# Diario Oficial C 82/18 d

| | ISSN 1977-0928 |
| --- | --- |
| Diario Oficial
  de la Unión Europea | C 82 |
| | |
| Edición en lengua española | Comunicaciones e informaciones | 65.° año18 de febrero de 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0928

Diario Oficial

de la Unión Europea

C 82

Edición en lengua española

Comunicaciones e informaciones

65.° año18 de febrero de 2022

---

| Sumario | Página |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Comunicaciones |
| | COMUNICACIONES PROCEDENTES DE LAS INSTITUCIONES, ÓRGANOS Y ORGANISMOS DE LA UNIÓN EUROPEA |
| | Comisión Europea |
| 2022/C 82/01 | Autorización de las ayudas estatales en el marco de las disposiciones de los artículos 107 y 108 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea — Casos con respecto a los cuales la Comisión no presenta objeciones (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2022/C 82/02 | Autorización de las ayudas estatales en el marco de las disposiciones de los artículos 107 y 108 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea — Casos con respecto a los cuales la Comisión no presenta objeciones | 20 |

Sumario

Página

II   Comunicaciones

COMUNICACIONES PROCEDENTES DE LAS INSTITUCIONES, ÓRGANOS Y ORGANISMOS DE LA UNIÓN EUROPEA

Comisión Europea

2022/C 82/01

Autorización de las ayudas estatales en el marco de las disposiciones de los artículos 107 y 108 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea — Casos con respecto a los cuales la Comisión no presenta objeciones (
  1
  )

1

1

2022/C 82/02

Autorización de las ayudas estatales en el marco de las disposiciones de los artículos 107 y 108 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea — Casos con respecto a los cuales la Comisión no presenta objeciones

20

---

| | V   Anuncios |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDIMIENTOS RELATIVOS A LA APLICACIÓN DE LA POLÍTICA DE COMPETENCIA |
| | Comisión Europea |
| 2022/C 82/03 | Ayuda estatal — Hungría — Ayuda estatal SA.48556 (2019/C) (ex 2018/N) — Ayudas regionales a la inversión destinadas a Samsung SDI — Invitación a presentar observaciones en aplicación del artículo 108, apartado 2, del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea (
  1
  ) | 21 |

V   Anuncios

PROCEDIMIENTOS RELATIVOS A LA APLICACIÓN DE LA POLÍTICA DE COMPETENCIA

Comisión Europea

2022/C 82/03

Ayuda estatal — Hungría — Ayuda estatal SA.48556 (2019/C) (ex 2018/N) — Ayudas regionales a la inversión destinadas a Samsung SDI — Invitación a presentar observaciones en aplicación del artículo 108, apartado 2, del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea (
  1
  )

1

21

---

| | Corrección de errores |
| --- | --- |
| 2022/C 82/04 | Corrección de errores de la autorización de las ayudas estatales en el marco de las disposiciones de los artículos 107 y 108 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea — Casos con respecto a los cuales la Comisión no presenta objeciones ( DO C 500 de 10.12.2021 ) | 36 |

Corrección de errores

2022/C 82/04

Corrección de errores de la autorización de las ayudas estatales en el marco de las disposiciones de los artículos 107 y 108 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea — Casos con respecto a los cuales la Comisión no presenta objeciones ( DO C 500 de 10.12.2021 )

( DO C 500 de 10.12.2021 )

36

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Texto pertinente a efectos del EEE. |

---

(1)   Texto pertinente a efectos del EEE.

1

| ES | |
| --- | --- |

ES

---

II Comunicaciones

COMUNICACIONES PROCEDENTES DE LAS INSTITUCIONES, ÓRGANOS Y ORGANISMOS DE LA UNIÓN EUROPEA

Comisión Europea

| 18.2.2022 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | C 82/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2022

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

C 82/1

---

Autorización de las ayudas estatales en el marco de las disposiciones de los artículos 107 y 108 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea

Casos con respecto a los cuales la Comisión no presenta objeciones

(Texto pertinente a efectos del EEE)

(2022/C 82/01)

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 20.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.57969 |
| Estado miembro | Rumanía |
| Región | |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | Romania — Modification of State Aid N 437/2009 and SA.45976 (2016/NN) for promoting high-efficiency cogeneration |
| Base jurídica | 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. |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Protección del medio ambiente, Eficiencia energética |
| Forma de la ayuda | |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 11 148 000 000 RON |
| Intensidad | |
| Duración | hasta el 31.12.2033 |
| Sectores económicos | Producción de energía eléctrica |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Ministry of Energy |
| Academiei Street, no. 39-41, Bucharest, district 1, zip code 010013 |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

20.12.2021

Número de la ayuda

SA.57969

Estado miembro

Rumanía

Región

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

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

Base jurídica

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.

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Protección del medio ambiente, Eficiencia energética

Forma de la ayuda

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 11 148 000 000 RON

Intensidad

Duración

hasta el 31.12.2033

Sectores económicos

Producción de energía eléctrica

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Ministry of Energy

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

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 20.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.58731 |
| Estado miembro | Austria |
| Región | Austria |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | RRF Austria — Operating aid to electricity from RES in Austria |
| Base jurídica | Erneuerbaren-Ausbau-Gesetz- EAG Elektrizitätswirtschafts- und organisationsgesetz 2010 (EIWOG 2010) |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Protección del medio ambiente, Energías renovables |
| Forma de la ayuda | Subvención/bonificación de intereses |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 10 000 000 000 EUR
  Presupuesto anual: 1 000 000 000 EUR |
| Intensidad | 100 % |
| Duración | hasta el 1.1.2031 |
| Sectores económicos | Producción de energía eléctrica |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | EAG-Förderabwicklungsstelle (EAG Funding Processing Office) |
| — |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

20.12.2021

Número de la ayuda

SA.58731

Estado miembro

Austria

Región

Austria

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

RRF Austria — Operating aid to electricity from RES in Austria

Base jurídica

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

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Protección del medio ambiente, Energías renovables

Forma de la ayuda

Subvención/bonificación de intereses

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 10 000 000 000 EUR

Presupuesto anual: 1 000 000 000 EUR

Intensidad

100 %

Duración

hasta el 1.1.2031

Sectores económicos

Producción de energía eléctrica

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

EAG-Förderabwicklungsstelle (EAG Funding Processing Office)

—

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 20.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.59197 |
| Estado miembro | Francia |
| Región | Francia |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | 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 |
| Base jurídica | Articles D 156-7 à D 156-11 du Code forestier Article L 251-3 du Code rural et de la pêche maritime |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Ayudas para la prevención y reparación de los daños causados a los bosques por incendios forestales, desastres naturales, fenómenos climáticos adversos que pueden asimilarse a desastres naturales, otros fenómenos climáticos adversos, plagas y catástrofes, Ayudas para medidas e intervenciones forestales específicas con el objetivo principal de contribuir a mantener o reconstituir el ecosistema forestal y la biodiversidad o el paisaje tradicional |
| Forma de la ayuda | Garantía, Subvención directa |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 500 000 000 EUR
  Presupuesto anual: 0 EUR |
| Intensidad | 80 % |
| Duración | hasta el 31.12.2027 |
| Sectores económicos | Silvicultura y explotación forestal |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Ministère de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation |
| 3, rue Barbet de Jouy 75007 PARIS |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

20.12.2021

Número de la ayuda

SA.59197

Estado miembro

Francia

Región

Francia

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

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

Base jurídica

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

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Ayudas para la prevención y reparación de los daños causados a los bosques por incendios forestales, desastres naturales, fenómenos climáticos adversos que pueden asimilarse a desastres naturales, otros fenómenos climáticos adversos, plagas y catástrofes, Ayudas para medidas e intervenciones forestales específicas con el objetivo principal de contribuir a mantener o reconstituir el ecosistema forestal y la biodiversidad o el paisaje tradicional

Forma de la ayuda

Garantía, Subvención directa

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 500 000 000 EUR

Presupuesto anual: 0 EUR

Intensidad

80 %

Duración

hasta el 31.12.2027

Sectores económicos

Silvicultura y explotación forestal

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Ministère de l'Agriculture et de l'Alimentation

3, rue Barbet de Jouy 75007 PARIS

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 20.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.61149 |
| Estado miembro | Letonia |
| Región | Letonia |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | Support scheme for energy intensive industry for 2021 in Latvia |
| Base jurídica | 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» |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Protección del medio ambiente, Desarrollo sectorial |
| Forma de la ayuda | Subvención directa |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 7 000 000 EUR
  Presupuesto anual: 7 000 000 EUR |
| Intensidad | 85 % |
| Duración | 1.1.2021 — 31.12.2021 |
| Sectores económicos | INDUSTRIA MANUFACTURERA, INDUSTRIAS EXTRACTIVAS |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | The State Construction Control Bureau, Republic of Latvia |
| Kr. Valdemāra Street 157, LV-1013 |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

20.12.2021

Número de la ayuda

SA.61149

Estado miembro

Letonia

Región

Letonia

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

Support scheme for energy intensive industry for 2021 in Latvia

Base jurídica

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»

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Protección del medio ambiente, Desarrollo sectorial

Forma de la ayuda

Subvención directa

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 7 000 000 EUR

Presupuesto anual: 7 000 000 EUR

Intensidad

85 %

Duración

1.1.2021 — 31.12.2021

Sectores económicos

INDUSTRIA MANUFACTURERA, INDUSTRIAS EXTRACTIVAS

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

The State Construction Control Bureau, Republic of Latvia

Kr. Valdemāra Street 157, LV-1013

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 23.9.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.62193 |
| Estado miembro | Francia |
| Región | Francia |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | Covid-19: Compensation du dommage subi par Brittany Ferries en raison de l'épidémie de COVID-19 |
| Base jurídica | 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. |
| Tipo de medida | Ayuda ad hoc
  SA BAI Brittany Ferries |
| Objetivo | Reparación de daños causados por desastres naturales o por acontecimientos de carácter excepcional |
| Forma de la ayuda | Préstamo bonificado, Subvención directa, Deuda subordinada |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 0 EUR
  Presupuesto anual: 0 EUR |
| Intensidad | 0 % |
| Duración | A partir del 30.6.2021 |
| Sectores económicos | Transporte marítimo de pasajeros |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Ministère de l'économie, des finances et de la relance |
| 139 rue de Bercy– 75572 Paris Cedex 12 |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

23.9.2021

Número de la ayuda

SA.62193

Estado miembro

Francia

Región

Francia

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

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

Base jurídica

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.

Tipo de medida

Ayuda ad hoc

SA BAI Brittany Ferries

Objetivo

Reparación de daños causados por desastres naturales o por acontecimientos de carácter excepcional

Forma de la ayuda

Préstamo bonificado, Subvención directa, Deuda subordinada

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 0 EUR

Presupuesto anual: 0 EUR

Intensidad

0 %

Duración

A partir del 30.6.2021

Sectores económicos

Transporte marítimo de pasajeros

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

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

139 rue de Bercy– 75572 Paris Cedex 12

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 1.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.63946 |
| Estado miembro | Alemania |
| Región | BRANDENBURG, BERLIN |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | aid to Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg |
| Base jurídica | 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. |
| Tipo de medida | Ayuda ad hoc
  Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg GmbH |
| Objetivo | Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía |
| Forma de la ayuda | Instrumentos de capital |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 1 717 000 000 EUR
  Presupuesto anual: 0 EUR |
| Intensidad | 100 % |
| Duración | |
| Sectores económicos | Transporte aéreo |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | 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 |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

1.2.2022

Número de la ayuda

SA.63946

Estado miembro

Alemania

Región

BRANDENBURG, BERLIN

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

aid to Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg

Base jurídica

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.

Tipo de medida

Ayuda ad hoc

Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg GmbH

Objetivo

Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía

Forma de la ayuda

Instrumentos de capital

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 1 717 000 000 EUR

Presupuesto anual: 0 EUR

Intensidad

100 %

Duración

Sectores económicos

Transporte aéreo

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

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

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 24.1.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.64772 |
| Estado miembro | Dinamarca |
| Región | Dinamarca |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | Ændring af refusionsordningen for sandsugere. |
| Base jurídica | 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) |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Desarrollo sectorial |
| Forma de la ayuda | Otras formas de ventaja fiscal |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 152 000 000 DKK
  Presupuesto anual: 19 000 000 DKK |
| Intensidad | 0 % |
| Duración | 1.1.2022 — 31.12.2029 |
| Sectores económicos | Transporte marítimo y por vías navegables interiores |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Skatteministeriet |
| Nicolai Eigtveds Gade 28 1402 København K |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

24.1.2022

Número de la ayuda

SA.64772

Estado miembro

Dinamarca

Región

Dinamarca

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

Ændring af refusionsordningen for sandsugere.

Base jurídica

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)

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Desarrollo sectorial

Forma de la ayuda

Otras formas de ventaja fiscal

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 152 000 000 DKK

Presupuesto anual: 19 000 000 DKK

Intensidad

0 %

Duración

1.1.2022 — 31.12.2029

Sectores económicos

Transporte marítimo y por vías navegables interiores

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Skatteministeriet

Nicolai Eigtveds Gade 28 1402 København K

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 7.1.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.100474 |
| Estado miembro | Alemania |
| Región | Alemania |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | Richtlinie der Beauftragten der Bundesregierung für Kultur und Medien «German Motion Picture Fund» (GMPF) |
| Base jurídica | § § 23, 44 Bundeshaushaltsordnung (BHO) in Verbindung mit dem jeweils geltenden jährlichen Haushaltsgesetz (s. Anlage 6) |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Cultura, Conservación del patrimonio |
| Forma de la ayuda | Subvención directa |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 150 000 000 EUR
  Presupuesto anual: 75 000 000 EUR |
| Intensidad | 20 % |
| Duración | 1.1.2022 — 31.12.2023 |
| Sectores económicos | Actividades de producción cinematográficas, de vídeo y de programas de televisión |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Filmförderungsanstalt (FFA) |
| Große Präsidentenstraße 9, 10178 Berlin |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

7.1.2022

Número de la ayuda

SA.100474

Estado miembro

Alemania

Región

Alemania

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

Richtlinie der Beauftragten der Bundesregierung für Kultur und Medien «German Motion Picture Fund» (GMPF)

Base jurídica

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

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Cultura, Conservación del patrimonio

Forma de la ayuda

Subvención directa

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 150 000 000 EUR

Presupuesto anual: 75 000 000 EUR

Intensidad

20 %

Duración

1.1.2022 — 31.12.2023

Sectores económicos

Actividades de producción cinematográficas, de vídeo y de programas de televisión

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Filmförderungsanstalt (FFA)

Große Präsidentenstraße 9, 10178 Berlin

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 13.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.100494 |
| Estado miembro | Letonia |
| Región | Letonia |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | Equity investments in the companies whose operations have been affected by the Covid-19 impact |
| Base jurídica | 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» |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía |
| Forma de la ayuda | Otras formas de intervención de capital |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 100 000 000 EUR
  Presupuesto anual: 100 000 000 EUR |
| Intensidad | |
| Duración | hasta el 30.6.2022 |
| Sectores económicos | Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | JSC Development Finance Institution Altum |
| Dome Square 4, Riga, LV-1050 |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

13.12.2021

Número de la ayuda

SA.100494

Estado miembro

Letonia

Región

Letonia

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

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

Base jurídica

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»

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía

Forma de la ayuda

Otras formas de intervención de capital

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 100 000 000 EUR

Presupuesto anual: 100 000 000 EUR

Intensidad

Duración

hasta el 30.6.2022

Sectores económicos

Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

JSC Development Finance Institution Altum

Dome Square 4, Riga, LV-1050

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 15.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.100598 |
| Estado miembro | Letonia |
| Región | Letonia |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | COVID-19 — LV — Support to taxpayers for the continuation of their activity under the conditions of the crisis caused by Covid-19 |
| Base jurídica | 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) |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía |
| Forma de la ayuda | Subvención directa |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 64 000 000 EUR
  Presupuesto anual: 64 000 000 EUR |
| Intensidad | |
| Duración | hasta el 30.6.2022 |
| Sectores económicos | COMERCIO AL POR MAYOR Y AL POR MENOR; REPARACIÓN DE VEHÍCULOS DE MOTOR Y MOTOCICLETAS, TRANSPORTE Y ALMACENAMIENTO, HOSTELERÍA, Actividades cinematográficas, de vídeo y de programas de televisión, grabación de sonido y edición musical, Actividades de programación y emisión de radio y televisión, ACTIVIDADES INMOBILIARIAS, ACTIVIDADES PROFESIONALES, CIENTÍFICAS Y TÉCNICAS, Actividades de las sedes centrales; actividades de consultoría de gestión empresarial, ACTIVIDADES ADMINISTRATIVAS Y SERVICIOS AUXILIARES, Actividades de agencias de viajes, operadores turísticos, servicios de reservas y actividades relacionadas con los mismos, Actividades de seguridad e investigación, Otras actividades de apoyo a las empresas n.c.o.p., Servicios integrales a edificios e instalaciones, Actividades de limpieza, Organización de convenciones y ferias de muestras, Actividades de apoyo a las empresas n.c.o.p., ACTIVIDADES SANITARIAS Y DE SERVICIOS SOCIALES, EDUCACIÓN, ACTIVIDADES ARTÍSTICAS, RECREATIVAS Y DE ENTRETENIMIENTO, Reparación de ordenadores, efectos personales y artículos de uso doméstico, Actividades sanitarias, ORGANISMOS EXTRATERRITORIALES, ACTIVIDADES DE LOS HOGARES COMO EMPLEADORES DE PERSONAL DOMÉSTICO; ACTIVIDADES DE LOS HOGARES COMO PRODUCTORES DE BIENES Y SERVICIOS PARA USO PROPIO, Reparación de ordenadores y equipos de comunicación, Reparación de efectos personales y artículos de uso doméstico, Otros servicios personales |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Valsts ieņēmumu dienests/ State Revenue Services |
| Talejas iela 1, Rīga, LV-1978 |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

15.12.2021

Número de la ayuda

SA.100598

Estado miembro

Letonia

Región

Letonia

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

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

Base jurídica

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)

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía

Forma de la ayuda

Subvención directa

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 64 000 000 EUR

Presupuesto anual: 64 000 000 EUR

Intensidad

Duración

hasta el 30.6.2022

Sectores económicos

COMERCIO AL POR MAYOR Y AL POR MENOR; REPARACIÓN DE VEHÍCULOS DE MOTOR Y MOTOCICLETAS, TRANSPORTE Y ALMACENAMIENTO, HOSTELERÍA, Actividades cinematográficas, de vídeo y de programas de televisión, grabación de sonido y edición musical, Actividades de programación y emisión de radio y televisión, ACTIVIDADES INMOBILIARIAS, ACTIVIDADES PROFESIONALES, CIENTÍFICAS Y TÉCNICAS, Actividades de las sedes centrales; actividades de consultoría de gestión empresarial, ACTIVIDADES ADMINISTRATIVAS Y SERVICIOS AUXILIARES, Actividades de agencias de viajes, operadores turísticos, servicios de reservas y actividades relacionadas con los mismos, Actividades de seguridad e investigación, Otras actividades de apoyo a las empresas n.c.o.p., Servicios integrales a edificios e instalaciones, Actividades de limpieza, Organización de convenciones y ferias de muestras, Actividades de apoyo a las empresas n.c.o.p., ACTIVIDADES SANITARIAS Y DE SERVICIOS SOCIALES, EDUCACIÓN, ACTIVIDADES ARTÍSTICAS, RECREATIVAS Y DE ENTRETENIMIENTO, Reparación de ordenadores, efectos personales y artículos de uso doméstico, Actividades sanitarias, ORGANISMOS EXTRATERRITORIALES, ACTIVIDADES DE LOS HOGARES COMO EMPLEADORES DE PERSONAL DOMÉSTICO; ACTIVIDADES DE LOS HOGARES COMO PRODUCTORES DE BIENES Y SERVICIOS PARA USO PROPIO, Reparación de ordenadores y equipos de comunicación, Reparación de efectos personales y artículos de uso doméstico, Otros servicios personales

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Valsts ieņēmumu dienests/ State Revenue Services

Talejas iela 1, Rīga, LV-1978

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 6.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.100633 |
| Estado miembro | Letonia |
| Región | Letonia |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | Latvia COVID-19: Tax Deferrals due to the Lockdown |
| Base jurídica | Section 4 of the Law on the Suppression of Consequences of the Spread of COVID-19 Infection |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía |
| Forma de la ayuda | Aplazamiento fiscal |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 21 900 000 EUR
  Presupuesto anual: 21 900 000 EUR |
| Intensidad | |
| Duración | hasta el 30.6.2022 |
| Sectores económicos | Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | The State Revenue Service |
| Talejas Str. 1, Riga, Latvia, LV-1978 |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

6.12.2021

Número de la ayuda

SA.100633

Estado miembro

Letonia

Región

Letonia

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

Latvia COVID-19: Tax Deferrals due to the Lockdown

Base jurídica

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

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía

Forma de la ayuda

Aplazamiento fiscal

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 21 900 000 EUR

Presupuesto anual: 21 900 000 EUR

Intensidad

Duración

hasta el 30.6.2022

Sectores económicos

Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

The State Revenue Service

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

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 16.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.100635 |
| Estado miembro | Rumanía |
| Región | |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | Prolongation of the scheme RES District heating projects, State Aid SA.55433 (2020/N) |
| Base jurídica | 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 |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Eficiencia energética |
| Forma de la ayuda | Subvención/bonificación de intereses |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 742 425 000 RON |
| Intensidad | 100 % |
| Duración | hasta el 31.12.2023 |
| Sectores económicos | Suministro de vapor y aire acondicionado |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Ministry of Investments and European Projects |
| Sos. București-Ploiesti, nr. 1 — 1B, Victoria Office, Intrarea Menuetului, nr. 7, Sector 1, Bucuresti |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

16.12.2021

Número de la ayuda

SA.100635

Estado miembro

Rumanía

Región

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

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

Base jurídica

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

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Eficiencia energética

Forma de la ayuda

Subvención/bonificación de intereses

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 742 425 000 RON

Intensidad

100 %

Duración

hasta el 31.12.2023

Sectores económicos

Suministro de vapor y aire acondicionado

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Ministry of Investments and European Projects

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

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 2.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.100663 |
| Estado miembro | Chequia |
| Región | |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | COVID 19 — Amendment to Mode A of the wage subsidy scheme «Antivirus» |
| Base jurídica | 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. |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía |
| Forma de la ayuda | Subvención directa |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 27 500 000 000 CZK |
| Intensidad | |
| Duración | 14.10.2020 — 30.6.2022 |
| Sectores económicos | Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs |
| Na Poříčním právu 1/376, 128 01 Praha 2, Czech Republic |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

2.12.2021

Número de la ayuda

SA.100663

Estado miembro

Chequia

Región

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

COVID 19 — Amendment to Mode A of the wage subsidy scheme «Antivirus»

Base jurídica

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.

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía

Forma de la ayuda

Subvención directa

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 27 500 000 000 CZK

Intensidad

Duración

14.10.2020 — 30.6.2022

Sectores económicos

Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs

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

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 21.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.100743 |
| Estado miembro | Alemania |
| Región | |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | COVID19 modifications to schemes SA.56790, SA.59289, SA.56814, SA.58504, SA.56787, SA.58021, SA.57100, and SA.57447 |
| Base jurídica | Legal basis of schemes SA.56790, SA.59289, SA.56814, SA.58504, SA.56787, SA.58021, SA.57100, and SA.57447 |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía |
| Forma de la ayuda | Subvención directa, Préstamo bonificado, Anticipos reembolsables, Garantía, Otras formas de intervención de capital |
| Presupuesto | |
| Intensidad | |
| Duración | hasta el 30.6.2022 |
| Sectores económicos | Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie |
| Scharnhorststraße 34-37, D-10115 Berlin |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

21.12.2021

Número de la ayuda

SA.100743

Estado miembro

Alemania

Región

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

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

Base jurídica

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

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía

Forma de la ayuda

Subvención directa, Préstamo bonificado, Anticipos reembolsables, Garantía, Otras formas de intervención de capital

Presupuesto

Intensidad

Duración

hasta el 30.6.2022

Sectores económicos

Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie

Scharnhorststraße 34-37, D-10115 Berlin

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 8.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.100752 |
| Estado miembro | Portugal |
| Región | |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | Mapa dos auxílios com finalidade regional para Portugal (1 de janeiro de 2022 — 31 de dezembro de 2027) |
| Base jurídica | N/A |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Desarrollo regional (incluida la cooperación territorial) |
| Forma de la ayuda | |
| Presupuesto | |
| Intensidad | 50 % |
| Duración | 1.1.2022 — 31.12.2027 |
| Sectores económicos | Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Direção-Geral dos Assuntos Europeus |
| Rua da Cova da Moura, 1, 1350-115 Lisboa |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

8.2.2022

Número de la ayuda

SA.100752

Estado miembro

Portugal

Región

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

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

Base jurídica

N/A

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Desarrollo regional (incluida la cooperación territorial)

Forma de la ayuda

Presupuesto

Intensidad

50 %

Duración

1.1.2022 — 31.12.2027

Sectores económicos

Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Direção-Geral dos Assuntos Europeus

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

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 14.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.100845 |
| Estado miembro | Eslovaquia |
| Región | |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | COVID-19: Prolongation and amendment of schemes SA.59240 and SA.62256 |
| Base jurídica | Multiple |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía |
| Forma de la ayuda | |
| Presupuesto | |
| Intensidad | |
| Duración | hasta el 30.6.2022 |
| Sectores económicos | Transporte aéreo, HOSTELERÍA |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Ministerstvo dopravy a výstavby Slovenskej republiky |
| Námestie slobody č. 6, P.O.BOX 100, 810 05 Bratislava, Slovenská republika |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

14.12.2021

Número de la ayuda

SA.100845

Estado miembro

Eslovaquia

Región

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

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

Base jurídica

Multiple

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía

Forma de la ayuda

Presupuesto

Intensidad

Duración

hasta el 30.6.2022

Sectores económicos

Transporte aéreo, HOSTELERÍA

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Ministerstvo dopravy a výstavby Slovenskej republiky

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

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 17.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.100937 |
| Estado miembro | Lituania |
| Región | |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | COVID-19: Prolongation of Deferral of social security contributions (SA.58885 as prolonged by SA.63496) / Socialinio draudimo įmokų mokėjimų atidėjimas |
| Base jurídica | 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 |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía |
| Forma de la ayuda | Aplazamiento fiscal |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 100 000 000 EUR |
| Intensidad | |
| Duración | 1.1.2022 — 30.6.2022 |
| Sectores económicos | Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Valstybinio socialinio draudimo fondo valdyba prie Socialinės apsaugos ir darbo ministerijos |
| Konstitucijos pr. 12-101, 09308 Vilnius Lietuva |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

17.12.2021

Número de la ayuda

SA.100937

Estado miembro

Lituania

Región

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

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

Base jurídica

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

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía

Forma de la ayuda

Aplazamiento fiscal

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 100 000 000 EUR

Intensidad

Duración

1.1.2022 — 30.6.2022

Sectores económicos

Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Valstybinio socialinio draudimo fondo valdyba prie Socialinės apsaugos ir darbo ministerijos

Konstitucijos pr. 12-101, 09308 Vilnius Lietuva

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 17.12.2021 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.100941 |
| Estado miembro | Croacia |
| Región | |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | COVID-19: Prolongation of the scheme SA.64716 (2021/N) |
| Base jurídica | Act on Agriculture (Official Gazette 118/2018, 42/2020 and 127/20. — Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, 52/21) |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía |
| Forma de la ayuda | |
| Presupuesto | |
| Intensidad | |
| Duración | hasta el 30.6.2022 |
| Sectores económicos | Avicultura |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Ministry of Agriculture |
| Ulica grada Vukovara 78, 10000 Zagreb |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

17.12.2021

Número de la ayuda

SA.100941

Estado miembro

Croacia

Región

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

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

Base jurídica

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

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía

Forma de la ayuda

Presupuesto

Intensidad

Duración

hasta el 30.6.2022

Sectores económicos

Avicultura

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Ministry of Agriculture

Ulica grada Vukovara 78, 10000 Zagreb

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 1.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.101055 |
| Estado miembro | Italia |
| Región | |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | COVID-19: Aid to companies holding port concessions |
| Base jurídica | 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 |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía, Reparación de daños causados por desastres naturales o por acontecimientos de carácter excepcional |
| Forma de la ayuda | Subvención directa |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 22 417 487 EUR
  Presupuesto anual: 22 417 487 EUR |
| Intensidad | |
| Duración | hasta el 30.6.2022 |
| Sectores económicos | Transporte marítimo y por vías navegables interiores |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Ministry of Sustainable Infrastructure and Mobility |
| Viale dell'Arte n. 16 — 00144 ROMA |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

1.2.2022

Número de la ayuda

SA.101055

Estado miembro

Italia

Región

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

COVID-19: Aid to companies holding port concessions

Base jurídica

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

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía, Reparación de daños causados por desastres naturales o por acontecimientos de carácter excepcional

Forma de la ayuda

Subvención directa

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 22 417 487 EUR

Presupuesto anual: 22 417 487 EUR

Intensidad

Duración

hasta el 30.6.2022

Sectores económicos

Transporte marítimo y por vías navegables interiores

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Ministry of Sustainable Infrastructure and Mobility

Viale dell'Arte n. 16 — 00144 ROMA

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 11.1.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.101133 |
| Estado miembro | Bélgica |
| Región | |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | COVID-19: bridge loans in the Flemish Region |
| Base jurídica | Decision of the Flemish Government regarding the granting of a bridge loan for undertakings |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía |
| Forma de la ayuda | Préstamo bonificado |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 100 000 000 EUR
  Presupuesto anual: 100 000 000 EUR |
| Intensidad | |
| Duración | hasta el 30.6.2022 |
| Sectores económicos | Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Agentschap Innoveren & Ondernemen (VLAIO) |
| Koning Albert II-laan 35, bus 12 |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

11.1.2022

Número de la ayuda

SA.101133

Estado miembro

Bélgica

Región

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

COVID-19: bridge loans in the Flemish Region

Base jurídica

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

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía

Forma de la ayuda

Préstamo bonificado

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 100 000 000 EUR

Presupuesto anual: 100 000 000 EUR

Intensidad

Duración

hasta el 30.6.2022

Sectores económicos

Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Agentschap Innoveren & Ondernemen (VLAIO)

Koning Albert II-laan 35, bus 12

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 9.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.101400 |
| Estado miembro | Lituania |
| Región | Lituania |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | 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 |
| Base jurídica | 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» |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía, Desarrollo sectorial |
| Forma de la ayuda | Préstamo bonificado, Subvención/bonificación de intereses |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 435 000 000 EUR
  Presupuesto anual: 435 000 000 EUR |
| Intensidad | |
| Duración | hasta el 31.12.2022 |
| Sectores económicos | Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Ministry of the Economy and Innovation of the Republic of Lithuania |
| Gedimino Ave. 38, 01104 Vilnius, Lithuania |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

9.2.2022

Número de la ayuda

SA.101400

Estado miembro

Lituania

Región

Lituania

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

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

Base jurídica

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»

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía, Desarrollo sectorial

Forma de la ayuda

Préstamo bonificado, Subvención/bonificación de intereses

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 435 000 000 EUR

Presupuesto anual: 435 000 000 EUR

Intensidad

Duración

hasta el 31.12.2022

Sectores económicos

Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Ministry of the Economy and Innovation of the Republic of Lithuania

Gedimino Ave. 38, 01104 Vilnius, Lithuania

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 2.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.101417 |
| Estado miembro | Luxemburgo |
| Región | Luxemburgo |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | COVID-19: Amendments to the schemes SA.59428 and SA.59322, as already amended |
| Base jurídica | 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 |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía |
| Forma de la ayuda | Subvención directa |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 300 000 000 EUR
  Presupuesto anual: 300 000 000 EUR |
| Intensidad | |
| Duración | hasta el 30.6.2022 |
| Sectores económicos | Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Ministry of the Economy (DG Classes Moyennes) |
| 19-21 boulevard Royal — L-2914 |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

2.2.2022

Número de la ayuda

SA.101417

Estado miembro

Luxemburgo

Región

Luxemburgo

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

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

Base jurídica

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

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía

Forma de la ayuda

Subvención directa

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 300 000 000 EUR

Presupuesto anual: 300 000 000 EUR

Intensidad

Duración

hasta el 30.6.2022

Sectores económicos

Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Ministry of the Economy (DG Classes Moyennes)

19-21 boulevard Royal — L-2914

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 25.1.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.101574 |
| Estado miembro | Alemania |
| Región | Alemania |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | Modification to scheme SA.56814 |
| Base jurídica | Gesetz zur Errichtung eines Finanzmarkt- und eines Wirtschaftsstabilisierungsfonds (Stabilisierungsfondsgesetz — StFG) and Gesetz zur Änderung des Stabilisierungsfondsgesetzes und des Wirtschaftsstabilisierungsbeschleunigungsgesetzes (SA 56814) |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía |
| Forma de la ayuda | Garantía, Otras formas de intervención de capital, Deuda subordinada |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 150 000 000 EUR |
| Intensidad | |
| Duración | hasta el 30.6.2022 |
| Sectores económicos | Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Bundesministerium der Finanzen |
| Wilhelmstraße 97, 10117 Berlin |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

25.1.2022

Número de la ayuda

SA.101574

Estado miembro

Alemania

Región

Alemania

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

Modification to scheme SA.56814

Base jurídica

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

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía

Forma de la ayuda

Garantía, Otras formas de intervención de capital, Deuda subordinada

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 150 000 000 EUR

Intensidad

Duración

hasta el 30.6.2022

Sectores económicos

Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Bundesministerium der Finanzen

Wilhelmstraße 97, 10117 Berlin

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 7.2.2022 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.101601 |
| Estado miembro | Letonia |
| Región | |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | COVID-19 — LV — Amendments to SA.100605: Reduction of the lease payment for lessees of publicly-owned property |
| Base jurídica | 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 |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía |
| Forma de la ayuda | Subvención directa |
| Presupuesto | |
| Intensidad | |
| Duración | 1.1.2022 — 14.4.2022 |
| Sectores económicos | Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Latvia |
| Smilsu street 1, Riga, Latvia |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

7.2.2022

Número de la ayuda

SA.101601

Estado miembro

Letonia

Región

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

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

Base jurídica

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

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía

Forma de la ayuda

Subvención directa

Presupuesto

Intensidad

Duración

1.1.2022 — 14.4.2022

Sectores económicos

Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Latvia

Smilsu street 1, Riga, Latvia

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

---

| 18.2.2022 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | C 82/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2022

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

C 82/20

---

Autorización de las ayudas estatales en el marco de las disposiciones de los artículos 107 y 108 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea

Casos con respecto a los cuales la Comisión no presenta objeciones

(2022/C 82/02)

| Fecha de adopción de la decisión | 4.11.2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Número de la ayuda | SA.59209 |
| Estado miembro | Finlandia |
| Región | Finlandia |
| Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario) | COVID-19: Maatalouden alkutuotannon yritysten väliaikainen tuki |
| Base jurídica | Valtionavustuslaki 688/2001 |
| Tipo de medida | Régimen |
| Objetivo | Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía |
| Forma de la ayuda | Subvención directa |
| Presupuesto | Presupuesto total: 70 000 000 EUR
  Presupuesto anual: 48 000 000 EUR |
| Intensidad | 0 % |
| Duración | hasta el 30.6.2021 |
| Sectores económicos | Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda |
| Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas | ELY-keskus |
| PL 1000, 50101 Mikkeli (Keha-keskus) |

Fecha de adopción de la decisión

4.11.2020

Número de la ayuda

SA.59209

Estado miembro

Finlandia

Región

Finlandia

Denominación (y/o nombre del beneficiario)

COVID-19: Maatalouden alkutuotannon yritysten väliaikainen tuki

Base jurídica

Valtionavustuslaki 688/2001

Tipo de medida

Régimen

Objetivo

Remedio a una grave perturbación de la economía

Forma de la ayuda

Subvención directa

Presupuesto

Presupuesto total: 70 000 000 EUR

Presupuesto anual: 48 000 000 EUR

Intensidad

0 %

Duración

hasta el 30.6.2021

Sectores económicos

Todos los sectores económicos elegibles para recibir la ayuda

Nombre y dirección de la autoridad que concede las ayudas

ELY-keskus

PL 1000, 50101 Mikkeli (Keha-keskus)

Información adicional

El texto de la decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

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

---

V Anuncios

PROCEDIMIENTOS RELATIVOS A LA APLICACIÓN DE LA POLÍTICA DE COMPETENCIA

Comisión Europea

| 18.2.2022 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | C 82/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2022

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

C 82/21

---

AYUDA ESTATAL — HUNGRÍA

Ayuda estatal SA.48556 (2019/C) (ex 2018/N) — Ayudas regionales a la inversión destinadas a Samsung SDI

Invitación a presentar observaciones en aplicación del artículo 108, apartado 2, del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea

(Texto pertinente a efectos del EEE)

(2022/C 82/03)

Por carta de 29 de junio de 2021, reproducida en la lengua auténtica en las páginas siguientes al presente resumen, la Comisión notificó a Hungría su decisión de ampliar el procedimiento previsto en el artículo 108, apartado 2, del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea en relación con las medidas antes citadas.

Los interesados podrán presentar sus observaciones sobre las medidas respecto de las cuales la Comisión ha ampliado el procedimiento en un plazo de un mes a partir de la fecha de publicación del presente resumen y de la carta siguiente, enviándolas a:

| Comisión Europea |
| --- |
| Dirección General de Competencia |
| Registro de Ayudas Estatales |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Fax +32 22961242 |
| Stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu |

Comisión Europea

Dirección General de Competencia

Registro de Ayudas Estatales

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Fax +32 22961242

Stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu

Dichas observaciones serán comunicadas a Hungría. Los interesados que presenten observaciones podrán solicitar por escrito, exponiendo los motivos de su solicitud, que su identidad sea tratada de forma confidencial.

TEXTO DEL RESUMEN

El 14 de octubre de 2019, la Comisión incoó el procedimiento de investigación formal porque albergaba dudas sobre la compatibilidad con el mercado interior de una ayuda regional a la inversión de 108 millones EUR que Hungría tiene la intención de conceder a Samsung SDI por una inversión de 1 200 millones EUR destinada a ampliar la capacidad de una planta existente en Göd (Hungría) en la que se fabrican baterías para vehículos eléctricos. En la fase de examen preliminar, Hungría alegó que la ayuda estaba justificada por la necesidad de compensar una desventaja neta de 173 millones EUR de la localización húngara en comparación con una localización alternativa para la inversión en Xi’an (China), donde Samsung SDI controla, a través de una empresa en participación, otra planta de producción de baterías para vehículos eléctricos.

En la decisión de incoar el procedimiento (1), la Comisión consideró, con carácter preliminar, que la ayuda no era decisiva para una decisión positiva de localización en favor de Hungría debido a las dudas sobre el tamaño y la existencia de la supuesta brecha de viabilidad en favor de China y la credibilidad de la hipótesis de inversión contrafactual.

En sus observaciones tras la incoación del procedimiento de investigación formal, Samsung SDI y Hungría presentaron nuevos argumentos y pruebas, desdiciéndose de declaraciones contradictorias anteriores, en relación con los factores pertinentes para la decisión de Samsung de invertir en Hungría, y modificaron sustancialmente la justificación de la ayuda.

Hungría considera apropiado revisar no solo los elementos sobre los que la Comisión planteó dudas en la decisión de incoación (es decir, el diferencial de costes de inversión y la credibilidad del abastecimiento local, etc.), sino también otros factores, algunos de los cuales eran nuevos y no se habían expuesto anteriormente, que supuestamente podrían haber afectado al riesgo empresarial de las hipótesis de localización que se examinaban.

A la luz de la nueva información presentada por Hungría y Samsung SDI, la Comisión amplía el ámbito de aplicación de la decisión de incoación inicial para presentar estos nuevos elementos y plantear las dudas derivadas de ellos, así como para permitir a todos los terceros interesados exponer sus observaciones sobre los nuevos elementos presentados por Hungría y Samsung SDI.

Hungría y Samsung SDI presentan esencialmente cuatro nuevos argumentos y pruebas documentales adicionales en apoyo de los mismos. En primer lugar, admiten que una hipótesis más realista de abastecimiento local en China habría consistido en suponer que el beneficiario podría haber adquirido localmente alrededor del [25-30] (*1) al [31-35] % (frente al 100 %) de los equipos de inversión. En segundo lugar, alegan que el beneficiario podría haber recibido en China una subvención a la inversión del [15-20] % de los costes de inversión subvencionables, como demuestra una oferta informal de subvención recibida del Gobierno local chino antes de la decisión de inversión. En tercer lugar, sostienen que habría sido legítimo que Samsung SDI utilizara, en su evaluación de la hipótesis china, un tipo medio del impuesto de sociedades mucho menor, del 15 % (en lugar del utilizado efectivamente, del 25 %), lo que habría aumentado significativamente la ventaja comparativa de la inversión contrafactual china. En cuarto lugar, a raíz de la petición de la Comisión en la decisión de incoación de volver a calcular la brecha de viabilidad sobre la base de hipótesis más realistas de abastecimiento local, exponen que el proceso de toma de decisiones de Samsung se vería reflejado de forma más realista mediante un nuevo cálculo basado en un enfoque probabilístico (teniendo también en cuenta los nuevos elementos descritos anteriormente). Por último, la Comisión observa que las nuevas pruebas documentales aportadas por Hungría muestran que la búsqueda de una localización para el proyecto de inversión había incluido también varios emplazamientos de nueva planta en Europa (en Polonia, Eslovaquia, Hungría y Chequia) y otro en Asia. Tras una evaluación interna, se consideró que el emplazamiento de nueva planta de Polonia, situado en una región que puede optar a ayudas regionales de conformidad con el artículo 108, apartado 3, letra a), del TFUE, era competitiva, al menos en una primera fase, junto con las localizaciones de Göd (Hungría) y Xi’an (China).

Dudas adicionales sobre la compatibilidad de la medida de ayuda

La Comisión plantea dudas adicionales sobre todos los nuevos elementos presentados por las autoridades húngaras y el beneficiario.

En primer lugar, en esta fase, la Comisión duda de que los argumentos sobre el abastecimiento local del [25-30] al [31-35] % puedan aceptarse como realistas en China en el momento de la decisión de inversión. Esto se debe a que las pruebas presentadas por el beneficiario para justificar estas cifras se basan en experiencias con inversiones menos innovadoras y más pequeñas en China que, a primera vista, no parecen que puedan aplicarse a la inversión notificada y que, al menos en parte, el beneficiario no podía conocer en el momento de la decisión de inversión, ya que se elaboraron y recopilaron posteriormente. La Comisión también tiene dudas sobre la correcta aplicación y la magnitud del margen comercial del [18-22] % en el nuevo cálculo de la brecha de viabilidad de la hipótesis húngara.

En segundo lugar, sobre la base de las pruebas disponibles, la Comisión duda de que la oferta de subvención a la inversión del [15-20] % en China que se alega constituya un factor pertinente para la decisión de inversión. Esto se debe a que las pruebas aportadas sugieren que la oferta de ayuda en China se refería a un proyecto de inversión diferente de la hipótesis contrafactual presentada. Además, los documentos internos presentados ahora por Samsung SDI parecen sugerir que el beneficiario estaba aplicando, en el momento de la decisión de inversión, estrategias de inversión regionalizadas que requerían la creación de una capacidad separada de producción adicional de baterías para vehículos eléctricos, ubicada tanto en Europa como en China, y que abastecería tanto el mercado geográfico del EEE (más [...]), como el de China, respectivamente.

En tercer lugar, en esta fase, la Comisión considera que el hecho de que Samsung SDI utilizase inicialmente un impuesto de sociedades del 25 % en China para el cálculo del déficit de viabilidad constituía un enfoque de precaución sólido y, sobre la base de las pruebas disponibles, no ve argumentos convincentes por los que podría o debería haberlo hecho de otro modo. La Comisión observa que las bases jurídicas de las dos exenciones fiscales alegadas expiraban a finales de 2020 y no está claro por qué el beneficiario considera que, en el momento de la decisión de inversión de noviembre de 2017, podía dar por supuesto que cualquiera de ellas se prorrogaría más allá de esa fecha, cuando la mayor parte de los ingresos de la inversión se iban a materializar después de esa fecha.

Las dudas anteriores sobre la credibilidad de las medidas de apoyo público en China alegadas se ven aún más reforzadas por el hecho de que el beneficiario no las ha cuantificado ni tan siquiera mencionado en los informes presentados en las etapas clave para la decisión de 26 de octubre y 27 de noviembre de 2017.

La Comisión considera que las dudas mencionadas, así como el hecho de que Samsung SDI no había informado a las autoridades chinas de la decisión de invertir en Hungría, sino que probablemente continuó las negociaciones sobre subvenciones hasta al menos mayo de 2018, cuando recibió una oferta de subvención nueva y mejorada, aunque todavía informal, en China, sugieren que Samsung no preveía una inversión contrafactual real en China, que compitiese con una inversión en Europa, sino que estaba aplicando, en el momento de la decisión de inversión, estrategias de inversión regionalizadas que exigían que la capacidad de fabricación estuviera situada en cada uno de sus mercados destinatarios (es decir, China, Europa y [...]). Por lo tanto, la Comisión tiene dudas sobre la credibilidad de la inversión contrafactual en China.

En cuarto lugar, la Comisión considera en esta fase que el enfoque probabilístico propuesto para recalcular la brecha de viabilidad no es compatible con las directrices de Samsung SDI de 2016 relativas a las inversiones en instalaciones y no refleja el proceso de toma de decisiones real.

Por último, la Comisión señala que los nuevos documentos internos presentados muestran, en contradicción con los argumentos iniciales del beneficiario, que se estudió un emplazamiento europeo competitivo adicional en Polonia y que, en esta fase, no puede excluirse que la ayuda al emplazamiento húngaro, que puede optar a la ayuda regional con arreglo al artículo 107, apartado 3, letra c), del TFUE, haya tenido un efecto contrario a la cohesión al atraer inversiones fuera de una región polaca menos desarrollada.

Por las razones expuestas, la Comisión tiene dudas sobre la compatibilidad de la ayuda y considera necesario ampliar el alcance de la investigación formal para incluir estos nuevos elementos y las dudas correspondientes.

Se solicita a los interesados que formulen sus observaciones sobre las ayudas y, en particular, sobre los puntos señalados con más detalle en la carta adjunta destinada a Hungría.

TEXTO DE LA CARTA

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)  Ayuda estatal — Hungría — Ayuda estatal SA.48556 (2019/C) (ex 2018/N) Ayudas regionales a la inversión destinadas a Samsung SDI — Invitación a presentar observaciones en aplicación del artículo 108, apartado 2, del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea (DO C 112 de 3.4.2020, p. 12)

1

(*1)  Información confidencial.

*1

Información confidencial.

(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

---

Corrección de errores

| 18.2.2022 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | C 82/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2022

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

C 82/36

---

Corrección de errores de la autorización de las ayudas estatales en el marco de las disposiciones de los artículos 107 y 108 del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea — Casos con respecto a los cuales la Comisión no presenta objeciones

(
  Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea C 500 de 10 de diciembre de 2021
  )

(2022/C 82/04)

La publicación de la ayuda estatal SA.60655 (2020/N) en la página 2 debe considerarse nula y sin efecto.

---