Opening Decision). The Commission also points to the doubts entertained in relation to the [25-30] to [31-35] % local sourcing hypothesis in China and described in section 3.1. |
| --- | --- |

(64)

| (65) | Finally, Samsung SDI submits three probabilistic approaches (see recital (34)) for the recalculation of the NPV viability gap in which it assigns probability estimates of 100 % to the revised local sourcing of [25-30] % in China and probability estimates of 25 % and 0 % (in the first scenario), 0 % and 25 % (in the second scenario) and 25 % and 25 % (in the third scenario) to the other two invoked factors, namely the [15-20] % Chinese grant and the reduced CIT rate in China. All three approaches result in a recalculated NPV gap similar to the one originally submitted by Hungary. |
| --- | --- |

(65)

| (66) | The Commission notes that a probabilistic approach to calculating the NPV viability gap does not appear to be compatible with Samsung SDI 2016 Guidelines on Facility Investment, which contain guidance for the decision-making process concerning investments in new plants or for the expansion of existing plants in excess of KRW [...] billion (app. EUR [...] million). Samsung did not provide any contemporary internal documents on the location choice that would support this weighing approach. In addition, the value of the proposed probability factors appears at this stage arbitrary and has not been substantiated by the beneficiary. |
| --- | --- |

(66)

3.3.4.   Additional potential locations in the EEA

| (67) | From the documents submitted by Samsung SDI in response to the Opening Decision, it was revealed that the location search for the investment project had not only included Samsung SDI’s existing three battery cell plants in China, South Korea, and Hungary (as claimed during the preliminary assessment phase), but that also other greenfield investment sites had been considered in China, Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and the Czech Republic. Samsung SDI explains that these other possibilities were excluded at an early stage in the decision-making process and refers to an internal document in support of this fact that had not been shared with the Commission before the adoption of the Opening Decision (see recital (36)). |
| --- | --- |

(67)

| (68) | The Commission notes that the newly submitted information shows however that greenfield investments had been considered in the EEA (Poland, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic (45) in a rather late stage of the decision making process (i.e. on 21 September 2017). In particular, the report presented during that meeting shows that several sites were assessed using a quantitative evaluation (taking into account investment costs, total estimated operating costs for 2022, and the time required to complete the investment) and a qualitative evaluation (taking into account ‘labor environment, industrial infrastructure, State aid, others’). While the Czech and Slovak greenfield sites (and a second Hungarian greenfield site) were excluded after these evaluations, the possible greenfield site in Poland (Środa) appears to have been retained in a first stage (together with the Hungarian existing site in Göd and the existing Chinese site in Xi’an). |
| --- | --- |

(68)

| (69) | It appears that the Polish location was not assessed under the next step i.e. a ‘detailed analysis of the final candidates’ involving a profit and loss simulation, timeline simulation and the potential for expansion, but it is not clear exactly on what basis it was dismissed. It is thus necessary to precisely determine at which stage and for which reasons the alternative locations in Poland (Środa) was discarded and to which extent it could have constituted a credible alternative location for the investment. |
| --- | --- |

(69)

| (70) | In recital (175) of the Opening Decision, the Commission noted — on the basis of the information available to it at the time when that decision was adopted — that Hungary considered the Chinese location (existing site in Xi’an) as constituting the counterfactual scenario for the purpose of the compatibility assessment and that no other area in the EEA was considered as a feasible location, so that no ‘counter-cohesion effect’ could occur. In recital (39) of the Opening Decision, the Commission noted that the aid beneficiary excluded from the outset (this does not appear to be confirmed however by the 21 September 2017 report) a greenfield investment due to time constraints. |
| --- | --- |

(70)

| (71) | The Commission recalls in this context that in accordance with paragraph 121 of the RAG, where without State aid the investment at hand would have been located in a region in the EEA with a regional aid intensity which is higher or the same as that of the target region, such circumstance would constitute a negative effect that is unlikely to be compensated by any positive effect because it would run counter to the very rationale of regional aid (46). |
| --- | --- |

(71)

| (72) | Accordingly, the Commission at this stage cannot exclude that aid to the Hungarian site, eligible for regional aid pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) TFEU might have had a counter-cohesion effect by attracting investments away from a less-developed Polish region, eligible for regional aid pursuant to Article 107(3)(a) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(72)

4.   CONCLUSION

| (73) | For the reasons set out above, in addition to the doubts raised in the Opening Decision, the Commission, after a preliminary assessment of the new information submitted by the beneficiary and the Hungarian authorities, is therefore of the preliminary view that the regional aid was not crucial for a positive location decision in favour of Hungary and raises doubts on the incentive effect of the aid and on the credibility of the counterfactual investment scenario. More specifically, the Commission has doubts about the credibility of the [25-30] % to [31-35] % local sourcing hypothesis in China, the sourcing and investment costs assumptions in Hungary considering that alleged availability of significantly cheaper equipment from Chinese producers, the correct application and the size of the mark-up in the Hungarian scenario, the credibility of the counterfactual investment scenario in Xi’an in light of the regionalised investment strategies likely applied by the beneficiary, the credibility of the public support measures invoked by the beneficiary in China, as well as regards the acceptability of the probabilistic approach in the recalculation of the viability gap. In addition, the Commission considers that it cannot be excluded that the aid may have a counter-cohesion effect by attracting investments away from a less developed Polish region. |
| --- | --- |

(73)

| (74) | Consequently, the Commission extends the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the TFEU to cover the elements summarised in recital (73). The extension will give the opportunity to third parties whose interests may be affected by the granting of the aid to provide comments in light of the new information provided by Hungary and Samsung SDI after the adoption of the Opening Decision. In light of both the information submitted by the Member State concerned and that provided by third parties, the Commission will assess the measure and will take its final decision. |
| --- | --- |

(74)

| (75) | 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 Hungary to submit its comments on the additional doubts raised by the Commission in the present decision and to provide all such information as may help to assess the measure, within one month of the date of receipt of this letter. It requests the Hungarian authorities to forward a copy of this letter to the potential recipient of the aid without delay. |
| --- | --- |

(75)

| (76) | The Commission wishes to remind Hungary that Article 108(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union has suspensory effect, and would draw your attention to Article 16 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589, which provides that all unlawful aid may be recovered from the recipient. |
| --- | --- |

(76)

| (77) | The Commission warns Hungary 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. |
| --- | --- |

(77)

| (78) | Finally, the Commission notes that Hungary exceptionally agreed to have the present decision adopted in the English language. |
| --- | --- |

(78)

---

(1)  Ajutor de stat – Ungaria – Ajutor de stat SA.48556 (2019/C) (ex 2018/N) – Ajutor regional pentru investiții în favoarea Samsung SDI – Invitație de a prezenta observații în temeiul articolului 108 alineatul (2) din Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene (JO C 112, 3.4.2020, p. 12).

1

(*1)  Informații confidențiale.

*1

Informații confidențiale.

(2)  OJ C 112, 27.3.2020, p. 12.

2

(3)  The ‘local sourcing policy’ required the company to buy from local sources the equipment and machinery and the other inputs necessary for the investment.

3

(4)  OJ C 209, 23.7.2013, p. 1.

4

(*2)  Confidential information.

*2

Confidential information.

(5)  In these calculations, Samsung SDI outlined the machinery and equipment actually supplied by Korean producers for the investment in Göd (Hungary) up to September 2020. For each machinery/equipment it identifies a Korean supplier and the actual price paid by Samsung SDI. Then, for the same machinery/equipment, Samsung SDI identifies corresponding Chinese suppliers which it considers would have been able to provide comparable machinery/equipment if the investment would have been located in Xi’an. The price Samsung SDI estimates it would have paid to these Chinese suppliers is not based on actual price offers but on the rough estimation that that price would have been about [70-75] % of the price actually paid to the Korean suppliers in Göd, Hungary. Samsung SDI explains that this coefficient reflects the assumptions underlying the counterfactual analysis, which used the indexes calculated on the basis of a market report (see recital (43) of the Opening Decision). Samsung SDI’s assumption is that, if the investment would have been located in Xi’an, Samsung SDI would have indeed sourced from these identified Chinese suppliers, and not from elsewhere.

5

(6)  In Samsung SDI’s comments of 3 May 2020 to the Opening Decision, a range of [25-30] % to [30-40] % was considered realistic. Upon questioning by the Commission, the upper bound of the range was corrected by Samsung SDI and Hungary, on 3 November 2020, to [31-35] % .

6

(7)  Samsung SDI’s Tianjin plant is in operation since 1996 and manufactures cylindrical batteries for mobile devices.

7

(8)  See footnote 7.

8

(9)  The Hungarian authorities argue that this translation provided by the aid beneficiary is imprecise: “up to” should be replaced by “of”.

9

(10)  A third option, i.e. ‘Construction by [...]’ is described in the document but this is not retained as a relevant by Samsung SDI in a Directors’ meeting to discuss the ‘incentive negotiation result’ on 3 March 2017.

10

(11)  The “past MoU” refers to an investment agreement between Samsung SDI and the Gaoxin local government, according to which Samsung’s Joint Venture in Xi’an (Samsung SDI-ARN Power Battery Co. Ltd.) had benefited from a [25-30] % subsidy for its first (2014) investment in Xi’an (please see also recital (39) and footnote 13 of the Opening Decision).

11

(12)  An internal document of 5 January 2017 entitled ‘Xi’an Plant #2 Investment Plan’, the minutes of a 9/10 January 2017 business trip to China where Samsung representatives aimed to ‘persuade partners regarding Xi’an Plant 2 investment and to negotiate incentives’,

12

(13)  According to the 21 September 2017 report ‘New investment review for EU/[...]’

13

(14)  The report is contained in an email of 21 July 2017 sent by a Samsung SDI employee to its colleagues in Samsung’s headquarters to brief them on the results of a meeting with the Deputy Director of the Chinese aid grantor on 20 July 2017.

14

(15)  According to article 2 of the Support Policy annexed to the Memorandum of Understanding between the Xi’an Hi-tech Industries Development Zone (referred to as ‘A’) and Samsung Huaxin (Xi’an) Power Battery Co., Ltd.(referred to as ‘B’), ‘Xi'an Hi-tech Zone grants a specialized fund, equivalent to [25-30] % of the total investment of the PJT [i.e. Samsung SDI’s automotive power battery project], to enterprises that satisfy the requirements. A makes the payment at the same rate as the rate of investment by B. [...]. If the PJT Company increases investment, this fund will increase at the same ratio. [...]’.

15

‘Xi'an Hi-tech Zone grants a specialized fund, equivalent to [25-30] % of the total investment of the PJT

, to enterprises that satisfy the requirements. A makes the payment at the same rate as the rate of investment by B. [...]. If the PJT Company increases investment, this fund will increase at the same ratio. [...]’.

(16)  European Union /[...].

16

(17)  Energy Storage Systems.

17

(18)  The Commission notes that by that time the protectionist measures referred to in recital (18)(c) had been lifted.

18

(19)  Promising to grant a subsidy of [25-30] % of the investment costs and to build the required [...].

19

(20)  Online press report of 10 December 2018 (National Business Daily) titled ‘Samsung begins construction of second-phase power battery project in Xi'an’ available at: http://m.nbdpress.com/articles/2018-12-10/5778.html

20

(21)  Online press report of 11 December 2018 (Yicai Global) titled ‘Samsung Unit to Invest USD1.5 Billion, Restart Xi'an Power Battery Project’, available at: https://www.yicaiglobal.com/news/samsung-unit-to-invest-usd15-billion-restart-xian-power-battery-project-

21

(22)  Where Xi’an is located.

22

(23)  As documented in a Samsung SDI internal report dated 5 June 2017 and titled ‘Discussion on responding to revision on China’s Catalogue for the Guidance of Foreign Investment Industries’

23

Discussion on responding to revision on China’s Catalogue for the Guidance of Foreign Investment Industries

(24)  Notice of the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation on Revising and Issuing the Measures for the Administration of the Certification of High-tech Enterprises (2016).

24

(25)  Linked, among other things, to the number and share of employees working on research and development, costs of research and development activities, ownership of intellectual property rights.

25

(26)  Namely: [...].

26

(27)  In support of this statement Samsung SDI submits documentary evidence in the form of a report titled ‘Review for new production investment to EU&[...]’, dated 21 September 2017, and the minutes of the respective meeting.

27

(28)  The meeting was attended by a number of senior Samsung SDI managers, including Samsung SDI’s Chief Financial Officer, an executive vice president, a senior vice president and five vice-presidents. Its purpose, as suggested by the title of the report, was to discuss ‘New investment review for EU/[...]’.

28

(29)  A report titled ‘Review for new production investment to EU&[...]’, dated 21 September 2017 and presented in a meeting attended by several Samsung SDI Managers and its Chief Financial Officer, as well as the minutes of the respective meeting.

29

(30)  A quarter of the new capacity to be created by the investment targets sales on the [...] market (see recital (9) of the Opening Decision).

30

(31)  The former was designated in accordance with Article 107(3)(a) TFEU while the latter: in accordance with Article 107(3)(c) TFEU.

31

(32)  Mobile phones, laptops, tablets, wearable devices, scooters, power tools, etc.

32

(33)  The local sourcing rates of [10-15] to [25-30] % in Tianjin are based on investments that are more than 10 times smaller than the size of the investment in equipment envisaged in Xi’an.

33

(34)  Specifically, the Hungarian authorities explained that in January 2017, Samsung’s production engineers and purchasing staff had technical meetings with five Chinese companies producers of equipment related to winding, coater/press, welding and charge/discharge. Their conclusion was that, while they had made significant technical improvements compared to 2014/2015 ‘... further developments were required to satisfy the requirements in automation/quality and precision. For example, [...]’

34

further developments were required to satisfy the requirements in automation/quality and precision. For example, [...]’

(35)  The sample consists of the equipment that was put in place in Hungary between the start of the investment project (scheduled for December 2017 (see recital (11) of the Opening Decision)) and September 2020.

35

(36)  According to the information provided by the Hungarian authorities in the notification, approximately [40-50] % of the investment costs were assigned to phase 1, and the remaining [50-60] % to phase 2.

36

(37)  See section 2.3.1 of the Opening Decision which describes the highly innovative character of the investment as well as Table 1 which describes the breakdown into phases of the investment.

37

(38)  The aid offer refers only to ‘Samsung Huanxin Power Battery's project to build a 2nd plant’ and does not include any other information regarding the characteristics of the investment.

38

Samsung Huanxin Power Battery's project to build a 2nd plant

(39)  Samsung SDI’s presence in Hungary at the time consisted of its initial battery cell manufacturing facility, with a very limited production capacity, which was not yet operational at that time.

39

(40)  I.e. an email of 21 July 2017 referred to in recital (18)(c).

40

(41)  According to press reports (LG Chem, Samsung SDI gain access to China's EV market, dated 10 April 2019, available at: https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/1882342-lg-chem-samsung-sdi-gain-access-to-chinas-ev-market; and Samsung SDI to invest $1.15 bn to expand battery facility in China, dated 12 December 2018, available at: https://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?year=2018&no=776192), Samsung SDI made informal announcements in December 2018 (when it was still discussing investment details) of plans to ramp-up Chinese battery production in Xi’an.

41

(42)  That ‘white list’ included South Korean producers such as Samsung SDI, LG Chem or a venture between SK Innovation and China’s BAIC Group.

42

(43)  On line press report of 28 June 2019 (Neware battery testing system expert) titled ‘China’s “white list” of power battery companies abolished’, available at: https://newarebattery.com/chinas-white-list-of-power-battery-companies-abolished/

43

(44)  On line press report of 1 July 2019 (Roskill) titled ‘Batteries: China opens its battery market to foreign companies’, available at: https://roskill.com/news/china-opens-its-battery-market-to-foreign-companies/

44

(45)  Member States in which regions are mostly eligible for regional aid pursuant to Article 107(3)(a) TFEU i.e. in which regions are more disadvantaged (with higher or similar aid intensity) than the chosen Hungarian c-region.

45

(46)  See also paragraph 117 of the Communication from the Commission Guidelines on regional State aid 2021 (OJ C 153, 29.4.2021, p. 1).

46

---

Rectificări

| 18.2.2022 | RO | Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene | C 82/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2022

RO

Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene

C 82/36

---

Rectificare la Autorizație pentru ajutoarele de stat acordate în conformitate cu dispozițiile articolelor 107 și 108 din Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene – Cazuri în care Comisia nu ridică obiecții

(
  Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene C 500din 10 decembrie 2021
  )

(2022/C 82/04)

Publicarea ajutorului de stat SA.60655 (2020/N) de la pagina 2 se consideră nulă și neavenită.

---