# Official Journal L 64/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 64 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 652 March 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 64

English edition

Legislation

Volume 652 March 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/347 of 1 March 2022 concerning the authorisation of petitgrain bigarade essential oil as a feed additive for certain animal species (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Decision (EU) 2022/348 of 17 June 2021 on the measures SA.32014, SA.32015, SA.32016 (2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Italy and the Region of Tuscany for Toremar and its acquirer Moby
  (notified under document C(2022) 4271)

   (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/349 of 28 February 2022 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States
  (notified under document C(2022) 1342)

   (
  1
  ) | 60 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/347 of 1 March 2022 concerning the authorisation of petitgrain bigarade essential oil as a feed additive for certain animal species (
  1
  )

1

1

DECISIONS

*

Commission Decision (EU) 2022/348 of 17 June 2021 on the measures SA.32014, SA.32015, SA.32016 (2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Italy and the Region of Tuscany for Toremar and its acquirer Moby
  (notified under document C(2022) 4271)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2022) 4271)

1

6

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/349 of 28 February 2022 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States
  (notified under document C(2022) 1342)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2022) 1342)

1

60

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.

---

II Non-legislative acts

REGULATIONS

| 2.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 64/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 64/1

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/347

of 1 March 2022

concerning the authorisation of petitgrain bigarade essential oil as a feed additive for certain animal species

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such an authorisation. Article 10(2) of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 provides for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition and for the grounds and procedures for granting such an authorisation. Article 10(2) of that Regulation provides for the re-evaluation of additives authorised pursuant to Council Directive 70/524/EEC (2).

| (2) | Petitgrain bigarade essential oil was authorised without a time limit in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC as a feed additive for all animal species. That additive was subsequently entered in the Register of feed additives as existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Petitgrain bigarade essential oil was authorised without a time limit in accordance with Directive 70/524/EEC as a feed additive for all animal species. That additive was subsequently entered in the Register of feed additives as existing product, in accordance with Article 10(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

| (3) | In accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 thereof, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of petitgrain bigarade essential oil for all animal species. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In accordance with Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 in conjunction with Article 7 thereof, an application was submitted for the re-evaluation of petitgrain bigarade essential oil for all animal species.

| (4) | The applicant requested petitgrain bigarade essential oil to be authorised for use also in water for drinking. However, Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 does not allow the authorisation of flavouring compounds for use in water for drinking. Therefore, the use of petitgrain bigarade essential oil in water for drinking should not be allowed. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The applicant requested petitgrain bigarade essential oil to be authorised for use also in water for drinking. However, Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 does not allow the authorisation of flavouring compounds for use in water for drinking. Therefore, the use of petitgrain bigarade essential oil in water for drinking should not be allowed.

| (5) | The applicant requested the additive to be classified in the additive category ‘sensory additives’ and in the functional group ‘flavouring compounds’. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The applicant requested the additive to be classified in the additive category ‘sensory additives’ and in the functional group ‘flavouring compounds’. That application was accompanied by the particulars and documents required under Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

| (6) | The European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) concluded in its opinion of 5 May 2021 (3) that, under the proposed conditions of use, petitgrain bigarade essential oil does not have adverse effects on animal health, consumer health or the environment. The Authority also concluded that petitgrain bigarade essential oil should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes, and as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Therefore, the Commission considers that appropriate protective measures should be taken to prevent adverse effects on human health, in particular as regards the users of the additive. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

The European Food Safety Authority (‘the Authority’) concluded in its opinion of 5 May 2021 (3) that, under the proposed conditions of use, petitgrain bigarade essential oil does not have adverse effects on animal health, consumer health or the environment. The Authority also concluded that petitgrain bigarade essential oil should be considered as an irritant to skin and eyes, and as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. Therefore, the Commission considers that appropriate protective measures should be taken to prevent adverse effects on human health, in particular as regards the users of the additive.

| (7) | The Authority concluded, that petitgrain bigarade essential oil is recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, therefore, no further demonstration of efficacy is considered necessary. It also verified the report on the methods of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The Authority concluded, that petitgrain bigarade essential oil is recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, therefore, no further demonstration of efficacy is considered necessary. It also verified the report on the methods of analysis of the feed additive in feed submitted by the Reference Laboratory set up by Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003.

| (8) | The assessment of petitgrain bigarade essential oil shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that substance should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The assessment of petitgrain bigarade essential oil shows that the conditions for authorisation, as provided for in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, are satisfied. Accordingly, the use of that substance should be authorised as specified in the Annex to this Regulation.

| (9) | Certain conditions should be provided for to allow better control. In particular, a recommended content should be indicated on the label of the feed additive. Where such content is exceeded, certain information should be indicated on the label of premixtures. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Certain conditions should be provided for to allow better control. In particular, a recommended content should be indicated on the label of the feed additive. Where such content is exceeded, certain information should be indicated on the label of premixtures.

| (10) | The fact that petitgrain bigarade essential oil is not authorised for use as a flavouring in water for drinking does not preclude its use in compound feed which is administered via water. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The fact that petitgrain bigarade essential oil is not authorised for use as a flavouring in water for drinking does not preclude its use in compound feed which is administered via water.

| (11) | Since safety reasons do not require the immediate application of the modifications to the conditions of authorisation of the substance concerned, it is appropriate to allow a transitional period for interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the authorisation. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Since safety reasons do not require the immediate application of the modifications to the conditions of authorisation of the substance concerned, it is appropriate to allow a transitional period for interested parties to prepare themselves to meet the new requirements resulting from the authorisation.

| (12) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, |
| --- | --- |

(12)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Authorisation

The substance specified in the Annex, belonging to the additive category ‘sensory additives’ and to the functional group ‘flavouring compounds’, is authorised as an additive in animal nutrition, subject to the conditions laid down in that Annex.

Article 2

Transitional measures

1.   The substance specified in the Annex and premixtures containing this substance, which are produced and labelled before 22 September 2022 in accordance with the rules applicable before 22 March 2022 may continue to be placed on the market and used until the existing stocks are exhausted.

2.   Compound feed and feed materials containing the substance as specified in the Annex which are produced and labelled before 22 March 2023 in accordance with the rules applicable before 22 March 2022 may continue to be placed on the market and used until the existing stocks are exhausted if they are intended for food-producing animals.

3.   Compound feed and feed materials containing the substance as specified in the Annex which are produced and labelled before 22 March 2024 in accordance with the rules applicable before 22 March 2022 may continue to be placed on the market and used until the existing stocks are exhausted if they are intended for non-food-producing animals.

Article 3

Entry into force

This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 1 March 2022.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

---

(1)  
  OJ L 268, 18.10.2003, p. 29.

1

(2)  Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs (OJ L 270, 14.12.1970, p. 1).

2

(3)  EFSA Journal 2021;19(6):6624.

3

---

ANNEX

| Identification number of the additive | Name of the holder of authorisation | Additive | Composition, chemical formula, description, analytical method. | Species or category of animal | Maximum age | Minimum content | Maximum content | Other provisions | End of period of authorisation |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| mg active substance/kg of complete feed with a moisture content of 12 % |
| Category: Sensory additives


  Functional group: Flavouring compounds |
| 2b136-eo | - | Petitgrain bigarade essential oil | Additive composition

  Petitgrain bigarade essential oil obtained from the leaves of Citrus aurantium L.
  Liquid form

  Characterisation of the active substance

  Petitgrain bigarade essential oil obtained by steam distillation from the leaves of Citrus aurantium L. as defined by the Council of Europe (1).
  Linalyl acetate: 40–72 %.
  Linalool: 10–32 %.
  α-Terpineol: 1–7 %.
  d-Limonene: 1–6 %.
  Geranyl acetate: 1,5–5,5 %.
  Geraniol: 1–4 %.
  CAS number: 8014-17-3
  Einecs number: 283-881-6
  FEMA number: 2855
  CoE number: 136

  Analytical method
   (2)

  For the quantification of the phytochemical markers Linalyl acetate and Linalool in the feed additive (petigrain bigarade oil) or in mixture of flavouring compounds:






  — | gas chromatography coupled with flame ionisation detection (GC-FID) (based on ISO 8901) |

Identification number of the additive

Name of the holder of authorisation

Additive

Composition, chemical formula, description, analytical method.

Species or category of animal

Maximum age

Minimum content

Maximum content

Other provisions

End of period of authorisation

mg active substance/kg of complete feed with a moisture content of 12 %

Category: Sensory additives

Functional group: Flavouring compounds

2b136-eo

-

Petitgrain bigarade essential oil

Additive composition

Petitgrain bigarade essential oil obtained from the leaves of Citrus aurantium L.

Liquid form

Characterisation of the active substance

Petitgrain bigarade essential oil obtained by steam distillation from the leaves of Citrus aurantium L. as defined by the Council of Europe (1).

Linalyl acetate: 40–72 %.

Linalool: 10–32 %.

α-Terpineol: 1–7 %.

d-Limonene: 1–6 %.

Geranyl acetate: 1,5–5,5 %.

Geraniol: 1–4 %.

CAS number: 8014-17-3

Einecs number: 283-881-6

FEMA number: 2855

CoE number: 136

Analytical method
   (2)

For the quantification of the phytochemical markers Linalyl acetate and Linalool in the feed additive (petigrain bigarade oil) or in mixture of flavouring compounds:

—

gas chromatography coupled with flame ionisation detection (GC-FID) (based on ISO 8901)

Chickens for fattening

Laying hens

Turkeys for fattening

Pigs for fattening

Piglets

Lactating sows

Calves

Dairy cows

Cattle for fattening

Sheep/Goats

Horses

Rabbits

Salmonids

Dogs

Cats

Ornamental fish

-

-

-

| 1. | The additive shall be incorporated into the feed in the form of a premixture. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The additive shall be incorporated into the feed in the form of a premixture.

| 2. | In the directions for use of the additive and premixtures, the storage conditions and stability to heat treatment shall be indicated. |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the directions for use of the additive and premixtures, the storage conditions and stability to heat treatment shall be indicated.

| 3. | On the label of the additive the following shall be indicated:
  ‘Recommended maximum content of the active substance per kg of complete feedingstuff with a moisture content of 12 %:






  — | Chickens for fattening: 10 mg. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

On the label of the additive the following shall be indicated:

‘Recommended maximum content of the active substance per kg of complete feedingstuff with a moisture content of 12 %:

—

Chickens for fattening: 10 mg.

| — | Laying hens: 14 mg. |
| --- | --- |

—

Laying hens: 14 mg.

| — | Turkeys for fattening: 13 mg. |
| --- | --- |

—

Turkeys for fattening: 13 mg.

| — | Pigs for fattening: 20 mg. |
| --- | --- |

—

Pigs for fattening: 20 mg.

| — | Piglets: 17 mg. |
| --- | --- |

—

Piglets: 17 mg.

| — | Lactating sows: 25 mg. |
| --- | --- |

—

Lactating sows: 25 mg.

| — | Calves (milk replacer): 43 mg. |
| --- | --- |

—

Calves (milk replacer): 43 mg.

| — | Cattle for fattening, sheep, goats and horses: 38 mg. |
| --- | --- |

—

Cattle for fattening, sheep, goats and horses: 38 mg.

| — | Dairy cows: 24 mg. |
| --- | --- |

—

Dairy cows: 24 mg.

| — | Rabbits: 15 mg. |
| --- | --- |

—

Rabbits: 15 mg.

| — | Salmonids: 42 mg. |
| --- | --- |

—

Salmonids: 42 mg.

| — | Dogs: 44 mg. |
| --- | --- |

—

Dogs: 44 mg.

| — | Cats: 8 mg. |
| --- | --- |

—

Cats: 8 mg.

| — | Ornamental fish: 125 mg’. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ornamental fish: 125 mg’.

| 4. | The functional group, the identification number, the name and the added amount of the active substance shall be indicated on the label of the premixture where the use level on the label of the premixture would result in exceeding the level referred to in point 3. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The functional group, the identification number, the name and the added amount of the active substance shall be indicated on the label of the premixture where the use level on the label of the premixture would result in exceeding the level referred to in point 3.

| 5. | For users of the additive and premixtures, feed business operators shall establish operational procedures and organisational measures to address potential risks by inhalation, dermal contact or eyes contact. Where those risks cannot be eliminated or reduced to a minimum by such procedures and measures, the additive and premixtures shall be used with personal protective equipment, including skin, eye and breathing protection. |
| --- | --- |

5.

For users of the additive and premixtures, feed business operators shall establish operational procedures and organisational measures to address potential risks by inhalation, dermal contact or eyes contact. Where those risks cannot be eliminated or reduced to a minimum by such procedures and measures, the additive and premixtures shall be used with personal protective equipment, including skin, eye and breathing protection.

22 March 2032

---

(1)  Natural sources of flavourings – Report No 2 (2007)

(2)  Details of the analytical methods are available at the following address of the Reference Laboratory: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/eurl/feed-additives/evaluation-reports

---

DECISIONS

| 2.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 64/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 64/6

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

| 1. | Procedure | 9 |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

| 2. | Background and description of the measures subject to investigation | 10 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

| 2.1. | General framework | 10 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.1.

| 2.1.1. | The initial Conventions | 10 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.1.1.

| 2.1.2. | The prolongation of the initial Conventions | 12 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.1.2.

| 2.1.3. | The privatisation of Toremar and the conclusion of the new service contract | 13 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.1.3.

| 2.2. | Measures in scope of the 2011 and 2012 Decisions | 13 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.2.

| 2.3. | Detailed description of the measures subject to the present Decision | 13 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3.

| 2.3.1. | The prolongation of the initial Convention between Toremar and Italy | 13 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3.1.

| 2.3.1.1. | The public service obligations | 13 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3.1.1.

| 2.3.1.2. | Budget and duration | 14 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3.1.2.

| 2.3.2. | Toremar’s privatisation | 16 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2.

| 2.3.2.1. | The sale procedure and final award | 17 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2.1.

| 2.3.2.2. | The sale contract | 17 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2.2.

| 2.3.2.3. | Proceedings at national level | 18 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2.3.

| 2.3.3. | The new service contract between the Region of Tuscany and Moby/Toremar | 19 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3.3.

| 2.3.3.1. | The beneficiary | 19 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3.3.1.

| 2.3.3.2. | The routes | 19 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3.3.2.

| 2.3.3.3. | Duration | 19 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3.3.3.

| 2.3.3.4. | The public service obligations | 19 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3.3.4.

| 2.3.3.5. | The compensation provisions and final award | 20 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3.3.5.

| 2.3.4. | The berthing priority | 20 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3.4.

| 2.3.5. | The measures laid down by the 2010 Law | 21 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.3.5.

| 2.4. | Infringement procedure No 2007/4609 | 21 |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.4.

| 3. | Grounds for initiating and extending the procedure | 23 |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

| 3.1. | The prolongation of the initial Convention between Toremar and Italy | 23 |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.1.

| 3.1.1. | Observance of Altmark and existence of aid | 23 |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.1.1.

| 3.1.2. | Compatibility | 23 |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2.

| 3.2. | Toremar’s privatisation | 24 |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.2.

| 3.3. | The new service contract between the Region of Tuscany and Moby/Toremar | 24 |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.3.

| 3.3.1. | Observance of Altmark and existence of aid | 24 |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.3.1.

| 3.3.2. | Compatibility | 25 |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2.

| 3.4. | The berthing priority | 25 |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.4.

| 3.5. | The measures laid down by the 2010 Law | 25 |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.5.

| 4. | Comments from Italy | 25 |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.

| 4.1. | On the public service obligations and the competitive environment | 25 |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.1.

| 4.2. | On the privatisation of Toremar | 26 |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.2.

| 4.2.1. | On the sale price of Toremar | 26 |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.2.1.

| 4.2.2. | On the transparent and non-discriminatory character of the procedure | 26 |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2.

| 4.3. | On the compliance of the prolongation of the initial Convention and of the new public service contract with the Altmark conditions | 26 |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.3.

| 4.4. | On the 9,95 % rate of return used for 2010 and on the 6,5 % risk premium laid down in the CIPE Directive as of 2010 | 27 |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.4.

| 4.5. | On the berthing priority | 27 |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.5.

| 4.6. | On the measures laid down by the 2010 Law | 28 |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.6.

| 4.7. | On the compliance of the prolongation of the initial Convention and of the new public service contract with the 2011 SGEI Decision | 28 |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.7.

| 4.8. | On the compliance of the initial Convention and of the new public service contract with the 2011 SGEI Framework | 29 |
| --- | --- | --- |

4.8.

| 5. | Comments from Moby/Toremar | 29 |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.

| 5.1. | On the public service obligations and the competitive environment | 29 |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.1.

| 5.2. | On the privatisation of Toremar | 29 |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.2.

| 5.2.1. | On the price paid for Toremar’s shares | 29 |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.2.1.

| 5.2.2. | On the transparent and non-discriminatory character of the procedure and on the bundling of the assets of Toremar with a new public service contract | 29 |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2.

| 5.3. | On the compliance of the new public service contract with the Altmark conditions | 30 |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.3.

| 5.4. | On the prolongation of the initial Convention between Toremar and Italy | 30 |
| --- | --- | --- |

5.4.

| 6. | Assessment | 31 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.

| 6.1. | Existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU | 31 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.

| 6.1.1. | The prolongation of the initial Convention between Toremar and Italy | 31 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.1.

| 6.1.1.1. | State resources | 31 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.1.1.

| 6.1.1.2. | Selectivity | 31 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.1.2.

| 6.1.1.3. | Economic advantage | 31 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.1.3.

| 6.1.1.4. | Effect on competition and trade | 33 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.1.4.

| 6.1.1.5. | Conclusion | 33 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.1.5.

| 6.1.1.6. | New or existing aid | 33 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.1.6.

| 6.1.2. | The award of the new public service contract bundled with Toremar’s business to Moby/Toremar | 34 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2.

| 6.1.2.1. | Altmark 1 | 34 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2.1.

| 6.1.2.2. | Altmark 2 | 40 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2.2.

| 6.1.2.3. | Altmark 3 | 40 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2.3.

| 6.1.2.4. | Altmark 4 | 43 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2.4.

| 6.1.2.5. | Conclusion | 48 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2.5.

| 6.1.3. | The measures laid down by the 2010 Law | 48 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.3.

| 6.1.3.1. | Possible use of funds to upgrade ships for liquidity purposes | 48 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.3.1.

| 6.1.3.2. | Fiscal exemptions related to the privatisation process | 49 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.3.2.

| 6.1.3.3. | Possibility of using FAS resources to meet liquidity needs | 49 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.3.3.

| 6.1.4. | Cqonclusion on the existence of aid | 50 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.1.4.

| 6.2. | Lawfulness of aid | 50 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.2.

| 6.3. | Compatibility of aid | 50 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.3.

| 6.3.1. | The prolongation of the initial Convention between Toremar and Italy | 50 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.3.1.

| 6.3.1.1. | Applicable rules | 50 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.3.1.1.

| 6.3.1.2. | Genuine service of general economic interest as referred to in Article 106 TFEU | 52 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.3.1.2.

| 6.3.1.3. | Need for an entrustment act specifying the public service obligations and the methods of calculating compensation | 54 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.3.1.3.

| 6.3.1.4. | Duration of the period of entrustment | 55 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.3.1.4.

| 6.3.1.5. | Compliance with Directive 2006/111/EC | 55 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.3.1.5.

| 6.3.1.6. | Amount of compensation | 55 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.3.1.6.

| 6.3.1.7. | The berthing priority | 57 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.3.1.7.

| 6.3.1.8. | Conclusion | 58 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.3.1.8.

| 6.3.2. | Conclusion on compatibility of aid | 58 |
| --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2.

| 7. | Conclusion | 58 |
| --- | --- | --- |

7.

COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2022/348

of 17 June 2021

on the measures SA.32014, SA.32015, SA.32016 (2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Italy and the Region of Tuscany for Toremar and its acquirer Moby

(notified under document C(2022) 4271)

(Only the Italian version is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,

Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision(s) cited above (1) and having regard to their comments,

Whereas:

1.   PROCEDURE

PROCEDURE

| (1) | On 23 March 2009, 9 December 2009, 21 December 2009, 6 January 2010, 27 September 2010 and 12 October 2010, the Commission received six complaints concerning various support measures adopted by Italy in favour of the companies of the former Tirrenia Group (2). The complaints concerned the public service compensation granted to these companies after the expiry of the initial public service contracts concluded with Italy for the period between January 1989 and December 2008 (‘the initial Conventions’), additional support measures laid down by several legislative acts adopted in the context of the privatisation process of the companies, as well as certain issues regarding particularly the privatisation procedure of Tirrenia di Navigazione S.p.A. (‘Tirrenia’) and Siremar – Sicilia Regionale Marittima S.p.A. (‘Siremar’). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 23 March 2009, 9 December 2009, 21 December 2009, 6 January 2010, 27 September 2010 and 12 October 2010, the Commission received six complaints concerning various support measures adopted by Italy in favour of the companies of the former Tirrenia Group (2). The complaints concerned the public service compensation granted to these companies after the expiry of the initial public service contracts concluded with Italy for the period between January 1989 and December 2008 (‘the initial Conventions’), additional support measures laid down by several legislative acts adopted in the context of the privatisation process of the companies, as well as certain issues regarding particularly the privatisation procedure of Tirrenia di Navigazione S.p.A. (‘Tirrenia’) and Siremar – Sicilia Regionale Marittima S.p.A. (‘Siremar’).

2

| (2) | On 1 December 2010, Italy notified to the Commission the compensation paid in 2009 and 2010 by Italy to Toscana Regionale Marittima S.p.A. (‘Toremar’). |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 1 December 2010, Italy notified to the Commission the compensation paid in 2009 and 2010 by Italy to Toscana Regionale Marittima S.p.A. (‘Toremar’).

| (3) | On 5 October 2011, the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure in respect of various measures adopted by Italy in favour of the companies of the former Tirrenia Group (‘the 2011 Decision’). The investigation concerned, inter alia, the compensation granted to Toremar – for the operation of a number of maritime routes as of 1 January 2009 and a number of other measures granted to that company (see recital (33)). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On 5 October 2011, the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure in respect of various measures adopted by Italy in favour of the companies of the former Tirrenia Group (‘the 2011 Decision’). The investigation concerned, inter alia, the compensation granted to Toremar – for the operation of a number of maritime routes as of 1 January 2009 and a number of other measures granted to that company (see recital (33)).

| (4) | The 2011 Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measures under investigation (3). |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The 2011 Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measures under investigation (3).

Official Journal of the European Union

3

| (5) | By letter dated 28 September 2011, Italy had already informed the Commission of the intention to privatise the regional companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar. On 26 October 2011, the Commission sent a request for information to Italy concerning the privatisation procedure. On 30 November 2011, Italy submitted a reply to the Commission’s request for information of 26 October 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

By letter dated 28 September 2011, Italy had already informed the Commission of the intention to privatise the regional companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar. On 26 October 2011, the Commission sent a request for information to Italy concerning the privatisation procedure. On 30 November 2011, Italy submitted a reply to the Commission’s request for information of 26 October 2011.

| (6) | On 15 November 2011, Italy submitted comments on the measures covered by the 2011 Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

On 15 November 2011, Italy submitted comments on the measures covered by the 2011 Decision.

| (7) | By fax sent on 28 February 2012, the company Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l. submitted a complaint alleging unlawful State aid as a result of the privatisation of Toremar and the compensation paid to Moby S.p.A. (‘Moby’), Toremar’s selected buyer. Specifically, the complainant alleges that: (i) the sale procedure has conferred an advantage on Moby, (ii) the merger between Toremar and Moby results in a monopoly on the Piombino – Elba island routes, and (iii) the compensation granted to Moby for the operation of the public service through the 12-year duration of the new public service contract is incompatible with the internal market to the extent that similar services are already provided on commercial terms by the complainant itself. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

By fax sent on 28 February 2012, the company Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l. submitted a complaint alleging unlawful State aid as a result of the privatisation of Toremar and the compensation paid to Moby S.p.A. (‘Moby’), Toremar’s selected buyer. Specifically, the complainant alleges that: (i) the sale procedure has conferred an advantage on Moby, (ii) the merger between Toremar and Moby results in a monopoly on the Piombino – Elba island routes, and (iii) the compensation granted to Moby for the operation of the public service through the 12-year duration of the new public service contract is incompatible with the internal market to the extent that similar services are already provided on commercial terms by the complainant itself.

| (8) | By letter dated 19 July 2012, Italy provided additional information on the privatisation of the regional companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

By letter dated 19 July 2012, Italy provided additional information on the privatisation of the regional companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar.

| (9) | On 7 November 2012, the Commission extended the investigation procedure, inter alia, in respect of certain additional support measures granted by the Region of Tuscany to Toremar in respect of the public compensation granted to Toremar under the new public service contract. An amended version of that Decision was adopted by the Commission on 19 December 2012 (‘the 2012 Decision’). |
| --- | --- |

(9)

On 7 November 2012, the Commission extended the investigation procedure, inter alia, in respect of certain additional support measures granted by the Region of Tuscany to Toremar in respect of the public compensation granted to Toremar under the new public service contract. An amended version of that Decision was adopted by the Commission on 19 December 2012 (‘the 2012 Decision’).

| (10) | The 2012 Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measures under investigation (4). |
| --- | --- |

(10)

The 2012 Decision was published in the Official Journal of the European Union. The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the measures under investigation (4).

Official Journal of the European Union

4

| (11) | On 11 December 2012, Italy submitted its comments and on 22 April 2013, the Commission received comments from Toremar and its buyer, Moby. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

On 11 December 2012, Italy submitted its comments and on 22 April 2013, the Commission received comments from Toremar and its buyer, Moby.

| (12) | By its decision of 22 January 2014 (‘the 2014 Decision’) (5), the Commission closed the formal investigation procedure as concerns various measures adopted by the Sardinian Region in favour of Saremar. The appeal lodged by Saremar and the Region against that decision was dismissed by the General Court in 2017 (6). |
| --- | --- |

(12)

By its decision of 22 January 2014 (‘the 2014 Decision’) (5), the Commission closed the formal investigation procedure as concerns various measures adopted by the Sardinian Region in favour of Saremar. The appeal lodged by Saremar and the Region against that decision was dismissed by the General Court in 2017 (6).

5

6

| (13) | On 25 January 2018, 29 March 2018, 31 August 2018, 12 February 2019, 5, 14 and 17 February 2020, and 12 October 2020, the Commission requested additional information from Italy. Italy provided this information on 26 April 2018, 31 May 2018, 2 November 2018, 11 December 2018, 8 April 2019, 16 and 28 October 2019, 7, 16 and 23 February 2020, 21 April 2020, 9 November 2020, and 1 and 10 December 2020. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

On 25 January 2018, 29 March 2018, 31 August 2018, 12 February 2019, 5, 14 and 17 February 2020, and 12 October 2020, the Commission requested additional information from Italy. Italy provided this information on 26 April 2018, 31 May 2018, 2 November 2018, 11 December 2018, 8 April 2019, 16 and 28 October 2019, 7, 16 and 23 February 2020, 21 April 2020, 9 November 2020, and 1 and 10 December 2020.

| (14) | This Decision only concerns possible aid to Toremar as specified in Section 2.3. All remaining measures subject to the 2011 and 2012 Decisions are being investigated separately under cases SA.32014, SA.32015 and SA.32016 and are not therefore covered by this Decision. In particular, those remaining measures concern other companies of the former Tirrenia Group. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

This Decision only concerns possible aid to Toremar as specified in Section 2.3. All remaining measures subject to the 2011 and 2012 Decisions are being investigated separately under cases SA.32014, SA.32015 and SA.32016 and are not therefore covered by this Decision. In particular, those remaining measures concern other companies of the former Tirrenia Group.

2.   BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURES SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION

BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURES SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION

2.1.   General framework

General framework

2.1.1.   The initial Conventions

The initial Conventions

| (15) | The Tirrenia Group was traditionally owned by Italy through the company Fintecna (7) and initially included six companies, namely Tirrenia, Adriatica, Caremar, Saremar, Siremar and Toremar. These companies provided maritime transport services under separate public service contracts concluded with Italy in 1991, in force for 20 years between January 1989 and December 2008 (‘the initial Conventions’). Fintecna held 100 % of Tirrenia’s share capital, which in turn wholly owned the regional companies Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar. Adriatica, which used to operate a number of routes between Italy and Albania/Croatia/Greece/Montenegro, was merged with Tirrenia in 2004. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

The Tirrenia Group was traditionally owned by Italy through the company Fintecna (7) and initially included six companies, namely Tirrenia, Adriatica, Caremar, Saremar, Siremar and Toremar. These companies provided maritime transport services under separate public service contracts concluded with Italy in 1991, in force for 20 years between January 1989 and December 2008 (‘the initial Conventions’). Fintecna held 100 % of Tirrenia’s share capital, which in turn wholly owned the regional companies Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar. Adriatica, which used to operate a number of routes between Italy and Albania/Croatia/Greece/Montenegro, was merged with Tirrenia in 2004.

7

| (16) | The purpose of these initial Conventions was to guarantee the regularity and reliability of the maritime transport services, the majority of them connecting mainland Italy with Sicily, Sardinia and other smaller Italian islands. To that effect, Italy granted financial support in the form of subsidies paid directly to each of the companies of the Tirrenia Group. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The purpose of these initial Conventions was to guarantee the regularity and reliability of the maritime transport services, the majority of them connecting mainland Italy with Sicily, Sardinia and other smaller Italian islands. To that effect, Italy granted financial support in the form of subsidies paid directly to each of the companies of the Tirrenia Group.

| (17) | Toremar traditionally operated a series of maritime cabotage (8) routes between the Region of Tuscany and the smaller neighbouring islands. The exact routes concerned are described under recital (38). |
| --- | --- |

(17)

Toremar traditionally operated a series of maritime cabotage (8) routes between the Region of Tuscany and the smaller neighbouring islands. The exact routes concerned are described under recital (38).

8

| (18) | On 6 August 1999, the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) in respect of aid paid on the basis of the initial Conventions to the six companies that then formed the Tirrenia Group. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

On 6 August 1999, the Commission decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’) in respect of aid paid on the basis of the initial Conventions to the six companies that then formed the Tirrenia Group.

| (19) | During the investigation phase, Italy requested that the Tirrenia Group case would be split up so that priority could be given to reaching a final decision concerning Tirrenia. This request was motivated by Italy’s plan to privatise the Group, beginning with Tirrenia, and its intention to speed up the process in relation to that company. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

During the investigation phase, Italy requested that the Tirrenia Group case would be split up so that priority could be given to reaching a final decision concerning Tirrenia. This request was motivated by Italy’s plan to privatise the Group, beginning with Tirrenia, and its intention to speed up the process in relation to that company.

| (20) | The Commission decided that it could accede to Italy’s request, and by Commission Decision 2001/851/EC (9) it closed the procedure initiated in respect of the aid awarded to Tirrenia (‘the 2001 Decision’). The aid was declared compatible subject to certain commitments by Italy. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

The Commission decided that it could accede to Italy’s request, and by Commission Decision 2001/851/EC (9) it closed the procedure initiated in respect of the aid awarded to Tirrenia (‘the 2001 Decision’). The aid was declared compatible subject to certain commitments by Italy.

9

| (21) | By Commission Decision 2005/163/EC (10) (‘the 2004 Decision’), the Commission declared the compensation granted by Italy to the Tirrenia Group companies other than Tirrenia to be partially compatible with the internal market, partially compatible but conditional upon the respect of a number of undertakings by Italy, and partially incompatible with the internal market. The Decision was based on accounting data spanning from 1992 to 2001 and contained certain conditions aimed at ensuring the compatibility of the compensation throughout the duration of the initial Conventions. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

By Commission Decision 2005/163/EC (10) (‘the 2004 Decision’), the Commission declared the compensation granted by Italy to the Tirrenia Group companies other than Tirrenia to be partially compatible with the internal market, partially compatible but conditional upon the respect of a number of undertakings by Italy, and partially incompatible with the internal market. The Decision was based on accounting data spanning from 1992 to 2001 and contained certain conditions aimed at ensuring the compatibility of the compensation throughout the duration of the initial Conventions.

10

| (22) | By Judgment of 4 March 2009 in cases T-265/04, T-292/04 and T-504/04 (11) (‘the 2009 Judgment’) the General Court annulled the 2004 Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

By Judgment of 4 March 2009 in cases T-265/04, T-292/04 and T-504/04 (11) (‘the 2009 Judgment’) the General Court annulled the 2004 Decision.

11

| (23) | By Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1411 (12), the Commission concluded the investigation on the Tirrenia Group companies other than Tirrenia, including Toremar, for the period 1992-2008 (the ‘2020 Tirrenia Group Decision’). The Commission concluded that the aid granted for the provision of maritime cabotage transport services constituted existing aid, while the aid granted for the provision of international maritime transport services was compatible with the 2011 services of general economic interest (‘SGEI’) Framework (the ‘2011 SGEI Framework’) (13). |
| --- | --- |

(23)

By Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1411 (12), the Commission concluded the investigation on the Tirrenia Group companies other than Tirrenia, including Toremar, for the period 1992-2008 (the ‘2020 Tirrenia Group Decision’). The Commission concluded that the aid granted for the provision of maritime cabotage transport services constituted existing aid, while the aid granted for the provision of international maritime transport services was compatible with the 2011 services of general economic interest (‘SGEI’) Framework (the ‘2011 SGEI Framework’) (13).

12

13

| (24) | By Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1412 (14), the Commission closed the formal investigation procedure as concerns the measures granted to Tirrenia and its acquirer CIN, for the period 2009-2020. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

By Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1412 (14), the Commission closed the formal investigation procedure as concerns the measures granted to Tirrenia and its acquirer CIN, for the period 2009-2020.

14

2.1.2.   The prolongation of the initial Conventions

The prolongation of the initial Conventions

| (25) | Article 26 of Decree Law No 207 of 30 December 2008, converted into Law No 14 of 27 February 2009, laid down the prolongation of the initial Conventions (including the one applicable to Toremar) which were initially to expire on 31 December 2008, for 1 year until 31 December 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

Article 26 of Decree Law No 207 of 30 December 2008, converted into Law No 14 of 27 February 2009, laid down the prolongation of the initial Conventions (including the one applicable to Toremar) which were initially to expire on 31 December 2008, for 1 year until 31 December 2009.

| (26) | Article 19-ter of Decree Law No 135 of 25 September 2009, converted into Law No 166 of 20 November 2009 (‘the 2009 Law’), laid down that, in view of the privatisation of the Tirrenia Group companies, the shareholding of the regional companies (except for Siremar) would be transferred from parent company Tirrenia without any consideration being paid as follows:






  (a) | Caremar would initially be transferred to the Region of Campania. The latter would subsequently transfer to the Region of Lazio the Caremar’s business operating the transport connections with the Pontino archipelago on a standalone basis under the name Laziomar (15); |
| --- | --- | --- |

(26)

Article 19-ter of Decree Law No 135 of 25 September 2009, converted into Law No 166 of 20 November 2009 (‘the 2009 Law’), laid down that, in view of the privatisation of the Tirrenia Group companies, the shareholding of the regional companies (except for Siremar) would be transferred from parent company Tirrenia without any consideration being paid as follows:

-ter

(a)

Caremar would initially be transferred to the Region of Campania. The latter would subsequently transfer to the Region of Lazio the Caremar’s business operating the transport connections with the Pontino archipelago on a standalone basis under the name Laziomar (15);

15

| (b) | Saremar would be transferred to the Region of Sardinia; and |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Saremar would be transferred to the Region of Sardinia; and

| (c) | Toremar would be transferred to the Region of Tuscany. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Toremar would be transferred to the Region of Tuscany.

| (27) | The 2009 Law also specified that new Conventions would be agreed between Italy and Tirrenia and Siremar by 31 December 2009. Likewise, the regional services would be enshrined in draft Public Service Contracts, to be agreed between the regional authorities of Sardinia and Tuscany and Saremar and Toremar respectively by 31 December 2009 and between the regions of Campania and Lazio and Caremar and Laziomar respectively by 28 February 2010. The draft new Conventions/Public Service Contracts would be put up for tender with the companies themselves and signed with the buyers upon finalisation of the privatisation of each of those companies (16). |
| --- | --- |

(27)

The 2009 Law also specified that new Conventions would be agreed between Italy and Tirrenia and Siremar by 31 December 2009. Likewise, the regional services would be enshrined in draft Public Service Contracts, to be agreed between the regional authorities of Sardinia and Tuscany and Saremar and Toremar respectively by 31 December 2009 and between the regions of Campania and Lazio and Caremar and Laziomar respectively by 28 February 2010. The draft new Conventions/Public Service Contracts would be put up for tender with the companies themselves and signed with the buyers upon finalisation of the privatisation of each of those companies (16).

16

| (28) | To that end, the 2009 Law further prolonged the initial Conventions (including the one applicable to Toremar) from 1 January 2010 until 30 September 2010. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

To that end, the 2009 Law further prolonged the initial Conventions (including the one applicable to Toremar) from 1 January 2010 until 30 September 2010.

| (29) | The 2009 Law also set annual compensation ceilings for the operation of the services as of 2010 (under the prolongation of the initial Conventions, as well as under the new Conventions and Public Service Contracts), at a total of EUR 184 942 251, as follows:







  Company | Maximum annual compensation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Tirrenia | EUR 72 685 642 |
| Siremar | EUR 55 694 895 |
| Saremar | EUR 13 686 441 |
| Toremar | EUR 13 005 441 |
| Caremar | EUR 29 869 832  (17) |

(29)

The 2009 Law also set annual compensation ceilings for the operation of the services as of 2010 (under the prolongation of the initial Conventions, as well as under the new Conventions and Public Service Contracts), at a total of EUR 184 942 251, as follows:

Company

Company

Maximum annual compensation

Maximum annual compensation

Tirrenia

EUR 72 685 642

Siremar

EUR 55 694 895

Saremar

EUR 13 686 441

Toremar

EUR 13 005 441

Caremar

EUR 29 869 832  (17)

17

Table 1 – Compensation ceilings as of 2010

Table 1 – Compensation ceilings as of 2010

| (30) | Finally, Article 1 of Law No 163 of 1 October 2010 converting Decree-Law No 125 of 5 August 2010 (‘the 2010 Law’) laid down the further prolongation of the initial Conventions (including the one applicable to Toremar) from 1 October 2010 until the completion of the privatisation processes of Tirrenia and Siremar, which took place on 19 July 2012 and 31 July 2012 respectively. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

Finally, Article 1 of Law No 163 of 1 October 2010 converting Decree-Law No 125 of 5 August 2010 (‘the 2010 Law’) laid down the further prolongation of the initial Conventions (including the one applicable to Toremar) from 1 October 2010 until the completion of the privatisation processes of Tirrenia and Siremar, which took place on 19 July 2012 and 31 July 2012 respectively.

2.1.3.   The privatisation of Toremar and the conclusion of the new service contract

The privatisation of Toremar and the conclusion of the new service contract

| (31) | In January 2010, a tender procedure was launched (see Section 2.3.2) to find a buyer for Toremar bundled together with the new public service contract for the provision of maritime services over a period of 12 years in exchange for public service compensation. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

In January 2010, a tender procedure was launched (see Section 2.3.2) to find a buyer for Toremar bundled together with the new public service contract for the provision of maritime services over a period of 12 years in exchange for public service compensation.

| (32) | Following its successful offer in the tender procedure, Moby became the new owner of Toremar. The sale contract between the Region of Tuscany and Moby was signed on 2 January 2012. On the same date, the parties (including Toremar) signed the new service contract for the provision of maritime services. On this basis, the ownership of all Toremar’s shares was transferred from the Region of Tuscany to Moby on 2 January 2012. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

Following its successful offer in the tender procedure, Moby became the new owner of Toremar. The sale contract between the Region of Tuscany and Moby was signed on 2 January 2012. On the same date, the parties (including Toremar) signed the new service contract for the provision of maritime services. On this basis, the ownership of all Toremar’s shares was transferred from the Region of Tuscany to Moby on 2 January 2012.

2.2.   Measures in scope of the 2011 and 2012 Decisions

Measures in scope of the 2011 and 2012 Decisions

| (33) | The following measures have been subject to assessment in the formal investigation procedure opened by the 2011 and 2012 Decisions:






  (a) | Compensation for the provision of services of general economic interest (‘SGEI’) under the prolongation of the initial Conventions (measure 1); |
| --- | --- | --- |

(33)

The following measures have been subject to assessment in the formal investigation procedure opened by the 2011 and 2012 Decisions:

(a)

Compensation for the provision of services of general economic interest (‘SGEI’) under the prolongation of the initial Conventions (measure 1);

measure 1

| (b) | Illegal prolongation of rescue aid by Tirrenia and Siremar (measure 2); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Illegal prolongation of rescue aid by Tirrenia and Siremar (measure 2);

measure 2

| (c) | The privatisation of the companies of the former Tirrenia Group (18) (measure 3); |
| --- | --- |

(c)

The privatisation of the companies of the former Tirrenia Group (18) (measure 3);

18

measure 3

| (d) | Compensation paid for the operation of SGEI under the future Conventions/Public Service Contracts (measure 4); |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Compensation paid for the operation of SGEI under the future Conventions/Public Service Contracts (measure 4);

measure 4

| (e) | The berthing priority (measure 5); |
| --- | --- |

(e)

The berthing priority (measure 5);

measure 5

| (f) | The measures laid down by the 2010 Law converting Decree Law 125/2010 (measure 6); |
| --- | --- |

(f)

The measures laid down by the 2010 Law converting Decree Law 125/2010 (measure 6);

measure 6

| (g) | Additional measures adopted by the Sardinian Region in favour of Saremar (measure 7); |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Additional measures adopted by the Sardinian Region in favour of Saremar (measure 7);

(measure 7

| (34) | By its 2014 Decision the Commission closed the formal investigation procedure as concerns the measures adopted by the Sardinian Region in favour of Saremar referred to above as Measure 7 with the exception of one measure (19). |
| --- | --- |

(34)

By its 2014 Decision the Commission closed the formal investigation procedure as concerns the measures adopted by the Sardinian Region in favour of Saremar referred to above as Measure 7 with the exception of one measure (19).

19

2.3.   Detailed description of the measures subject to the present Decision

Detailed description of the measures subject to the present Decision

| (35) | This Decision only deals with measures 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as listed in recital (33) in so far as they involve Toremar and Moby. These measures are described in more detail in the following sections. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

This Decision only deals with measures 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 as listed in recital (33) in so far as they involve Toremar and Moby. These measures are described in more detail in the following sections.

2.3.1.   The prolongation of the initial Convention between Toremar and Italy

The prolongation of the initial Convention between Toremar and Italy

2.3.1.1.   The public service obligations

| (36) | Article 1 of the initial Convention with Toremar provided for 5-year plans to detail the ports to be served, the type of vessels to be used, the required frequency of the service and the fares to be paid. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

Article 1 of the initial Convention with Toremar provided for 5-year plans to detail the ports to be served, the type of vessels to be used, the required frequency of the service and the fares to be paid.

| (37) | The first 5-year plan (1990-1994) for Toremar was approved by Ministerial Decree of 29 May 1990, and applied retrospectively as of 1 January 1990. The second plan, covering the period 1995-1999 and approved by Ministerial Decree of 14 May 1996, left the routes and frequencies unchanged. As for the periods 2000-2004 and 2005-2008, a plan was drawn up but never formally approved by the competent ministries. Instead, ad hoc decisions have been taken by the government with a view to bringing the services more closely into line with the needs of the local communities, without however making substantive changes to the public service system. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

The first 5-year plan (1990-1994) for Toremar was approved by Ministerial Decree of 29 May 1990, and applied retrospectively as of 1 January 1990. The second plan, covering the period 1995-1999 and approved by Ministerial Decree of 14 May 1996, left the routes and frequencies unchanged. As for the periods 2000-2004 and 2005-2008, a plan was drawn up but never formally approved by the competent ministries. Instead, ad hoc decisions have been taken by the government with a view to bringing the services more closely into line with the needs of the local communities, without however making substantive changes to the public service system.

ad hoc

| (38) | Based on the initial Convention, as prolonged with subsequent legal acts mentioned above in recitals (25) to (30), Toremar operated the following routes throughout the year:






  — | On the Livorno – Gorgona – Capraia route Toremar provided passenger and mixed services (passengers and vehicles), with a bi-weekly service to the island of Gorgona and a daily service to the island of Capraia. Another operator, Piccola Società Cooperativa Marittima Ligure Tirrena A.R.L., had also been present on the route during the months of July and August using a high-speed passenger only vessel. However, that company stopped operating the route in 2010. |
| --- | --- | --- |

(38)

Based on the initial Convention, as prolonged with subsequent legal acts mentioned above in recitals (25) to (30), Toremar operated the following routes throughout the year:

—

On the Livorno – Gorgona – Capraia route Toremar provided passenger and mixed services (passengers and vehicles), with a bi-weekly service to the island of Gorgona and a daily service to the island of Capraia. Another operator, Piccola Società Cooperativa Marittima Ligure Tirrena A.R.L., had also been present on the route during the months of July and August using a high-speed passenger only vessel. However, that company stopped operating the route in 2010.

| — | On the Piombino – Portoferraio (island of Elba) Toremar provided daily mixed services. Moby has been also competing on this route with frequent mixed sailings all year round, as well as two new entrants, Blu Navy, which began sailings in 2010 (from April to October) and Elba Ferries, which operated only during the summer season. |
| --- | --- |

—

On the Piombino – Portoferraio (island of Elba) Toremar provided daily mixed services. Moby has been also competing on this route with frequent mixed sailings all year round, as well as two new entrants, Blu Navy, which began sailings in 2010 (from April to October) and Elba Ferries, which operated only during the summer season.

| — | On the Piombino – Cavo – Portoferraio route (island of Elba) Toremar operated the only passenger service, with the use of a fast hydrofoil vessel. |
| --- | --- |

—

On the Piombino – Cavo – Portoferraio route (island of Elba) Toremar operated the only passenger service, with the use of a fast hydrofoil vessel.

| — | On the Piombino – Rio Marina – Porto Azzurro – Pianosa route (island of Elba) Toremar was the only operator providing daily mixed services to the port of Rio Marina and a weekly service to the port of Pianosa. |
| --- | --- |

—

On the Piombino – Rio Marina – Porto Azzurro – Pianosa route (island of Elba) Toremar was the only operator providing daily mixed services to the port of Rio Marina and a weekly service to the port of Pianosa.

| — | On the Porto S. Stefano – Island of Giglio route Toremar provided daily mixed services all year round. The operator Maregiglio was also present on the route providing mixed services during the period April – November, with an average of 2 to 4 sailings per day during October and November and six to eight between April and September. |
| --- | --- |

—

On the Porto S. Stefano – Island of Giglio route Toremar provided daily mixed services all year round. The operator Maregiglio was also present on the route providing mixed services during the period April – November, with an average of 2 to 4 sailings per day during October and November and six to eight between April and September.

2.3.1.2.   Budget and duration

| (39) | Table 2 below shows the annual amount of compensation paid to Toremar by Italy for the period 2009 – 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

Table 2 below shows the annual amount of compensation paid to Toremar by Italy for the period 2009 – 2011.

| (40) | In addition to this, the Region of Tuscany had reserved an additional annual budget of EUR 3 000 000 to be paid to Toremar after reporting of the actual revenues and costs incurred during the period 2010-2011. In those years, as a result of the economic and financial crisis, the number of passengers fell substantially, whilst there had been an increase in fuel costs. In the view of the Region of Tuscany, the compensation paid from the central State budget was therefore not sufficient to cover the totality of the public service cost.









  Year | Compensation | Reserve | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2009 | 13 572 035 | | 13 572 035 |
| 2010 | 13 005 441 | 3 000 000 | 16 005 441 |
| 2011 | 13 005 441 | 3 000 000 | 16 005 441 |

(40)

In addition to this, the Region of Tuscany had reserved an additional annual budget of EUR 3 000 000 to be paid to Toremar after reporting of the actual revenues and costs incurred during the period 2010-2011. In those years, as a result of the economic and financial crisis, the number of passengers fell substantially, whilst there had been an increase in fuel costs. In the view of the Region of Tuscany, the compensation paid from the central State budget was therefore not sufficient to cover the totality of the public service cost.

Year

Year

Compensation

Compensation

Reserve

Reserve

Total

Total

2009

13 572 035

13 572 035

2010

13 005 441

3 000 000

16 005 441

2011

13 005 441

3 000 000

16 005 441

Table 2 – Compensation granted for the period 2009-2011 (EUR)

Table 2 – Compensation granted for the period 2009-2011 (EUR)

| (41) | The initial Convention provides for the annual public service compensation to be paid as follows: an initial advance payment is made in March of each year, equivalent to 70 % of the compensation paid the previous year. A second payment, made in June, is equal to 20 % of the compensation. The difference between the amounts paid and the shortfall between operating costs and revenue during the year in progress constitutes the balance, which is paid by 30 November. If it turned out that Toremar has received a sum greater than the net cost of the services provided (revenue minus losses), the initial Convention provides that Toremar is required to reimburse the difference (20).






  — | Compensation granted in 2009 |
| --- | --- | --- |

(41)

The initial Convention provides for the annual public service compensation to be paid as follows: an initial advance payment is made in March of each year, equivalent to 70 % of the compensation paid the previous year. A second payment, made in June, is equal to 20 % of the compensation. The difference between the amounts paid and the shortfall between operating costs and revenue during the year in progress constitutes the balance, which is paid by 30 November. If it turned out that Toremar has received a sum greater than the net cost of the services provided (revenue minus losses), the initial Convention provides that Toremar is required to reimburse the difference (20).

20

—

Compensation granted in 2009

| (42) | Presidential Decree No 501 of 1 June 1979 (‘Decree No 501/79’) specifies the various elements (revenues and costs) which enter into the calculation of the subsidy paid to maritime public service operators. Furthermore, Law No 856 of 5 December 1986 (‘Law 856/86’) provided for certain alterations to the system of maritime public service obligations in Italy. Regarding the connections with minor and major islands, Article 11 thereof amended the criteria for the calculation of the public service compensation. Indeed, the subsidy had to be calculated based on the difference between the revenues and the costs of the service as determined with reference to average and objective parameters, and had to include a reasonable return on invested capital. Article 11 also lays down that the public service contracts had to include the list of the subsidised routes, the frequency and the types of ships to be used. The subsidies were to be approved by the responsible Ministers. The principles laid down in Presidential Decree No 501/79 and Law No 856/86 were reflected in the initial Conventions. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

Presidential Decree No 501 of 1 June 1979 (‘Decree No 501/79’) specifies the various elements (revenues and costs) which enter into the calculation of the subsidy paid to maritime public service operators. Furthermore, Law No 856 of 5 December 1986 (‘Law 856/86’) provided for certain alterations to the system of maritime public service obligations in Italy. Regarding the connections with minor and major islands, Article 11 thereof amended the criteria for the calculation of the public service compensation. Indeed, the subsidy had to be calculated based on the difference between the revenues and the costs of the service as determined with reference to average and objective parameters, and had to include a reasonable return on invested capital. Article 11 also lays down that the public service contracts had to include the list of the subsidised routes, the frequency and the types of ships to be used. The subsidies were to be approved by the responsible Ministers. The principles laid down in Presidential Decree No 501/79 and Law No 856/86 were reflected in the initial Conventions.

| (43) | Indeed, in 2009, the compensation for the discharge of SGEI was calculated in accordance with the methodology laid down by the initial Convention in force since 1991 and prolonged after its initial expiry date of 31 December 2008. In particular, the compensation corresponded to the accumulated net loss on the services operated under the public service regime, to which a variable amount corresponding to the return on invested capital was added. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

Indeed, in 2009, the compensation for the discharge of SGEI was calculated in accordance with the methodology laid down by the initial Convention in force since 1991 and prolonged after its initial expiry date of 31 December 2008. In particular, the compensation corresponded to the accumulated net loss on the services operated under the public service regime, to which a variable amount corresponding to the return on invested capital was added.

| (44) | The various cost elements taken into consideration in order to calculate the compensation defined by the public authorities were the following: acquisition, advertising and accommodation costs, loading, unloading and manoeuvring costs, cost of shore administrative personnel, ship maintenance costs, administrative costs, insurance costs, rent and leasing costs, fuel, taxes and depreciation costs.






  — | Compensation granted in 2010 and 2011 and as from 2012 |
| --- | --- | --- |

(44)

The various cost elements taken into consideration in order to calculate the compensation defined by the public authorities were the following: acquisition, advertising and accommodation costs, loading, unloading and manoeuvring costs, cost of shore administrative personnel, ship maintenance costs, administrative costs, insurance costs, rent and leasing costs, fuel, taxes and depreciation costs.

—

Compensation granted in 2010 and 2011 and as from 2012

| (45) | As from 2010, the compensation for the operation of the SGEI has been determined by the application of a new methodology laid down in the CIPE (21) Directive of 9 November 2007 titled ‘Criteria for the definition of the public service obligations and the fare dynamics in the sector of maritime cabotage of public interest’ (‘the CIPE Directive’) (22). According to the preamble, the CIPE Directive was issued in view of the privatisation of the public companies operating maritime services under a public service regime (23). The provisions of the CIPE Directive were applied in respect of the services provided by the companies of the Tirrenia Group as of 2010, even prior to the entry into force of the respective new Conventions and Public Service Contracts following the respective privatisations. |
| --- | --- |

(45)

As from 2010, the compensation for the operation of the SGEI has been determined by the application of a new methodology laid down in the CIPE (21) Directive of 9 November 2007 titled ‘Criteria for the definition of the public service obligations and the fare dynamics in the sector of maritime cabotage of public interest’ (‘the CIPE Directive’) (22). According to the preamble, the CIPE Directive was issued in view of the privatisation of the public companies operating maritime services under a public service regime (23). The provisions of the CIPE Directive were applied in respect of the services provided by the companies of the Tirrenia Group as of 2010, even prior to the entry into force of the respective new Conventions and Public Service Contracts following the respective privatisations.

21

22

23

| (46) | The method laid down in the CIPE Directive allows the companies operating the maritime public service to make an appropriate return. The rate of return on capital is calculated on the basis of the weighted average cost of capital (‘WACC’). |
| --- | --- |

(46)

The method laid down in the CIPE Directive allows the companies operating the maritime public service to make an appropriate return. The rate of return on capital is calculated on the basis of the weighted average cost of capital (‘WACC’).

| (47) | The required return to equity (24) is calculated using the Capital Asset Pricing Model (‘CAPM’). On the basis of the CAPM, the cost of equity is derived as a function of (i) the risk-free rate, (ii) the Beta (an estimate of risk profile of the company relative to equity market) and (iii) the equity risk premium assigned to the equity market. |
| --- | --- |

(47)

The required return to equity (24) is calculated using the Capital Asset Pricing Model (‘CAPM’). On the basis of the CAPM, the cost of equity is derived as a function of (i) the risk-free rate, (ii) the Beta (an estimate of risk profile of the company relative to equity market) and (iii) the equity risk premium assigned to the equity market.

24

| (48) | In particular, the cost of equity would be calculated by applying a premium for bearing extra risk to the rate of return on risk-free activities. This premium is calculated as the risk premium of the market multiplied by its Beta, which measures how risky a specific activity is relative to the market. |
| --- | --- |

(48)

In particular, the cost of equity would be calculated by applying a premium for bearing extra risk to the rate of return on risk-free activities. This premium is calculated as the risk premium of the market multiplied by its Beta, which measures how risky a specific activity is relative to the market.

| (49) | The CIPE Directive provides that the rate of return on risk-free activities corresponds to the average gross yield on benchmark 10-year bonds with reference to the previous 12 months for which available data exists. |
| --- | --- |

(49)

The CIPE Directive provides that the rate of return on risk-free activities corresponds to the average gross yield on benchmark 10-year bonds with reference to the previous 12 months for which available data exists.

| (50) | The CIPE Directive sets a 4 % market risk premium. However, in case of a service that is operated on a non-exclusive basis, the presumably greater risk borne by the operator is remunerated by the addition of an extra 2,5 % to the market risk premium. |
| --- | --- |

(50)

The CIPE Directive sets a 4 % market risk premium. However, in case of a service that is operated on a non-exclusive basis, the presumably greater risk borne by the operator is remunerated by the addition of an extra 2,5 % to the market risk premium.

| (51) | In practice, the amount of compensation paid to Toremar can however not exceed the ceiling of EUR 13 005 441 per year as laid down by the 2009 Law (see recital (29)). Although the 2009 Law caps the annual compensation paid to all Tirrenia companies for the operation of the maritime services subject to the public service regime, the CIPE Directive also contains certain safeguards that enable those operators to sufficiently cover their operating costs. |
| --- | --- |

(51)

In practice, the amount of compensation paid to Toremar can however not exceed the ceiling of EUR 13 005 441 per year as laid down by the 2009 Law (see recital (29)). Although the 2009 Law caps the annual compensation paid to all Tirrenia companies for the operation of the maritime services subject to the public service regime, the CIPE Directive also contains certain safeguards that enable those operators to sufficiently cover their operating costs.

| (52) | In particular, according to the CIPE Directive the scope of the services, the maximum fares set out by the new public service contract and the compensation actually granted must be defined such as to grant the service provider coverage of the entirety of admissible costs. The following formula is applicable:
  VA(RSP) + VA(AI(X)) = VA(CA)
  where:






  — | VA(RSP) is the discounted value of the compensation for the discharge of the public service obligations; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(52)

In particular, according to the CIPE Directive the scope of the services, the maximum fares set out by the new public service contract and the compensation actually granted must be defined such as to grant the service provider coverage of the entirety of admissible costs. The following formula is applicable:

VA(RSP) + VA(AI(X)) = VA(CA)

where:

—

VA(RSP) is the discounted value of the compensation for the discharge of the public service obligations;

VA(RSP

| — | VA(AI(X)) is the discounted value of other revenue (fare receipts and other); |
| --- | --- |

—

VA(AI(X)) is the discounted value of other revenue (fare receipts and other);

VA(AI(X))

| — | (VA(CA)) is the discounted value of the admissible operating costs, debt repayment and return on invested capital. |
| --- | --- |

—

(VA(CA)) is the discounted value of the admissible operating costs, debt repayment and return on invested capital.

(VA(CA))

| (53) | In case the above equation does not hold, the scope of the subsidised activities could be reduced, or alternatively the service organisation (e.g. type of ships) would be reviewed or the fare constraints would be modified. |
| --- | --- |

(53)

In case the above equation does not hold, the scope of the subsidised activities could be reduced, or alternatively the service organisation (e.g. type of ships) would be reviewed or the fare constraints would be modified.

| (54) | Furthermore, the fare ceiling applicable to each service, net of taxes and port dues, is adjusted every year on the basis of a price-cap formula as follows:
  ΔΤ = ΔΡ – Χ
  where:






  — | ΔΤ is the annual percentage change in the fare ceiling; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(54)

Furthermore, the fare ceiling applicable to each service, net of taxes and port dues, is adjusted every year on the basis of a price-cap formula as follows:

ΔΤ = ΔΡ – Χ

where:

—

ΔΤ is the annual percentage change in the fare ceiling;

ΔΤ

| — | ΔΡ is the rate of inflation for the year of reference; |
| --- | --- |

—

ΔΡ is the rate of inflation for the year of reference;

ΔΡ

| — | Χ is a real annual rate of adjustment of the fare ceiling, laid down in the public service contract, which remains constant over the duration of the contract. |
| --- | --- |

—

Χ is a real annual rate of adjustment of the fare ceiling, laid down in the public service contract, which remains constant over the duration of the contract.

Χ

| (55) | The CIPE Directive also specifies that the fare ceiling may be adjusted to reflect variations in fuel costs, taking standard publicly available prices as reference. |
| --- | --- |

(55)

The CIPE Directive also specifies that the fare ceiling may be adjusted to reflect variations in fuel costs, taking standard publicly available prices as reference.

2.3.2.   Toremar’s privatisation

Toremar’s privatisation

| (56) | On 13 January 2010, the Region of Tuscany published in its Official Journal (25) and the Official Gazette of the Italian Republic (26) the call for tenders for the sale of Toremar and the award of a public service compensation for the discharging of public service obligations on the maritime routes identified above under recital (38). This notice was furthermore published in the Official Journal of the European Union (27) on 14 January 2010 and in several national newspapers (28). |
| --- | --- |

(56)

On 13 January 2010, the Region of Tuscany published in its Official Journal (25) and the Official Gazette of the Italian Republic (26) the call for tenders for the sale of Toremar and the award of a public service compensation for the discharging of public service obligations on the maritime routes identified above under recital (38). This notice was furthermore published in the Official Journal of the European Union (27) on 14 January 2010 and in several national newspapers (28).

25

26

Official Journal of the European Union

27

28

| (57) | Italy chose the procedure referred to in Article 20(1) of the Code of Public Contracts – Legislative Decree No 163/2006 (il Codice dei Contratti pubblici), which resembles Article 21 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (29) that states that ‘[c]ontracts which have as their object services listed in Annex II B [such as water transport services] shall be subject solely to Article 23 [technical specifications] and Article 35(4) [notices]’. The chosen award criterion was that of the most economically advantageous offer. |
| --- | --- |

(57)

Italy chose the procedure referred to in Article 20(1) of the Code of Public Contracts – Legislative Decree No 163/2006 (il Codice dei Contratti pubblici), which resembles Article 21 of Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (29) that states that ‘[c]ontracts which have as their object services listed in Annex II B [such as water transport services] shall be subject solely to Article 23 [technical specifications] and Article 35(4) [notices]’. The chosen award criterion was that of the most economically advantageous offer.

29

2.3.2.1.   The sale procedure and final award

| (58) | Following the publication of the call for tenders, on the expiry of the deadline, 11 parties expressed an interest to participate, namely: Moby, Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l., Pigreco S.r.l., Sinven S.r.l., Vector S.r.l., Forship S.r.l., Medmar Navi S.p.a., Grandi Navi Veloci S.p.a., Buquebus Italia S.r.l., Loss Cipreses S.p.a. and Blu Navy/Transeuropa Ferries. |
| --- | --- |

(58)

Following the publication of the call for tenders, on the expiry of the deadline, 11 parties expressed an interest to participate, namely: Moby, Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l., Pigreco S.r.l., Sinven S.r.l., Vector S.r.l., Forship S.r.l., Medmar Navi S.p.a., Grandi Navi Veloci S.p.a., Buquebus Italia S.r.l., Loss Cipreses S.p.a. and Blu Navy/Transeuropa Ferries.

| (59) | The documentation submitted by all 11 companies confirmed that they all met the requirements set out in the tender notice and they were therefore all invited to submit a tender. |
| --- | --- |

(59)

The documentation submitted by all 11 companies confirmed that they all met the requirements set out in the tender notice and they were therefore all invited to submit a tender.

| (60) | The invitation to submit a tender contained the new draft 12-year contract to be signed between the successful bidder and the Region of Tuscany, and more detailed information concerning the tendering procedure. Particularly, the invitation letter confirmed that the most economically advantageous offer would be chosen for the service contract with price scoring 20 points, quality 70 points and additional services 10 points. As regards the price for the sale of Toremar’s business, the invitation letter mentioned a fixed amount corresponding to EUR 10 258 397, calculated on the basis of an independent study, which assessed the total value of Toremar’s assets (see recitals (65) to (73)). This price was non-negotiable and was not subject of the financial offer of the tenderers |
| --- | --- |

(60)

The invitation to submit a tender contained the new draft 12-year contract to be signed between the successful bidder and the Region of Tuscany, and more detailed information concerning the tendering procedure. Particularly, the invitation letter confirmed that the most economically advantageous offer would be chosen for the service contract with price scoring 20 points, quality 70 points and additional services 10 points. As regards the price for the sale of Toremar’s business, the invitation letter mentioned a fixed amount corresponding to EUR 10 258 397, calculated on the basis of an independent study, which assessed the total value of Toremar’s assets (see recitals (65) to (73)). This price was non-negotiable and was not subject of the financial offer of the tenderers

| (61) | Therefore, all potential tenderers were requested to include the above fixed amount for the sale of Toremar in their financial offer, while the Region of Tuscany would choose the most economically advantageous offer for the tender as a whole based on the price and other, mainly quality, criteria concerning the service as set out in the invitation letter (see recital (60)). |
| --- | --- |

(61)

Therefore, all potential tenderers were requested to include the above fixed amount for the sale of Toremar in their financial offer, while the Region of Tuscany would choose the most economically advantageous offer for the tender as a whole based on the price and other, mainly quality, criteria concerning the service as set out in the invitation letter (see recital (60)).

| (62) | The 11 tenderers were also given access to virtual data rooms containing the following:






  (1) | All legal, technical, financial and commercial information about Toremar; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(62)

The 11 tenderers were also given access to virtual data rooms containing the following:

(1)

All legal, technical, financial and commercial information about Toremar;

| (2) | Information on the fleet, the intangible assets and the immovable property of the company; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Information on the fleet, the intangible assets and the immovable property of the company;

| (3) | All information concerning contracts for the supply of services and purchase of goods; |
| --- | --- |

(3)

All information concerning contracts for the supply of services and purchase of goods;

| (4) | The scoring procedures and the technical tender form; |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The scoring procedures and the technical tender form;

| (5) | All other information required so that the potential buyers may valuate correctly the object of the sale. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

All other information required so that the potential buyers may valuate correctly the object of the sale.

| (63) | Two companies submitted a bid, namely Moby and Toscana di Navigazione, both established shipping operators in Italy. The remaining nine companies did not submit a bid at the expiry of the deadline. |
| --- | --- |

(63)

Two companies submitted a bid, namely Moby and Toscana di Navigazione, both established shipping operators in Italy. The remaining nine companies did not submit a bid at the expiry of the deadline.

| (64) | After the evaluation of the tenders, Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l. was excluded from the procedure, as its economic offer submitted was inconsistent with the technical offer and financial capacity requirements of the tender documentation. The tender was therefore awarded to Moby both as regards the privatisation of Toremar business and the operation of the maritime services (see Section 2.3.3). |
| --- | --- |

(64)

After the evaluation of the tenders, Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l. was excluded from the procedure, as its economic offer submitted was inconsistent with the technical offer and financial capacity requirements of the tender documentation. The tender was therefore awarded to Moby both as regards the privatisation of Toremar business and the operation of the maritime services (see Section 2.3.3).

2.3.2.2.   The sale contract

| (65) | Given the nature of the tender, it was the Region of Tuscany’s choice, with a view to identify the best competitive bid, to define a fixed amount for the price of Toremar’s share capital. |
| --- | --- |

(65)

Given the nature of the tender, it was the Region of Tuscany’s choice, with a view to identify the best competitive bid, to define a fixed amount for the price of Toremar’s share capital.

| (66) | The sale contract was signed on 2 January 2012 and defines the transfer of Toremar shares to Moby for the fixed price of EUR 10 258 397. This amount is paid in ten annual instalments starting from the end of the first year of the contract, i.e. 2 January 2013. |
| --- | --- |

(66)

The sale contract was signed on 2 January 2012 and defines the transfer of Toremar shares to Moby for the fixed price of EUR 10 258 397. This amount is paid in ten annual instalments starting from the end of the first year of the contract, i.e. 2 January 2013.

| (67) | The fixed price of EUR 10 258 397 for 100 % of Toremar’s shares was determined on the basis of an independent expert evaluation commissioned by the Region of Tuscany and prepared by Fidi Toscana S.p.A. (‘the Fidi report’). |
| --- | --- |

(67)

The fixed price of EUR 10 258 397 for 100 % of Toremar’s shares was determined on the basis of an independent expert evaluation commissioned by the Region of Tuscany and prepared by Fidi Toscana S.p.A. (‘the Fidi report’).

| (68) | The amount refers to the value of tangible assets, buildings, vessels, other tangible fixed and financial assets and other receivables of the company at 30 June 2010. The intangible assets (e.g. concessions, authorisations, licences, trademarks etc.) were excluded from the evaluation, and left to the discretion of the bidders. The amount was then subjected to amendments deriving from the difference between the net book value of the shares on 30 June 2010 and the market value of the shares (30). |
| --- | --- |

(68)

The amount refers to the value of tangible assets, buildings, vessels, other tangible fixed and financial assets and other receivables of the company at 30 June 2010. The intangible assets (e.g. concessions, authorisations, licences, trademarks etc.) were excluded from the evaluation, and left to the discretion of the bidders. The amount was then subjected to amendments deriving from the difference between the net book value of the shares on 30 June 2010 and the market value of the shares (30).

30

| (69) | This aforementioned amount also includes a credit of EUR 9 772 572 claimed from Tirrenia (‘the credit’). |
| --- | --- |

(69)

This aforementioned amount also includes a credit of EUR 9 772 572 claimed from Tirrenia (‘the credit’).

| (70) | Under Article 1(5) and (6) of the sale contract, with reference to the first instalment, Moby declares that it has paid in advance to the Region of Tuscany the amount of EUR 485 825, which equals the difference between the sale price and the credit. |
| --- | --- |

(70)

Under Article 1(5) and (6) of the sale contract, with reference to the first instalment, Moby declares that it has paid in advance to the Region of Tuscany the amount of EUR 485 825, which equals the difference between the sale price and the credit.

| (71) | Under Article 1(3) of the sale contract, the payment of the set price – except of what is paid in advance – is subject to the condition that the amount of EUR 9 772 572 that is owed to Toremar by Tirrenia is paid off (31). Under Article 4(3) of the sale contract, in case the credit amount is not recovered, Moby remains obliged to transfer the credit (or any residual credit) to the Region of Tuscany at any time until the expiry of the service contract (32). |
| --- | --- |

(71)

Under Article 1(3) of the sale contract, the payment of the set price – except of what is paid in advance – is subject to the condition that the amount of EUR 9 772 572 that is owed to Toremar by Tirrenia is paid off (31). Under Article 4(3) of the sale contract, in case the credit amount is not recovered, Moby remains obliged to transfer the credit (or any residual credit) to the Region of Tuscany at any time until the expiry of the service contract (32).

31

32

| (72) | According to Article 4 of the sale contract, Moby is obliged to notify the Region of Tuscany of any sale of the Toremar shares to third parties remaining, however, jointly responsible with the new purchaser of the Toremar, with respect to the obligations of the service contract. |
| --- | --- |

(72)

According to Article 4 of the sale contract, Moby is obliged to notify the Region of Tuscany of any sale of the Toremar shares to third parties remaining, however, jointly responsible with the new purchaser of the Toremar, with respect to the obligations of the service contract.

| (73) | Finally, according to Article 5 of the sale contract, the Banca Popolare di Milano has provided a guarantee in favour of the Region of Tuscany covering the total sale price of the Toremar shares (including the buyer’s obligation to transfer any credit amount not yet recovered from Tirrenia). |
| --- | --- |

(73)

Finally, according to Article 5 of the sale contract, the Banca Popolare di Milano has provided a guarantee in favour of the Region of Tuscany covering the total sale price of the Toremar shares (including the buyer’s obligation to transfer any credit amount not yet recovered from Tirrenia).

2.3.2.3.   Proceedings at national level

| (74) | The result of the tender proceeding awarding the Toremar business and the public service contract to Moby was the subject of several proceedings before national courts. |
| --- | --- |

(74)

The result of the tender proceeding awarding the Toremar business and the public service contract to Moby was the subject of several proceedings before national courts.

| (75) | Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l., the excluded bidder and complainant in these proceedings, challenged the legality of its exclusion from the tender procedure before the national courts. Initially, the complainant brought an application for interim relief before the Regional Administrative Court of Tuscany. The latter, by Order No 774 of 14 July 2011, rejected the application. This ruling was upheld at appeal by the Council of State by its Order No 3666 of 31 August 2011, which stressed in particular that the economic bid presented by the company was incomplete, as regards the additional services to be performed and the fact that it was not set on an annual basis, and as such, the re-evaluation mechanism provided for in the tender documentation, could not be applied. |
| --- | --- |

(75)

Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l., the excluded bidder and complainant in these proceedings, challenged the legality of its exclusion from the tender procedure before the national courts. Initially, the complainant brought an application for interim relief before the Regional Administrative Court of Tuscany. The latter, by Order No 774 of 14 July 2011, rejected the application. This ruling was upheld at appeal by the Council of State by its Order No 3666 of 31 August 2011, which stressed in particular that the economic bid presented by the company was incomplete, as regards the additional services to be performed and the fact that it was not set on an annual basis, and as such, the re-evaluation mechanism provided for in the tender documentation, could not be applied.

| (76) | Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l. then appealed the outcome of the tender procedure before the Regional Administrative Court of Tuscany, which rejected the appeal by Order No 414 of 1 March 2012, confirming that the company’s bid was inconsistent with the requirements of the contracting authority. |
| --- | --- |

(76)

Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l. then appealed the outcome of the tender procedure before the Regional Administrative Court of Tuscany, which rejected the appeal by Order No 414 of 1 March 2012, confirming that the company’s bid was inconsistent with the requirements of the contracting authority.

| (77) | This judgement was appealed by Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l. before the Council of State, which, by Order No 83/2015, decided in favour of the company, requesting the Region of Tuscany to revisit its tender procedure and review its requirements. Following an audit undertaken by the Region of Tuscany, Decree No 1312 of 30 March 2015 was adopted, upholding the decision of the Region of Tuscany to exclude the company from the tender procedure, as the technical, economic and financial capacity requirements for participation in the tender had not been proved. |
| --- | --- |

(77)

This judgement was appealed by Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l. before the Council of State, which, by Order No 83/2015, decided in favour of the company, requesting the Region of Tuscany to revisit its tender procedure and review its requirements. Following an audit undertaken by the Region of Tuscany, Decree No 1312 of 30 March 2015 was adopted, upholding the decision of the Region of Tuscany to exclude the company from the tender procedure, as the technical, economic and financial capacity requirements for participation in the tender had not been proved.

| (78) | Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l. appealed against Decree No 1312 of 30 March 2015 before the Regional Administrative Court of Tuscany, which rejected the appeal by Order No 1446 of 26 October 2015. The latter was finally upheld by the Council of State with Order No 3347/2016. |
| --- | --- |

(78)

Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l. appealed against Decree No 1312 of 30 March 2015 before the Regional Administrative Court of Tuscany, which rejected the appeal by Order No 1446 of 26 October 2015. The latter was finally upheld by the Council of State with Order No 3347/2016.

2.3.3.   The new service contract between the Region of Tuscany and Moby/Toremar

The new service contract between the Region of Tuscany and Moby/Toremar

2.3.3.1.   The beneficiary

| (79) | As mentioned in recital (63), Moby and Toscana di Navigazione submitted a bid for the new public service contract. Following the exclusion of the latter company, Moby/Toremar (33) signed the new public service contract with the Region of Tuscany for the operation of maritime routes on 2 January 2012. |
| --- | --- |

(79)

As mentioned in recital (63), Moby and Toscana di Navigazione submitted a bid for the new public service contract. Following the exclusion of the latter company, Moby/Toremar (33) signed the new public service contract with the Region of Tuscany for the operation of maritime routes on 2 January 2012.

33

| (80) | According to Article 1(2) of the new service contract, Moby shall carry out the services stipulated in the contract exclusively through Toremar. |
| --- | --- |

(80)

According to Article 1(2) of the new service contract, Moby shall carry out the services stipulated in the contract exclusively through Toremar.

2.3.3.2.   The routes

| (81) | Moby/Toremar provides passenger and mixed (passenger and cars) services under the public service regime on multiple maritime cabotage routes as follows:





  Livorno – Gorgona – Capraia (Line A1) |
| --- | --- |
| Piombino – Portoferraio (island of Elba) (Line A2) |
| Piombino– Cavo – Portoferraio (island of Elba) (Line A2 fast) |
| Piombino – Rio Marina – Porto Azzurro – Pianosa (island of Elba) (Line A3) |
| Porto S. Stefano – Island of Giglio (Line A4) |
| Porto S. Stefano – Giannutri (Line A5) |

(81)

Moby/Toremar provides passenger and mixed (passenger and cars) services under the public service regime on multiple maritime cabotage routes as follows:

Livorno – Gorgona – Capraia (Line A1)

(Line A1)

Piombino – Portoferraio (island of Elba) (Line A2)

(Line A2)

Piombino– Cavo – Portoferraio (island of Elba) (Line A2 fast)

(Line A2 fast)

Piombino – Rio Marina – Porto Azzurro – Pianosa (island of Elba) (Line A3)

(Line A3)

Porto S. Stefano – Island of Giglio (Line A4)

(Line A4)

Porto S. Stefano – Giannutri (Line A5)

(Line A5)

Table 3 – Network of routes operated by Moby/Toremar under the new service contract

Table 3 – Network of routes operated by Moby/Toremar under the new service contract

2.3.3.3.   Duration

| (82) | The new service contract between the Region of Tuscany and Moby/Toremar has a duration of 12 years (2012-2024). |
| --- | --- |

(82)

The new service contract between the Region of Tuscany and Moby/Toremar has a duration of 12 years (2012-2024).

2.3.3.4.   The public service obligations

| (83) | The requirements laid down in the contract with Moby/Toremar concern among others the ports served, the type and capacity of the vessels assigned to the maritime routes operated, the frequency of service and the maximum fares. |
| --- | --- |

(83)

The requirements laid down in the contract with Moby/Toremar concern among others the ports served, the type and capacity of the vessels assigned to the maritime routes operated, the frequency of service and the maximum fares.

2.3.3.5.   The compensation provisions and final award

| (84) | In the tender procedure, the amount of the yearly compensation under the new contract for the discharging of public service obligations in the maritime routes identified under recital (81) was capped at EUR 14 550 400 (totalling EUR 174 604 810 over the 12 years contract period). This value was determined by the sum of the following: EUR 13 005 441 as set by the 2009 Law (see recital (29)) plus an increase of EUR 1 544 959, as envisaged in Article 19-ter, paragraph 16(d), of the 2009 Law) due to the significant investments required to be carried out by the operator over the whole contract period. |
| --- | --- |

(84)

In the tender procedure, the amount of the yearly compensation under the new contract for the discharging of public service obligations in the maritime routes identified under recital (81) was capped at EUR 14 550 400 (totalling EUR 174 604 810 over the 12 years contract period). This value was determined by the sum of the following: EUR 13 005 441 as set by the 2009 Law (see recital (29)) plus an increase of EUR 1 544 959, as envisaged in Article 19-ter, paragraph 16(d), of the 2009 Law) due to the significant investments required to be carried out by the operator over the whole contract period.

-ter

| (85) | This amount of compensation was determined on the basis of the methodology laid down by the CIPE Directive (see recitals (45) to (55)). The safeguards laid down by the CIPE Directive have been reflected in the new service contract. |
| --- | --- |

(85)

This amount of compensation was determined on the basis of the methodology laid down by the CIPE Directive (see recitals (45) to (55)). The safeguards laid down by the CIPE Directive have been reflected in the new service contract.

| (86) | Pursuant to Article 4(2) of the service contract, the annual compensation to be paid to Moby/Toremar was estimated to amount EUR 13 333 318. Nevertheless, according to Article 4(3) of the service contract, the actual compensation paid to Moby/Toremar is determined as the outcome of the service actually carried out (i.e. price per mile for each route), taking into account the risks involved (commercial and industrial) as laid down in the contract (e.g. compensation reduction in case of the company not sailing, penalties in case of services being disconnected etc.). |
| --- | --- |

(86)

Pursuant to Article 4(2) of the service contract, the annual compensation to be paid to Moby/Toremar was estimated to amount EUR 13 333 318. Nevertheless, according to Article 4(3) of the service contract, the actual compensation paid to Moby/Toremar is determined as the outcome of the service actually carried out (i.e. price per mile for each route), taking into account the risks involved (commercial and industrial) as laid down in the contract (e.g. compensation reduction in case of the company not sailing, penalties in case of services being disconnected etc.).

| (87) | The service contract provides for a payment of compensation that does not exceed what is necessary to cover the net costs incurred for the fulfilment of the public service obligations (economic-financial balance). In case of deviations from this contractual equilibrium, the service contract provides in Article 26 for a rebalancing mechanism that evaluates all the parameters linked to the payment of the compensation. Should, therefore, as a result of a material change (34) in the economic parameters on which it is based, the compensation amount prove insufficient to cover all costs incurred in the provision of the service, the new service contract allows for a revision of the key parameters of the compensation namely: (i) the tariff system; (ii) the level of the public services offered; (iii) the level of the annual price cap; and (iv) the capital grants for investments. |
| --- | --- |

(87)

The service contract provides for a payment of compensation that does not exceed what is necessary to cover the net costs incurred for the fulfilment of the public service obligations (economic-financial balance). In case of deviations from this contractual equilibrium, the service contract provides in Article 26 for a rebalancing mechanism that evaluates all the parameters linked to the payment of the compensation. Should, therefore, as a result of a material change (34) in the economic parameters on which it is based, the compensation amount prove insufficient to cover all costs incurred in the provision of the service, the new service contract allows for a revision of the key parameters of the compensation namely: (i) the tariff system; (ii) the level of the public services offered; (iii) the level of the annual price cap; and (iv) the capital grants for investments.

34

| (88) | Under Article 4(4), (5) and (6) of the service contract, the compensation paid to the operator shall be reduced by 80 % in the case of interruption of services because of employees’ strike and 30 % in the case of unforeseen events, whereas failure to perform the services would result in the payment of penalties by the operator. |
| --- | --- |

(88)

Under Article 4(4), (5) and (6) of the service contract, the compensation paid to the operator shall be reduced by 80 % in the case of interruption of services because of employees’ strike and 30 % in the case of unforeseen events, whereas failure to perform the services would result in the payment of penalties by the operator.

| (89) | Pursuant to Article 24 of the service contract, the operator is required to implement a system of technical, economic and management monitoring, according to which the profit and loss annual accounts related to the service provided on the basis of the service contract are sent to the regional authorities for verification. |
| --- | --- |

(89)

Pursuant to Article 24 of the service contract, the operator is required to implement a system of technical, economic and management monitoring, according to which the profit and loss annual accounts related to the service provided on the basis of the service contract are sent to the regional authorities for verification.

2.3.4.   The berthing priority

The berthing priority

| (90) | Article 19-ter, paragraph 21, of the 2009 Law laid down that, in order to guarantee the territorial continuity with the islands and in light of their public service obligations, the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar, would keep the berthing already allocated and the priority in the allocation of new slots in line with the procedures set forth by the Maritime Authorities as established by Law No 84 of 28 January 1994 and the Italian Maritime Code. |
| --- | --- |

(90)

Article 19-ter, paragraph 21, of the 2009 Law laid down that, in order to guarantee the territorial continuity with the islands and in light of their public service obligations, the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar, would keep the berthing already allocated and the priority in the allocation of new slots in line with the procedures set forth by the Maritime Authorities as established by Law No 84 of 28 January 1994 and the Italian Maritime Code.

-ter

2.3.5.   The measures laid down by the 2010 Law

The measures laid down by the 2010 Law

| (91) | The 2010 Law laid down the possibility for the undertakings of the former Tirrenia Group to use, on a temporary basis, the financial resources already committed (35) to the upgrade and modernisation of the fleet to cover pressing liquidity needs. The undertakings of the former Tirrenia Group that made use of this possibility were however required to replenish these dedicated funds, so that they could still undertake the necessary upgrades for their ships. These upgrades were necessary to meet new international safety standards following the 1996 Stockholm Agreement (36). |
| --- | --- |

(91)

The 2010 Law laid down the possibility for the undertakings of the former Tirrenia Group to use, on a temporary basis, the financial resources already committed (35) to the upgrade and modernisation of the fleet to cover pressing liquidity needs. The undertakings of the former Tirrenia Group that made use of this possibility were however required to replenish these dedicated funds, so that they could still undertake the necessary upgrades for their ships. These upgrades were necessary to meet new international safety standards following the 1996 Stockholm Agreement (36).

35

36

| (92) | In particular, drawing from two facilities (37), EUR 23 750 000 were set aside to pay for the upgrades of the entire Tirrenia Group. Toremar was allocated EUR 1 617 300 out of this amount, which it used to upgrade its fleet (see recital (138)). |
| --- | --- |

(92)

In particular, drawing from two facilities (37), EUR 23 750 000 were set aside to pay for the upgrades of the entire Tirrenia Group. Toremar was allocated EUR 1 617 300 out of this amount, which it used to upgrade its fleet (see recital (138)).

37

| (93) | In addition, Article 1 of the 2010 Law also laid down the following:






  (a) | The initial Conventions are prolonged as from 1 October 2010 until the end of the privatisation process of Tirrenia and Siremar (see also recital (30)); |
| --- | --- | --- |

(93)

In addition, Article 1 of the 2010 Law also laid down the following:

(a)

The initial Conventions are prolonged as from 1 October 2010 until the end of the privatisation process of Tirrenia and Siremar (see also recital (30));

| (b) | Article 19-ter of Decree Law 135/2009, converted with modifications into the 2009 Law is amended by the introduction of paragraph 24a. According to that paragraph, all official acts and operations in the implementation of the provisions of paragraphs 1-15 of the 2009 Law benefit from fiscal exemptions. These paragraphs relate to the liberalisation of the maritime cabotage sector through the privatisation of the Tirrenia group, including its preparatory step, i.e. the transfer of the regional companies to the respective regions; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Article 19-ter of Decree Law 135/2009, converted with modifications into the 2009 Law is amended by the introduction of paragraph 24a. According to that paragraph, all official acts and operations in the implementation of the provisions of paragraphs 1-15 of the 2009 Law benefit from fiscal exemptions. These paragraphs relate to the liberalisation of the maritime cabotage sector through the privatisation of the Tirrenia group, including its preparatory step, i.e. the transfer of the regional companies to the respective regions;

-ter

| (c) | In order to ensure the continuity of the public service and to support the privatisation process of the former Tirrenia group companies, the regions in question may make use of the resources of the Fondo Aree Sottoutilizzate (‘FAS’) (38) pursuant to the CIPE Directive (39). |
| --- | --- |

(c)

In order to ensure the continuity of the public service and to support the privatisation process of the former Tirrenia group companies, the regions in question may make use of the resources of the Fondo Aree Sottoutilizzate (‘FAS’) (38) pursuant to the CIPE Directive (39).

Fondo Aree Sottoutilizzate

38

39

2.4.   Infringement procedure No 2007/4609

Infringement procedure No 2007/4609

| (94) | Following earlier exchanges between the Commission’s services and Italy, the Commission’s Director-General responsible for energy and transport on 19 December 2008 sent a request for information to Italy. This request concerned among other things, an overview of the public service routes at that time and the public service remit that Italy envisaged under the proposed new Conventions. Furthermore, Italy was asked to provide more details about the privatisation plans for the Tirrenia Group. |
| --- | --- |

(94)

Following earlier exchanges between the Commission’s services and Italy, the Commission’s Director-General responsible for energy and transport on 19 December 2008 sent a request for information to Italy. This request concerned among other things, an overview of the public service routes at that time and the public service remit that Italy envisaged under the proposed new Conventions. Furthermore, Italy was asked to provide more details about the privatisation plans for the Tirrenia Group.

| (95) | In its letter of 28 April 2009, Italy provided a detailed reply to the Commission’s request of 19 December 2008. In that letter, among other things Italy stated the following:






  (1) | the extension of the initial Conventions until 31 December 2009 was necessary to achieve the liberalisation of the maritime cabotage sector in Italy through the privatisation of the Tirrenia Group; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(95)

In its letter of 28 April 2009, Italy provided a detailed reply to the Commission’s request of 19 December 2008. In that letter, among other things Italy stated the following:

(1)

the extension of the initial Conventions until 31 December 2009 was necessary to achieve the liberalisation of the maritime cabotage sector in Italy through the privatisation of the Tirrenia Group;

| (2) | the public service compensation granted to the Tirrenia Group was necessary to ensure territorial continuity with the islands through maritime links which were not satisfactorily provided by private operators on the market; |
| --- | --- |

(2)

the public service compensation granted to the Tirrenia Group was necessary to ensure territorial continuity with the islands through maritime links which were not satisfactorily provided by private operators on the market;

| (3) | a thorough rationalisation process of the routes had been concluded on 10 March 2009. This process took into account the relevant social, employment and economic aspects, as well as the need to safeguard essential links for territorial continuity and included a consultation of the six Regions concerned. This rationalisation would result in the reduction of the net cost of the public service of approximately EUR 66 million and the redundancy of some 600 crew members for the entire Tirrenia Group. Italy also recalled that the 2009 rationalisation complemented earlier efforts (in 2004, 2006 and 2008) to reduce the services operated by the Tirrenia Group; |
| --- | --- |

(3)

a thorough rationalisation process of the routes had been concluded on 10 March 2009. This process took into account the relevant social, employment and economic aspects, as well as the need to safeguard essential links for territorial continuity and included a consultation of the six Regions concerned. This rationalisation would result in the reduction of the net cost of the public service of approximately EUR 66 million and the redundancy of some 600 crew members for the entire Tirrenia Group. Italy also recalled that the 2009 rationalisation complemented earlier efforts (in 2004, 2006 and 2008) to reduce the services operated by the Tirrenia Group;

| (4) | the objectives were to (i) maintain the links necessary to ensure territorial continuity with and between islands and the mainland, and the right to health, study and mobility, (ii) rationalise links where there were private operators who provided the same connections over the same time period, with similar guarantees of quality and continuity, and (iii) rationalise summer and high-speed connections which transport only persons; |
| --- | --- |

(4)

the objectives were to (i) maintain the links necessary to ensure territorial continuity with and between islands and the mainland, and the right to health, study and mobility, (ii) rationalise links where there were private operators who provided the same connections over the same time period, with similar guarantees of quality and continuity, and (iii) rationalise summer and high-speed connections which transport only persons;

| (5) | in the letter, Italy gave an overview of the routes operated by the companies of the Tirrenia Group during 2008 and the reduced number of routes the Tirrenia Group companies would operate in 2009. According to Italy, the latter routes would form the basis for the new Conventions that were to be concluded with the new owners of the Tirrenia Group companies. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

in the letter, Italy gave an overview of the routes operated by the companies of the Tirrenia Group during 2008 and the reduced number of routes the Tirrenia Group companies would operate in 2009. According to Italy, the latter routes would form the basis for the new Conventions that were to be concluded with the new owners of the Tirrenia Group companies.

| (96) | On 21 December 2009, the Commission’s Director-General responsible for energy and transport sent a letter to Italy noting, inter alia, that in the light of the radical overhauling of the maritime cabotage sector in Italy, and because of the sizable social impact the privatisation would have entailed, if the tenders were carried out on a simple public service contract basis, tendering out the shipping companies endowed with such contracts was acceptable – in principle and as an exception – for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the criterion of non-discrimination among Community ship-owners laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 (40) (‘the Maritime Cabotage Regulation’). |
| --- | --- |

(96)

On 21 December 2009, the Commission’s Director-General responsible for energy and transport sent a letter to Italy noting, inter alia, that in the light of the radical overhauling of the maritime cabotage sector in Italy, and because of the sizable social impact the privatisation would have entailed, if the tenders were carried out on a simple public service contract basis, tendering out the shipping companies endowed with such contracts was acceptable – in principle and as an exception – for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the criterion of non-discrimination among Community ship-owners laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 (40) (‘the Maritime Cabotage Regulation’).

40

| (97) | On 29 January 2010 (41), the Commission sent a letter of formal notice regarding the wrong implementation of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation. In this letter, the Commission recalled that that Regulation requires that whenever a Member State concludes public service contracts or imposes public service obligations, it is to do so on a non-discriminatory basis in respect of all Community shipowners. The Article 4(3) of that Regulation provides that existing public service contracts may remain in force up to the expiry date of the relevant contract. However, the Commission noted that the companies of the Tirrenia Group continued to operate maritime transport services after the expiry of the respective public service contracts (the initial Conventions). In particular, these Conventions were due to expire at the end of 2008 but were repeatedly prolonged by Italy. Therefore, the Commission invited Italy to present its observations. |
| --- | --- |

(97)

On 29 January 2010 (41), the Commission sent a letter of formal notice regarding the wrong implementation of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation. In this letter, the Commission recalled that that Regulation requires that whenever a Member State concludes public service contracts or imposes public service obligations, it is to do so on a non-discriminatory basis in respect of all Community shipowners. The Article 4(3) of that Regulation provides that existing public service contracts may remain in force up to the expiry date of the relevant contract. However, the Commission noted that the companies of the Tirrenia Group continued to operate maritime transport services after the expiry of the respective public service contracts (the initial Conventions). In particular, these Conventions were due to expire at the end of 2008 but were repeatedly prolonged by Italy. Therefore, the Commission invited Italy to present its observations.

41

| (98) | Also on 29 January 2010, the Commission’s Director-General responsible for energy and transport replied to Italy’s letter of 22 January 2010. The Director-General emphasised that his reply only concerned the compliance with the Maritime Cabotage Regulation and not State aid issues. Against this background, the Director-General indicated that the justifications provided concerning certain routes were sufficient to remove the doubts expressed earlier. The Director-General recalled that public service contracts can only cover routes for which there is market failure. |
| --- | --- |

(98)

Also on 29 January 2010, the Commission’s Director-General responsible for energy and transport replied to Italy’s letter of 22 January 2010. The Director-General emphasised that his reply only concerned the compliance with the Maritime Cabotage Regulation and not State aid issues. Against this background, the Director-General indicated that the justifications provided concerning certain routes were sufficient to remove the doubts expressed earlier. The Director-General recalled that public service contracts can only cover routes for which there is market failure.

| (99) | On 29 March 2010, Italy replied to the Commission’s letter of formal notice of 29 January 2010. In its reply, among other things Italy clarified that in the tender procedure for Toremar, 11 interested parties would take part in the next phases of that procedure. |
| --- | --- |

(99)

On 29 March 2010, Italy replied to the Commission’s letter of formal notice of 29 January 2010. In its reply, among other things Italy clarified that in the tender procedure for Toremar, 11 interested parties would take part in the next phases of that procedure.

| (100) | On 10 September 2010, Italy informed the Commission during an ad hoc meeting, that the competitive procedure for the contract of among others Toremar was also delayed. Subsequently, Law No 163 of 1 October 2010 further prolonged the initial Conventions until the completion of the privatisation processes of Tirrenia and Siremar (see also recital (30)). |
| --- | --- |

(100)

On 10 September 2010, Italy informed the Commission during an ad hoc meeting, that the competitive procedure for the contract of among others Toremar was also delayed. Subsequently, Law No 163 of 1 October 2010 further prolonged the initial Conventions until the completion of the privatisation processes of Tirrenia and Siremar (see also recital (30)).

ad hoc

| (101) | In light of these developments, the Commission sent a complementary letter of formal notice on 24 November 2010. In this letter, the Commission stated the following:






  (a) | the initial Convention of among others Toremar was extended automatically and without any competitive procedure; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(101)

In light of these developments, the Commission sent a complementary letter of formal notice on 24 November 2010. In this letter, the Commission stated the following:

(a)

the initial Convention of among others Toremar was extended automatically and without any competitive procedure;

| (b) | while the public service contracts in question continued to be applied, no competitive procedure had been completed, for Toremar among others; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

while the public service contracts in question continued to be applied, no competitive procedure had been completed, for Toremar among others;

| (c) | it reserved its right to issue a reasoned opinion if necessary (taking into account any comments Italy might make). |
| --- | --- |

(c)

it reserved its right to issue a reasoned opinion if necessary (taking into account any comments Italy might make).

| (102) | By letter of 15 July 2016, Italy informed the Commission that the privatisation of all companies of the former Tirrenia Group had been completed. On 8 December 2016, the Commission decided to close the infringement procedure. |
| --- | --- |

(102)

By letter of 15 July 2016, Italy informed the Commission that the privatisation of all companies of the former Tirrenia Group had been completed. On 8 December 2016, the Commission decided to close the infringement procedure.

3.   GROUNDS FOR INITIATING AND EXTENDING THE PROCEDURE

GROUNDS FOR INITIATING AND EXTENDING THE PROCEDURE

3.1.   The prolongation of the initial Convention between Toremar and Italy

The prolongation of the initial Convention between Toremar and Italy

3.1.1.   Observance of Altmark and existence of aid

Observance of Altmark and existence of aid

| (103) | In its 2011 Decision, the Commission took the preliminary view that the definition of the public service obligations had not been sufficiently clear and hence did not allow the Commission to definitely conclude whether it contained manifest errors. In particular, the Commission did not at that stage have a complete view on the actual obligations imposed on Toremar for the operation of the routes in question as compared to the services offered by competitors on some of those routes. |
| --- | --- |

(103)

In its 2011 Decision, the Commission took the preliminary view that the definition of the public service obligations had not been sufficiently clear and hence did not allow the Commission to definitely conclude whether it contained manifest errors. In particular, the Commission did not at that stage have a complete view on the actual obligations imposed on Toremar for the operation of the routes in question as compared to the services offered by competitors on some of those routes.

| (104) | The Commission took the preliminary view that the second condition of the Altmark judgment (42) was observed as the parameters at the basis of the calculation of the compensation had been established in advance and observed the transparency requirements. In particular, the Commission noted that these parameters are described in the initial Convention (for compensation concerning the year 2009) and in the CIPE Directive (for compensation from 2010 onwards). |
| --- | --- |

(104)

The Commission took the preliminary view that the second condition of the Altmark judgment (42) was observed as the parameters at the basis of the calculation of the compensation had been established in advance and observed the transparency requirements. In particular, the Commission noted that these parameters are described in the initial Convention (for compensation concerning the year 2009) and in the CIPE Directive (for compensation from 2010 onwards).

Altmark

42

| (105) | The Commission however considered that the third condition of the Altmark judgment did not seem to have been observed and that the operators might have been over-compensated for the performance of the public service tasks. In particular, the Commission expressed doubts whether the risk premium of 6,5 %, which applies from 2010 onwards, reflects an appropriate level of risk since prima facie Toremar did not seem to assume the risks normally borne in the operation of such services. |
| --- | --- |

(105)

The Commission however considered that the third condition of the Altmark judgment did not seem to have been observed and that the operators might have been over-compensated for the performance of the public service tasks. In particular, the Commission expressed doubts whether the risk premium of 6,5 %, which applies from 2010 onwards, reflects an appropriate level of risk since prima facie Toremar did not seem to assume the risks normally borne in the operation of such services.

Altmark

prima facie

| (106) | The Commission also took the preliminary view that the fourth Altmark condition was not observed inasmuch as the prolongation of the initial Convention had not been tendered out. The Commission moreover noted that it had not received any evidence to support the argument that Toremar in fact provided the services at stake at the least cost to the community. |
| --- | --- |

(106)

The Commission also took the preliminary view that the fourth Altmark condition was not observed inasmuch as the prolongation of the initial Convention had not been tendered out. The Commission moreover noted that it had not received any evidence to support the argument that Toremar in fact provided the services at stake at the least cost to the community.

Altmark

| (107) | In the 2011 Decision, the Commission therefore came to the preliminary conclusion that the public service compensation paid to Toremar during 2009-2011 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In addition, the Commission took the view that this aid should be considered as new aid. |
| --- | --- |

(107)

In the 2011 Decision, the Commission therefore came to the preliminary conclusion that the public service compensation paid to Toremar during 2009-2011 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. In addition, the Commission took the view that this aid should be considered as new aid.

3.1.2.   Compatibility

Compatibility

| (108) | In the 2011 Decision, the Commission took the preliminary view that the public service compensation for the years 2009-2011 falls outside the scope of both the 2005 SGEI Decision (43) and the 2005 SGEI Framework (44). The Commission therefore assessed this measure directly under Article 106(2) TFEU and found it had doubts on whether the applicable compatibility conditions were fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

(108)

In the 2011 Decision, the Commission took the preliminary view that the public service compensation for the years 2009-2011 falls outside the scope of both the 2005 SGEI Decision (43) and the 2005 SGEI Framework (44). The Commission therefore assessed this measure directly under Article 106(2) TFEU and found it had doubts on whether the applicable compatibility conditions were fulfilled.

43

44

| (109) | In the 2012 Decision, the Commission noted that on 31 January 2012, a new SGEI package consisting of the 2011 SGEI Decision (45) and 2011 SGEI Framework (46) had entered into force. The Commission however took the preliminary view that the public service compensation under the prolongation of the initial Convention could not be considered compatible with the internal market and exempted from the notification requirement under the 2011 SGEI Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(109)

In the 2012 Decision, the Commission noted that on 31 January 2012, a new SGEI package consisting of the 2011 SGEI Decision (45) and 2011 SGEI Framework (46) had entered into force. The Commission however took the preliminary view that the public service compensation under the prolongation of the initial Convention could not be considered compatible with the internal market and exempted from the notification requirement under the 2011 SGEI Decision.

45

46

| (110) | The 2010 Law provided for the prolongation of the initial Convention from 30 September 2010 up to the end of the privatisation process. As a result, the compensation received by the company as of 1 October 2010 until its privatisation could be assessed on the basis of the 2011 SGEI Framework which, according to its paragraph 69, also applies to aid granted before 31 January 2012 (see recitals (283) and (284)). |
| --- | --- |

(110)

The 2010 Law provided for the prolongation of the initial Convention from 30 September 2010 up to the end of the privatisation process. As a result, the compensation received by the company as of 1 October 2010 until its privatisation could be assessed on the basis of the 2011 SGEI Framework which, according to its paragraph 69, also applies to aid granted before 31 January 2012 (see recitals (283) and (284)).

3.2.   Toremar’s privatisation

Toremar’s privatisation

| (111) | At the moment the 2012 Decision was adopted, the Commission had doubts that the tender procedure for the sale of Toremar had been sufficiently transparent and unconditional so as to ensure that the sale took place at market price. |
| --- | --- |

(111)

At the moment the 2012 Decision was adopted, the Commission had doubts that the tender procedure for the sale of Toremar had been sufficiently transparent and unconditional so as to ensure that the sale took place at market price.

| (112) | In the 2012 Decision, the Commission considered that certain conditions imposed in the privatisation might have restricted the number of bidders or influenced the sale price. The Commission restated its established practice concerning sales of assets of State owned undertakings by the State (or in this case imputable to the State): non-economic considerations which a private seller would not make, such as public policy reasons, employment requirements or regional development, point to the existence of State aid if they impose onerous obligations on the potential buyer and are therefore liable to reduce the sale price. |
| --- | --- |

(112)

In the 2012 Decision, the Commission considered that certain conditions imposed in the privatisation might have restricted the number of bidders or influenced the sale price. The Commission restated its established practice concerning sales of assets of State owned undertakings by the State (or in this case imputable to the State): non-economic considerations which a private seller would not make, such as public policy reasons, employment requirements or regional development, point to the existence of State aid if they impose onerous obligations on the potential buyer and are therefore liable to reduce the sale price.

| (113) | Likewise, on the basis of the information available at that stage, the Commission considered that the so called technical and financial requirements as imposed in the Toremar tender effectively disrupted the tender by restricting potential bidders to existing maritime companies, given that in the present case, the company itself, endowed with the public service contract, was put up for sale (47). |
| --- | --- |

(113)

Likewise, on the basis of the information available at that stage, the Commission considered that the so called technical and financial requirements as imposed in the Toremar tender effectively disrupted the tender by restricting potential bidders to existing maritime companies, given that in the present case, the company itself, endowed with the public service contract, was put up for sale (47).

technical and financial requirements

47

| (114) | For the above reasons, the Commission preliminarily concluded that the privatisation procedure of Toremar had not been sufficiently transparent and unconditional so as to ensure by itself that the sale took place at market price. The Commission could therefore at that stage not exclude that an economic advantage was conferred to the buyer. |
| --- | --- |

(114)

For the above reasons, the Commission preliminarily concluded that the privatisation procedure of Toremar had not been sufficiently transparent and unconditional so as to ensure by itself that the sale took place at market price. The Commission could therefore at that stage not exclude that an economic advantage was conferred to the buyer.

| (115) | The Commission also considered, on the basis of the information available when issuing its 2012 Decision, that any aid that might have arisen in the course of the privatisation process would be incompatible. |
| --- | --- |

(115)

The Commission also considered, on the basis of the information available when issuing its 2012 Decision, that any aid that might have arisen in the course of the privatisation process would be incompatible.

3.3.   The new service contract between the Region of Tuscany and Moby/Toremar

The new service contract between the Region of Tuscany and Moby/Toremar

3.3.1.   Observance of Altmark and existence of aid

Observance of Altmark and existence of aid

| (116) | In the 2011 and 2012 Decisions, the Commission took the preliminary view that the compensation paid to Toremar (and its acquirer, Moby) did not fulfil the criteria laid down in the Altmark judgment and therefore amounted to aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The Commission came to this conclusion given that: (i) competitors who seemed to be offering similar services were present at least on certain routes operated by Toremar and there was no sufficient information submitted that would enable the Commission to conclude on whether the SGEI reflected a real public service need which could not be met by market forces alone; (ii) the calculation of the compensation pursuant to the CIPE Directive appeared to have resulted in the operator being overcompensated for the provision of the public service for the same reasons as expressed in the 2011 Decision; and (iii) the fourth criterion of the Altmark judgment was seemingly not observed, given that the public service was tendered out on the condition that the successful bidder would acquire the whole Toremar company. The Commission took the preliminary position that had the public service contract been tendered out without the purchase requirement, it would have resulted in a lower cost for the community. |
| --- | --- |

(116)

In the 2011 and 2012 Decisions, the Commission took the preliminary view that the compensation paid to Toremar (and its acquirer, Moby) did not fulfil the criteria laid down in the Altmark judgment and therefore amounted to aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. The Commission came to this conclusion given that: (i) competitors who seemed to be offering similar services were present at least on certain routes operated by Toremar and there was no sufficient information submitted that would enable the Commission to conclude on whether the SGEI reflected a real public service need which could not be met by market forces alone; (ii) the calculation of the compensation pursuant to the CIPE Directive appeared to have resulted in the operator being overcompensated for the provision of the public service for the same reasons as expressed in the 2011 Decision; and (iii) the fourth criterion of the Altmark judgment was seemingly not observed, given that the public service was tendered out on the condition that the successful bidder would acquire the whole Toremar company. The Commission took the preliminary position that had the public service contract been tendered out without the purchase requirement, it would have resulted in a lower cost for the community.

Altmark

Altmark

3.3.2.   Compatibility

Compatibility

| (117) | With respect to the compatibility of the compensation to Toremar, the Commission noted that, on the basis of the information provided by Italy, the 2011 SGEI Decision appeared not to be applicable for this service contract because of its long (12 years) entrustment period. In any event, the Commission could at that stage not conclude on the application of the 2011 SGEI Decision because the signed contract had not yet been provided. The Commission did not receive any information (e.g. number of passengers transported in the 2 financial years preceding the entrustment) to examine the remaining compatibility conditions of the 2011 SGEI Decision. The Commission then assessed the aid based on the 2011 SGEI Framework but found that it had doubts on whether the compatibility conditions of that Framework were fulfilled and invited Italy to demonstrate that this was the case. |
| --- | --- |

(117)

With respect to the compatibility of the compensation to Toremar, the Commission noted that, on the basis of the information provided by Italy, the 2011 SGEI Decision appeared not to be applicable for this service contract because of its long (12 years) entrustment period. In any event, the Commission could at that stage not conclude on the application of the 2011 SGEI Decision because the signed contract had not yet been provided. The Commission did not receive any information (e.g. number of passengers transported in the 2 financial years preceding the entrustment) to examine the remaining compatibility conditions of the 2011 SGEI Decision. The Commission then assessed the aid based on the 2011 SGEI Framework but found that it had doubts on whether the compatibility conditions of that Framework were fulfilled and invited Italy to demonstrate that this was the case.

3.4.   The berthing priority

The berthing priority

| (118) | In the 2011 Decision, the Commission took the preliminary view that to the extent that the berthing priority is not remunerated, the measure is a regulatory advantage, which does not involve any transfer of State resources and cannot therefore qualify as State aid. Alternatively, if the berthing priority is remunerated, the Commission considered that to the extent Toremar provides a genuine SGEI and that this priority is only granted in relation to routes covered by the SGEI, it would not result in an additional economic advantage since it would be intrinsic to the provision of the SGEI. Nevertheless, the Commission invited Italyand third parties to provide further information on this measure. |
| --- | --- |

(118)

In the 2011 Decision, the Commission took the preliminary view that to the extent that the berthing priority is not remunerated, the measure is a regulatory advantage, which does not involve any transfer of State resources and cannot therefore qualify as State aid. Alternatively, if the berthing priority is remunerated, the Commission considered that to the extent Toremar provides a genuine SGEI and that this priority is only granted in relation to routes covered by the SGEI, it would not result in an additional economic advantage since it would be intrinsic to the provision of the SGEI. Nevertheless, the Commission invited Italyand third parties to provide further information on this measure.

| (119) | Since it had raised doubts on the legitimacy of the SGEI mission, the Commission could not conclude on the compatibility of the measure if it were to be aid. |
| --- | --- |

(119)

Since it had raised doubts on the legitimacy of the SGEI mission, the Commission could not conclude on the compatibility of the measure if it were to be aid.

3.5.   The measures laid down by the 2010 Law

The measures laid down by the 2010 Law

| (120) | In the 2011 Decision, the Commission took the preliminary view that all measures laid down by the 2010 Law constituted State aid in favour of the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar. These included: (1) the possible use for liquidity purposes of the funds earmarked for the upgrade of the ships; (2) the fiscal exemptions related to the privatisation process; and (3) the possible use of FAS resources. The Commission invited Italy to clarify if and how each of these measures was necessary to provide the public service. |
| --- | --- |

(120)

In the 2011 Decision, the Commission took the preliminary view that all measures laid down by the 2010 Law constituted State aid in favour of the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar. These included: (1) the possible use for liquidity purposes of the funds earmarked for the upgrade of the ships; (2) the fiscal exemptions related to the privatisation process; and (3) the possible use of FAS resources. The Commission invited Italy to clarify if and how each of these measures was necessary to provide the public service.

| (121) | The Commission also took the preliminary view that these measures likely constituted operating aid reducing the costs that Toremar, and the other companies of the former Tirrenia Group, would otherwise have to bear themselves and thus these measures should be considered as incompatible with the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

(121)

The Commission also took the preliminary view that these measures likely constituted operating aid reducing the costs that Toremar, and the other companies of the former Tirrenia Group, would otherwise have to bear themselves and thus these measures should be considered as incompatible with the internal market.

4.   COMMENTS FROM ITALY

COMMENTS FROM ITALY

4.1.   On the public service obligations and the competitive environment

On the public service obligations and the competitive environment

| (122) | Italy provided a list of the routes (supported by the corresponding legal documentation) operated by Toremar that are subject to public service obligations, including the seasonal frequency and timetables, the competitive environment and the reasons leading to these public service obligations. |
| --- | --- |

(122)

Italy provided a list of the routes (supported by the corresponding legal documentation) operated by Toremar that are subject to public service obligations, including the seasonal frequency and timetables, the competitive environment and the reasons leading to these public service obligations.

| (123) | As regards the existence of a genuine SGEI, Italy notes that the above public service obligations were laid down in order to maintain the territorial continuity and the connection of the mainland with the islands. This service also contributes to the economic development of the islands and the facilitation of intermodal transportation, while at the same time it guarantees the essential mobility needs of the islands’ communities throughout the year and ensures that the constitutional right to territorial continuity is respected. |
| --- | --- |

(123)

As regards the existence of a genuine SGEI, Italy notes that the above public service obligations were laid down in order to maintain the territorial continuity and the connection of the mainland with the islands. This service also contributes to the economic development of the islands and the facilitation of intermodal transportation, while at the same time it guarantees the essential mobility needs of the islands’ communities throughout the year and ensures that the constitutional right to territorial continuity is respected.

| (124) | As far as the competitive environment is concerned, Italy submitted information showing that Toremar is the only operator sailing most of the routes throughout the year. Although there has been some competition over the years, especially on the Piombino – Portoferraio route (Line A2) with the participation of Moby, Italy is of the view that the service offered by Toremar cannot be substituted and that the guarantee for territorial continuity could not have been achieved by the market forces alone. |
| --- | --- |

(124)

As far as the competitive environment is concerned, Italy submitted information showing that Toremar is the only operator sailing most of the routes throughout the year. Although there has been some competition over the years, especially on the Piombino – Portoferraio route (Line A2) with the participation of Moby, Italy is of the view that the service offered by Toremar cannot be substituted and that the guarantee for territorial continuity could not have been achieved by the market forces alone.

(Line A2)

4.2.   On the privatisation of Toremar

On the privatisation of Toremar

4.2.1.   On the sale price of Toremar

On the sale price of Toremar

| (125) | According to Italy, the privatisation of Toremar involved the transferring of the entire share capital of the company via a public tender procedure launched by the Region of Tuscany. This procedure additionally entailed the simultaneous entrustment of maritime public services in the Tuscany archipelago for a period of 12 years, in order to maintain territorial continuity. |
| --- | --- |

(125)

According to Italy, the privatisation of Toremar involved the transferring of the entire share capital of the company via a public tender procedure launched by the Region of Tuscany. This procedure additionally entailed the simultaneous entrustment of maritime public services in the Tuscany archipelago for a period of 12 years, in order to maintain territorial continuity.

| (126) | The Region of Tuscany commissioned an independent expert evaluation (see recitals (67) and (68)) to assess the legal and economic issues of Toremar’s sale. According to Italy, this evaluation (‘the Fidi report’) sets out clearly and concisely the procedures followed to determine the market value of Toremar’s share capital. |
| --- | --- |

(126)

The Region of Tuscany commissioned an independent expert evaluation (see recitals (67) and (68)) to assess the legal and economic issues of Toremar’s sale. According to Italy, this evaluation (‘the Fidi report’) sets out clearly and concisely the procedures followed to determine the market value of Toremar’s share capital.

4.2.2.   On the transparent and non-discriminatory character of the procedure

On the transparent and non-discriminatory character of the procedure

| (127) | Italy stresses that the procedures were conducted in compliance with the legal principles of transparency and non-discrimination. It defended that all 11 parties that expressed an interest were given the relevant information necessary to submit their bid through access to a data room, where all documentation was provided. Italy further states that at this stage of the procedure it did not have any control over the potential tenderers, as the replies to the call for an expression of interest were not binding. Competitors were also granted the right to submit questions and receive replies from the contracting authority. |
| --- | --- |

(127)

Italy stresses that the procedures were conducted in compliance with the legal principles of transparency and non-discrimination. It defended that all 11 parties that expressed an interest were given the relevant information necessary to submit their bid through access to a data room, where all documentation was provided. Italy further states that at this stage of the procedure it did not have any control over the potential tenderers, as the replies to the call for an expression of interest were not binding. Competitors were also granted the right to submit questions and receive replies from the contracting authority.

| (128) | Concerning the Commission’s doubts on the technical and financial requirements imposed on bidders for the participation in the tender, Italy argues that such requirements are not discriminatory but are based on the need to select an operator able to provide specific know-how in view of the quantitative and qualitative development of the public services required. This is more pertinent in the context of a tender such as the one at issue in these proceedings, where the sale of Toremar was combined with the conclusion of a new public service contract (48). According to Italy, the provision of technical and financial requirements in the tender does not run counter to the maximum opening of the tender to all potential bidders, but it is a direct and necessary consequence of this particular tender structure. |
| --- | --- |

(128)

Concerning the Commission’s doubts on the technical and financial requirements imposed on bidders for the participation in the tender, Italy argues that such requirements are not discriminatory but are based on the need to select an operator able to provide specific know-how in view of the quantitative and qualitative development of the public services required. This is more pertinent in the context of a tender such as the one at issue in these proceedings, where the sale of Toremar was combined with the conclusion of a new public service contract (48). According to Italy, the provision of technical and financial requirements in the tender does not run counter to the maximum opening of the tender to all potential bidders, but it is a direct and necessary consequence of this particular tender structure.

48

| (129) | As concerns specifically the assets transferred and the obligation to maintain employment levels, Italy stresses that the sale of Toremar did not include any obligation concerning employment levels. |
| --- | --- |

(129)

As concerns specifically the assets transferred and the obligation to maintain employment levels, Italy stresses that the sale of Toremar did not include any obligation concerning employment levels.

4.3.   On the compliance of the prolongation of the initial Convention and of the new public service contract with the Altmark conditions

On the compliance of the prolongation of the initial Convention and of the new public service contract with the Altmark

| (130) | Italy argues that the four Altmark criteria are complied with both for the period 2009-2011 and for the period 2012-2024 for the following reasons:






  — | Toremar has been effectively entrusted with the fulfilment of public service obligations. The prolongation of the initial Convention, as well as the new public service contract clearly set out the obligations regarding the routes to be served, the time schedule, the sailing frequencies, the quality of the vessels to be used and the quality of the service in general, the tariff obligations with respect to the ports served and the obligations regarding passengers’ rights in line with Union legislation. Therefore, Italy considers that the public service obligations are clearly defined and that the first Altmark criterion is complied with; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(130)

Italy argues that the four Altmark criteria are complied with both for the period 2009-2011 and for the period 2012-2024 for the following reasons:

Altmark

—

Toremar has been effectively entrusted with the fulfilment of public service obligations. The prolongation of the initial Convention, as well as the new public service contract clearly set out the obligations regarding the routes to be served, the time schedule, the sailing frequencies, the quality of the vessels to be used and the quality of the service in general, the tariff obligations with respect to the ports served and the obligations regarding passengers’ rights in line with Union legislation. Therefore, Italy considers that the public service obligations are clearly defined and that the first Altmark criterion is complied with;

Altmark

| — | The parameters on the basis of which the compensation was calculated have been defined in advance in an objective and transparent manner. These are explained in detail in the CIPE Directive that applies for the compensation granted as from 2010 onwards, and have been also applied in the new public service contract (and annexes thereto). Therefore, Italy considers that these parameters were established in advance in an objective and transparent manner and that the second Altmark criterion is respected; |
| --- | --- |

—

The parameters on the basis of which the compensation was calculated have been defined in advance in an objective and transparent manner. These are explained in detail in the CIPE Directive that applies for the compensation granted as from 2010 onwards, and have been also applied in the new public service contract (and annexes thereto). Therefore, Italy considers that these parameters were established in advance in an objective and transparent manner and that the second Altmark criterion is respected;

Altmark

| — | With reference to the third Altmark criterion, the compensation, both in the prolongation of the initial Convention, and in the new public service contract, does not exceed what is necessary to cover the costs arising from the discharging of the public service obligations. This clearly emerges from the company’s income statements, which show a loss of EUR 372 008 for the 3-year period 2009-2011 and a loss of EUR 353 960 for the 5-year period 2012-2016. In addition, due to the rebalancing mechanism introduced in Article 26 of the new public service contract, measures have been taken to ensure that any deviations are corrected and thus overcompensation is avoided; |
| --- | --- |

—

With reference to the third Altmark criterion, the compensation, both in the prolongation of the initial Convention, and in the new public service contract, does not exceed what is necessary to cover the costs arising from the discharging of the public service obligations. This clearly emerges from the company’s income statements, which show a loss of EUR 372 008 for the 3-year period 2009-2011 and a loss of EUR 353 960 for the 5-year period 2012-2016. In addition, due to the rebalancing mechanism introduced in Article 26 of the new public service contract, measures have been taken to ensure that any deviations are corrected and thus overcompensation is avoided;

Altmark

| — | Italy considers that also the fourth Altmark criterion is fulfilled. During the 2-year period 2010-2011, the Region of Tuscany was monitoring the company’s efficiency, whereas under the period covered by the new public service contract, the choice of the company in charge of the fulfillment of the public service obligations was made through a tender procedure in compliance with Union rules. |
| --- | --- |

—

Italy considers that also the fourth Altmark criterion is fulfilled. During the 2-year period 2010-2011, the Region of Tuscany was monitoring the company’s efficiency, whereas under the period covered by the new public service contract, the choice of the company in charge of the fulfillment of the public service obligations was made through a tender procedure in compliance with Union rules.

Altmark

4.4.   On the 9,95 % rate of return used for 2010 and on the 6,5 % risk premium laid down in the CIPE Directive as of 2010

On the 9,95 % rate of return used for 2010 and on the 6,5 % risk premium laid down in the CIPE Directive as of 2010

| (131) | In the 2011 Decision, it is mentioned that that the rate of return on invested capital for 2010 was set at 9,95 % before taxes. Italy was asked to justify this given that the CIPE Directive provides that the risk premium of 6,5 % would be used to determine the return on capital using the WACC formula (see recital (46)). |
| --- | --- |

(131)

In the 2011 Decision, it is mentioned that that the rate of return on invested capital for 2010 was set at 9,95 % before taxes. Italy was asked to justify this given that the CIPE Directive provides that the risk premium of 6,5 % would be used to determine the return on capital using the WACC formula (see recital (46)).

| (132) | Italy submits that the reference to the 9,95 % rate relates to the draft new Conventions/Public Service Contracts that would be put up for tender with the companies themselves and signed with the buyers upon finalisation of the privatisation of each of the companies of the Tirrenia group (see recital (27)). |
| --- | --- |

(132)

Italy submits that the reference to the 9,95 % rate relates to the draft new Conventions/Public Service Contracts that would be put up for tender with the companies themselves and signed with the buyers upon finalisation of the privatisation of each of the companies of the Tirrenia group (see recital (27)).

| (133) | Italy also stresses that, because the tender amount of compensation (i.e. the basis for the invitation to tender) was capped by the 2009 Law (49), it was decided indeed to simplify the calculation of the compensation by applying a flat rate return on capital. In particular, for the period covering the prolongation of the initial Convention (i.e. 2010-2011), the flat rate return on capital has been de facto calculated at 6,9 %. As from 2012, under the new public service contract with Moby/Toremar a flat return on capital of 6,5 % has been applied. Italy has argued that these flat rate returns on capital are still commensurate with the risks involved and that in any event they are below the 9,95 % that was initially communicated to the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

(133)

Italy also stresses that, because the tender amount of compensation (i.e. the basis for the invitation to tender) was capped by the 2009 Law (49), it was decided indeed to simplify the calculation of the compensation by applying a flat rate return on capital. In particular, for the period covering the prolongation of the initial Convention (i.e. 2010-2011), the flat rate return on capital has been de facto calculated at 6,9 %. As from 2012, under the new public service contract with Moby/Toremar a flat return on capital of 6,5 % has been applied. Italy has argued that these flat rate returns on capital are still commensurate with the risks involved and that in any event they are below the 9,95 % that was initially communicated to the Commission.

49

de facto

| (134) | Italy also explains that applying the full methodology as laid down in the CIPE Directive might have resulted in a return on capital that could have exceeded 6,5 %. For this reason, Italy considers that its simplified approach is conservative and does not allow in principle for higher compensation for Moby/Toremar than was established under the CIPE Directive. |
| --- | --- |

(134)

Italy also explains that applying the full methodology as laid down in the CIPE Directive might have resulted in a return on capital that could have exceeded 6,5 %. For this reason, Italy considers that its simplified approach is conservative and does not allow in principle for higher compensation for Moby/Toremar than was established under the CIPE Directive.

4.5.   On the berthing priority

On the berthing priority

| (135) | Italy refers to Article 19-ter, paragraph 21, of the 2009 Law, which entitles Toremar to keep the berthing already allocated to it and the priority in the allocation of new slots in line with national law (see above recital (90)). |
| --- | --- |

(135)

Italy refers to Article 19-ter, paragraph 21, of the 2009 Law, which entitles Toremar to keep the berthing already allocated to it and the priority in the allocation of new slots in line with national law (see above recital (90)).

-ter

| (136) | Italy argues that no State resources were foregone through the allocation of the berthing priority. According to Italy, all ferry operators pay regular fees to the relevant port authorities for berthing. Italy also claims that this berthing priority has been applicable only to the public service routes, and that Toremar and later Moby/Toremar, did not and do not pay any additional fee for this berthing priority, as ports would give them the first choice of berthing slots even in the absence of a formal berthing priority on account of their public service mission. |
| --- | --- |

(136)

Italy argues that no State resources were foregone through the allocation of the berthing priority. According to Italy, all ferry operators pay regular fees to the relevant port authorities for berthing. Italy also claims that this berthing priority has been applicable only to the public service routes, and that Toremar and later Moby/Toremar, did not and do not pay any additional fee for this berthing priority, as ports would give them the first choice of berthing slots even in the absence of a formal berthing priority on account of their public service mission.

| (137) | Italy considers that the berthing priority would not confer a meaningful advantage to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar and its acquirer Moby. In particular, they argue that in practice the berthing priority is only applied in very limited circumstances. The size of most of the ports and the advance scheduling of arrivals and departures ensures that in normal circumstances – barring any delays or extreme weather conditions – there would be no overlap in the use of specific berths by different operators. Additionally, since Toremar and Moby operate their services all year long (contrary e.g. to operators who operate only in the high season), it would be natural for ports to give them first choice of berthing slots even in absence of a formal berthing priority. For these reasons, Italy considers that the berthing priority cannot have awarded any meaningful advantage to Toremar and Moby. |
| --- | --- |

(137)

Italy considers that the berthing priority would not confer a meaningful advantage to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar and its acquirer Moby. In particular, they argue that in practice the berthing priority is only applied in very limited circumstances. The size of most of the ports and the advance scheduling of arrivals and departures ensures that in normal circumstances – barring any delays or extreme weather conditions – there would be no overlap in the use of specific berths by different operators. Additionally, since Toremar and Moby operate their services all year long (contrary e.g. to operators who operate only in the high season), it would be natural for ports to give them first choice of berthing slots even in absence of a formal berthing priority. For these reasons, Italy considers that the berthing priority cannot have awarded any meaningful advantage to Toremar and Moby.

4.6.   On the measures laid down by the 2010 Law

On the measures laid down by the 2010 Law

| (138) | As regards the measures laid down by the 2010 Law (see above recitals (91) and (92)), Italy submits that Toremar has been allocated and effectively used the financial resources already committed by Law 102/2009 for the initial purpose. In particular, Toremar used EUR 1 617 300 to upgrade its fleet in order to respect international safety standards (i.e. EUR 808 650 for the upgrade of the vessel Aethalia and EUR 808 650 for the upgrade of the vessel Liburna). It is also submitted that these funds have not been used for liquidity purposes. |
| --- | --- |

(138)

As regards the measures laid down by the 2010 Law (see above recitals (91) and (92)), Italy submits that Toremar has been allocated and effectively used the financial resources already committed by Law 102/2009 for the initial purpose. In particular, Toremar used EUR 1 617 300 to upgrade its fleet in order to respect international safety standards (i.e. EUR 808 650 for the upgrade of the vessel Aethalia and EUR 808 650 for the upgrade of the vessel Liburna). It is also submitted that these funds have not been used for liquidity purposes.

| (139) | With regard to the fiscal exemptions related to the privatisation process, Italy argues that as regards corporate income tax, the measure has not been applied since the transfers of Caremar, Saremar and Toremar to the regions were made free of charge. Therefore, in the absence of any remuneration, Article 86(1)(a) of the Consolidated Income Tax Law concerning capital gains in the event of asset transfers against payment does not apply. With respect to VAT, Italy notes that the transfers of Caremar, Saremar and Toremar constitute transactions which are exempt from VAT under Article 10(1)(4) of Presidential Decree No 633 of 26 October 1972. With respect to indirect taxes other than VAT, Italy emphasises that the exemption provided for by the 2010 Law was designed with a view to administrative simplification. From the taxation perspective, its effects can be regarded as negligible and of little impact in relation to taxes which are charged at flat rates. More specifically, it concerns the registration duty (EUR 168 per document), land registry and mortgage registration fees (EUR 168 each) and stamp duty (EUR 14,62 for four sides). |
| --- | --- |

(139)

With regard to the fiscal exemptions related to the privatisation process, Italy argues that as regards corporate income tax, the measure has not been applied since the transfers of Caremar, Saremar and Toremar to the regions were made free of charge. Therefore, in the absence of any remuneration, Article 86(1)(a) of the Consolidated Income Tax Law concerning capital gains in the event of asset transfers against payment does not apply. With respect to VAT, Italy notes that the transfers of Caremar, Saremar and Toremar constitute transactions which are exempt from VAT under Article 10(1)(4) of Presidential Decree No 633 of 26 October 1972. With respect to indirect taxes other than VAT, Italy emphasises that the exemption provided for by the 2010 Law was designed with a view to administrative simplification. From the taxation perspective, its effects can be regarded as negligible and of little impact in relation to taxes which are charged at flat rates. More specifically, it concerns the registration duty (EUR 168 per document), land registry and mortgage registration fees (EUR 168 each) and stamp duty (EUR 14,62 for four sides).

| (140) | Concerning the FAS resources, Italy submits that Toremar has not received any benefit thereof. In addition, they clarified that the FAS resources were not used to give an additional compensation to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar. Instead, these resources were made available to supplement the budget appropriations set up for the payment of the public service compensations to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, in case those budget appropriations proved to be insufficient. Italy notes that Article 1, paragraph 5-ter of Decree Law 125/2010 enabled the regions to use the FAS resources to fund (part of) the regular public service compensation and thereby ensure continuity of the maritime public services. Moreover, Italy clarifies that, under Article 26 of Decree Law 185/2008, EUR 65 million for each of the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 were earmarked to the Tirrenia group and EUR 195 million were accordingly drawn from the FAS resources. Those funds were then transferred to the account of the Ministry of Transport earmarked for the payment of the public service compensation to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group (Tirrenia, Siremar, Caremar, Toremar and Saremar). Therefore, this measure would merely concern an allocation of resources in Italy’s budget for payment of the public service compensations. |
| --- | --- |

(140)

Concerning the FAS resources, Italy submits that Toremar has not received any benefit thereof. In addition, they clarified that the FAS resources were not used to give an additional compensation to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar. Instead, these resources were made available to supplement the budget appropriations set up for the payment of the public service compensations to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, in case those budget appropriations proved to be insufficient. Italy notes that Article 1, paragraph 5-ter of Decree Law 125/2010 enabled the regions to use the FAS resources to fund (part of) the regular public service compensation and thereby ensure continuity of the maritime public services. Moreover, Italy clarifies that, under Article 26 of Decree Law 185/2008, EUR 65 million for each of the years 2009, 2010 and 2011 were earmarked to the Tirrenia group and EUR 195 million were accordingly drawn from the FAS resources. Those funds were then transferred to the account of the Ministry of Transport earmarked for the payment of the public service compensation to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group (Tirrenia, Siremar, Caremar, Toremar and Saremar). Therefore, this measure would merely concern an allocation of resources in Italy’s budget for payment of the public service compensations.

-ter

4.7.   On the compliance of the prolongation of the initial Convention and of the new public service contract with the 2011 SGEI Decision

On the compliance of the prolongation of the initial Convention and of the new public service contract with the 2011 SGEI Decision

| (141) | Even if Italy considers that the public service compensation paid under the new public service contract to Toremar does not constitute State aid, it has also argued why this measure would comply with the 2011 SGEI Decision, if it were aid. |
| --- | --- |

(141)

Even if Italy considers that the public service compensation paid under the new public service contract to Toremar does not constitute State aid, it has also argued why this measure would comply with the 2011 SGEI Decision, if it were aid.

| (142) | In its reply, Italy provides the average annual traffic during the period 2010-2016, based on the routes altogether. On this basis, Italy presented passenger traffic data to demonstrate that the threshold of 300 000 passengers as laid down in Article 2(1)(d) of the 2011 SGEI Decision has not been breached on any of the routes operated by Toremar until the end of 2011 and as from 2012 by Moby/Toremar. |
| --- | --- |

(142)

In its reply, Italy provides the average annual traffic during the period 2010-2016, based on the routes altogether. On this basis, Italy presented passenger traffic data to demonstrate that the threshold of 300 000 passengers as laid down in Article 2(1)(d) of the 2011 SGEI Decision has not been breached on any of the routes operated by Toremar until the end of 2011 and as from 2012 by Moby/Toremar.

4.8.   On the compliance of the initial Convention and of the new public service contract with the 2011 SGEI Framework

On the compliance of the initial Convention and of the new public service contract with the 2011 SGEI Framework

| (143) | Italy further argues that no overcompensation has taken place in favour of Moby/Toremar and that the conditions of the 2011 SGEI Framework are fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

(143)

Italy further argues that no overcompensation has taken place in favour of Moby/Toremar and that the conditions of the 2011 SGEI Framework are fulfilled.

| (144) | In order to justify the above, Italy provided information showing the amounts of return on invested capital for 2010-2017 and the methodology used to verify that no overcompensation exists for the services provided by Toremar and Moby/Toremar, the costs and revenues per route for 2010-2017 and the depreciation period of the fleet for 2009-2017 (50). |
| --- | --- |

(144)

In order to justify the above, Italy provided information showing the amounts of return on invested capital for 2010-2017 and the methodology used to verify that no overcompensation exists for the services provided by Toremar and Moby/Toremar, the costs and revenues per route for 2010-2017 and the depreciation period of the fleet for 2009-2017 (50).

50

| (145) | In addition, Italy submits that Toremar (and Moby/Toremar) have not carried out any commercial activities during the period 2009 to date. |
| --- | --- |

(145)

In addition, Italy submits that Toremar (and Moby/Toremar) have not carried out any commercial activities during the period 2009 to date.

5.   COMMENTS FROM MOBY/TOREMAR

COMMENTS FROM MOBY/TOREMAR

5.1.   On the public service obligations and the competitive environment

On the public service obligations and the competitive environment

| (146) | Moby/Toremar argue that the new public service contract and its annexes define concretely the public services obligations concerning the maritime routes involved. These obligations concern among others the quality and characteristics of the service (journeys to be made, timetables, service conditions) and the applicable tariffs. |
| --- | --- |

(146)

Moby/Toremar argue that the new public service contract and its annexes define concretely the public services obligations concerning the maritime routes involved. These obligations concern among others the quality and characteristics of the service (journeys to be made, timetables, service conditions) and the applicable tariffs.

| (147) | In replying to the complainant’s allegation of a monopoly being created on the Piombino – Elba island routes following the merger between Toremar and Moby, the latter parties point to the authorisation provided by the Italian National Competition Authority of the said merger by means of Decision No 22622 of 19 July 2011, subject to compliance with certain conditions aimed precisely at ensuring the existence of competition on that route. |
| --- | --- |

(147)

In replying to the complainant’s allegation of a monopoly being created on the Piombino – Elba island routes following the merger between Toremar and Moby, the latter parties point to the authorisation provided by the Italian National Competition Authority of the said merger by means of Decision No 22622 of 19 July 2011, subject to compliance with certain conditions aimed precisely at ensuring the existence of competition on that route.

| (148) | Further, Moby/Toremar submit that the routes in question could not be served without public support and the market alone could not provide the services with the minimum requirements entailed by the public contract. |
| --- | --- |

(148)

Further, Moby/Toremar submit that the routes in question could not be served without public support and the market alone could not provide the services with the minimum requirements entailed by the public contract.

5.2.   On the privatisation of Toremar

On the privatisation of Toremar

5.2.1.   On the price paid for Toremar’s shares

On the price paid for Toremar’s shares

| (149) | Moby/Toremar submit that the privatisation of Toremar does not entail any State aid elements, given that the price agreed was certified by an independent evaluator. |
| --- | --- |

(149)

Moby/Toremar submit that the privatisation of Toremar does not entail any State aid elements, given that the price agreed was certified by an independent evaluator.

5.2.2.   On the transparent and non-discriminatory character of the procedure and on the bundling of the assets of Toremar with a new public service contract

On the transparent and non-discriminatory character of the procedure and on the bundling of the assets of Toremar with a new public service contract

| (150) | In replying to the Commission’s preliminary position in the 2012 Decision that the technical and financial requirements of the tender may have limited the number of competitors potentially interested to submit a bid, Moby/Toremar argue that these requirements were indeed necessary, considering the particular structure of Toremar that resulted from it having been part of the Tirrenia group. |
| --- | --- |

(150)

In replying to the Commission’s preliminary position in the 2012 Decision that the technical and financial requirements of the tender may have limited the number of competitors potentially interested to submit a bid, Moby/Toremar argue that these requirements were indeed necessary, considering the particular structure of Toremar that resulted from it having been part of the Tirrenia group.

| (151) | According to Moby/Toremar, Toremar did not have all the facilities to ensure alone the maritime services required and in the past it has always used the services of the Tirrenia group, in particular services of a commercial nature (e.g. coordination of the activities of the port ticket offices, call centres and communication), of technical nature (e.g. management of information systems) and certain more specialised services (e.g. supply management). |
| --- | --- |

(151)

According to Moby/Toremar, Toremar did not have all the facilities to ensure alone the maritime services required and in the past it has always used the services of the Tirrenia group, in particular services of a commercial nature (e.g. coordination of the activities of the port ticket offices, call centres and communication), of technical nature (e.g. management of information systems) and certain more specialised services (e.g. supply management).

| (152) | Therefore, Moby/Toremar argue that the tender as designed could not be held discriminatory and that the request of the Region of Tuscany that the buyer of Toremar is already active in the maritime passenger transport sector is prompted by industrial policy considerations to ensure the service continuity. |
| --- | --- |

(152)

Therefore, Moby/Toremar argue that the tender as designed could not be held discriminatory and that the request of the Region of Tuscany that the buyer of Toremar is already active in the maritime passenger transport sector is prompted by industrial policy considerations to ensure the service continuity.

| (153) | Moby/Toremar submit that, if the service contract were to be awarded without the sale of Toremar, the latter would not have any further reason to continue functioning nor would it be easy to resell it on the market, given the specificity of the fleet. Further, according to the parties, the Region of Tuscany would probably have to pay a higher compensation amount for the service, considering that the operator would have needed to equip itself with the necessary vessels and personnel. Moreover, the Region of Tuscany would have had to bear the costs of the decommissioning of the Toremar fleet and of the management and liquidation of the company. Therefore, bundling the assets of Toremar with a new public service contract also minimises the costs of State intervention. |
| --- | --- |

(153)

Moby/Toremar submit that, if the service contract were to be awarded without the sale of Toremar, the latter would not have any further reason to continue functioning nor would it be easy to resell it on the market, given the specificity of the fleet. Further, according to the parties, the Region of Tuscany would probably have to pay a higher compensation amount for the service, considering that the operator would have needed to equip itself with the necessary vessels and personnel. Moreover, the Region of Tuscany would have had to bear the costs of the decommissioning of the Toremar fleet and of the management and liquidation of the company. Therefore, bundling the assets of Toremar with a new public service contract also minimises the costs of State intervention.

| (154) | Finally, Moby/Toremar, in replying to the complainant’s allegation that the tender procedure conferred an advantage on Moby, refer to the proceedings at national level (see Section 2.3.2.3), which upheld the result of the tender procedure concerning the privatisation of Toremar and the award of the service contract. |
| --- | --- |

(154)

Finally, Moby/Toremar, in replying to the complainant’s allegation that the tender procedure conferred an advantage on Moby, refer to the proceedings at national level (see Section 2.3.2.3), which upheld the result of the tender procedure concerning the privatisation of Toremar and the award of the service contract.

5.3.   On the compliance of the new public service contract with the Altmark conditions

On the compliance of the new public service contract with the Altmark

| (155) | Moby/Toremar submit that the new public service contract satisfies all the Altmark criteria. |
| --- | --- |

(155)

Moby/Toremar submit that the new public service contract satisfies all the Altmark criteria.

Altmark

| (156) | According to the parties, the public service obligations are clearly defined and the parameters of the compensation are in advance established in an objective and transparent manner. Moreover, by virtue of the mechanism for awarding the service (discount auction) and the monitoring system established, according to which Toremar obtains the compensation only for the activities actually performed, this compensation does not exceed what is necessary to cover the costs arising from the fulfillment of public service obligations. |
| --- | --- |

(156)

According to the parties, the public service obligations are clearly defined and the parameters of the compensation are in advance established in an objective and transparent manner. Moreover, by virtue of the mechanism for awarding the service (discount auction) and the monitoring system established, according to which Toremar obtains the compensation only for the activities actually performed, this compensation does not exceed what is necessary to cover the costs arising from the fulfillment of public service obligations.

| (157) | Finally, Moby/Toremar argue that the choice of the company in charge of the fulfillment of the public service obligations has been carried out through a tender procedure in compliance with Union law. |
| --- | --- |

(157)

Finally, Moby/Toremar argue that the choice of the company in charge of the fulfillment of the public service obligations has been carried out through a tender procedure in compliance with Union law.

5.4.   On the prolongation of the initial Convention between Toremar and Italy

On the prolongation of the initial Convention between Toremar and Italy

| (158) | Moby/Toremar refer to Commission Decision 2005/163/EC (‘the 2004 Decision’), by which the Commission had declared the compensation granted by Italy to the Tirrenia Group companies, other than Tirrenia itself, to be partially compatible with the internal market, partially compatible conditional upon the respect of a number of undertakings by Italy, and partially incompatible with the internal market. |
| --- | --- |

(158)

Moby/Toremar refer to Commission Decision 2005/163/EC (‘the 2004 Decision’), by which the Commission had declared the compensation granted by Italy to the Tirrenia Group companies, other than Tirrenia itself, to be partially compatible with the internal market, partially compatible conditional upon the respect of a number of undertakings by Italy, and partially incompatible with the internal market.

| (159) | They argue that on the basis of that decision the Commission had confirmed the compatibility of the initial Convention until its expiry date at the end of 2008 and that its prolongation for the years 2009 to 2011 constitutes simply a continuation of a compatible measure, hence an existing aid measure. Such prolongation does not contain any substantial changes and it was necessary for the organisation of the privatisation procedure of the companies belonging to the Tirrenia Group. |
| --- | --- |

(159)

They argue that on the basis of that decision the Commission had confirmed the compatibility of the initial Convention until its expiry date at the end of 2008 and that its prolongation for the years 2009 to 2011 constitutes simply a continuation of a compatible measure, hence an existing aid measure. Such prolongation does not contain any substantial changes and it was necessary for the organisation of the privatisation procedure of the companies belonging to the Tirrenia Group.

| (160) | Moby/Toremar further submit that even if the Commission were to consider that Toremar received State aid in the past through the prolongation of the initial Convention, this shall be negated by the fact that Toremar was sold under a public procurement procedure, thus on market conditions to Moby, at a price that included among others an assessment of that aid element. As a result, and on the basis of settled case law (51), the prolongation of the initial Convention is not State aid relevant. |
| --- | --- |

(160)

Moby/Toremar further submit that even if the Commission were to consider that Toremar received State aid in the past through the prolongation of the initial Convention, this shall be negated by the fact that Toremar was sold under a public procurement procedure, thus on market conditions to Moby, at a price that included among others an assessment of that aid element. As a result, and on the basis of settled case law (51), the prolongation of the initial Convention is not State aid relevant.

51

6.   ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT

6.1.   Existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

Existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU

| (161) | According to Article 107(1) TFEU ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’. |
| --- | --- |

(161)

According to Article 107(1) TFEU ‘any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market’.

| (162) | The criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are cumulative. Therefore, in order to determine whether the notified measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, all the above-mentioned conditions need to be fulfilled. Namely, the financial support should:






  (a) | be granted by a Member State or through State resources, |
| --- | --- | --- |

(162)

The criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are cumulative. Therefore, in order to determine whether the notified measures constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, all the above-mentioned conditions need to be fulfilled. Namely, the financial support should:

(a)

be granted by a Member State or through State resources,

| (b) | favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods, |
| --- | --- |

(b)

favour certain undertakings or the production of certain goods,

| (c) | distort or threaten to distort competition, and |
| --- | --- |

(c)

distort or threaten to distort competition, and

| (d) | affect trade between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(d)

affect trade between Member States.

| (163) | The Commission notes that the berthing priority, which only applies to the public service routes, is inextricably linked with the performance of the SGEI by Toremar and its acquirer Moby. Therefore, this measure will be assessed jointly with the public service compensation granted to these companies (see Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2). |
| --- | --- |

(163)

The Commission notes that the berthing priority, which only applies to the public service routes, is inextricably linked with the performance of the SGEI by Toremar and its acquirer Moby. Therefore, this measure will be assessed jointly with the public service compensation granted to these companies (see Sections 6.1.1 and 6.1.2).

| (164) | Furthermore, the Commission notes that the new public service contract between Italy and Moby/Toremar should be assessed jointly with the privatisation of Toremar. Such joint assessment is appropriate because in essence Italy organised the new public service contract whereby the winning bidder had to acquire the entire share capital of Toremar in order to discharge the public service obligations laid down in that public service contract. |
| --- | --- |

(164)

Furthermore, the Commission notes that the new public service contract between Italy and Moby/Toremar should be assessed jointly with the privatisation of Toremar. Such joint assessment is appropriate because in essence Italy organised the new public service contract whereby the winning bidder had to acquire the entire share capital of Toremar in order to discharge the public service obligations laid down in that public service contract.

6.1.1.   The prolongation of the initial Convention between Toremar and Italy

The prolongation of the initial Convention between Toremar and Italy

6.1.1.1.   State resources

| (165) | Toremar was entrusted by Italy with the operation of maritime routes as detailed by the initial Convention, as prolonged. The initial Convention was concluded with the State and the resulting public service compensation for Toremar is paid by the State from its own budget. Therefore, the public service compensation to Toremar is imputable to the State and is given through State resources. |
| --- | --- |

(165)

Toremar was entrusted by Italy with the operation of maritime routes as detailed by the initial Convention, as prolonged. The initial Convention was concluded with the State and the resulting public service compensation for Toremar is paid by the State from its own budget. Therefore, the public service compensation to Toremar is imputable to the State and is given through State resources.

| (166) | The Commission takes note that, according to Italy, all ferry operators pay regular fees to the relevant port authorities for berthing but that Toremar did not pay any additional fee for the berthing priority. Nevertheless, the Commission considers that in principle Italy could have chosen to impose an additional fee for the berthing priority and that by not doing so, it has foregone State revenues. Furthermore, since the berthing priority is granted by law (see recital (90)) it is imputable to the State. |
| --- | --- |

(166)

The Commission takes note that, according to Italy, all ferry operators pay regular fees to the relevant port authorities for berthing but that Toremar did not pay any additional fee for the berthing priority. Nevertheless, the Commission considers that in principle Italy could have chosen to impose an additional fee for the berthing priority and that by not doing so, it has foregone State revenues. Furthermore, since the berthing priority is granted by law (see recital (90)) it is imputable to the State.

6.1.1.2.   Selectivity

| (167) | In order to be qualified as State aid, a measure must be selective. The public service compensation for the provision of the maritime services in question is only granted to Toremar, thus it is selective. Since the berthing priority was only granted to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including to Toremar, it is also selective. |
| --- | --- |

(167)

In order to be qualified as State aid, a measure must be selective. The public service compensation for the provision of the maritime services in question is only granted to Toremar, thus it is selective. Since the berthing priority was only granted to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including to Toremar, it is also selective.

6.1.1.3.   Economic advantage

| (168) | The Commission recalls that public service compensations granted to a company may not constitute an economic advantage under certain strictly defined conditions. |
| --- | --- |

(168)

The Commission recalls that public service compensations granted to a company may not constitute an economic advantage under certain strictly defined conditions.

| (169) | In particular, in its Altmark judgment (52), the Court of Justice held that where a State measure must be regarded as compensation for the services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations, so that those undertakings do not enjoy a real financial advantage and the measure thus does not have the effect of putting them in a more favourable competitive position than the undertakings competing with them, such a measure is not within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(169)

In particular, in its Altmark judgment (52), the Court of Justice held that where a State measure must be regarded as compensation for the services provided by the recipient undertakings in order to discharge public service obligations, so that those undertakings do not enjoy a real financial advantage and the measure thus does not have the effect of putting them in a more favourable competitive position than the undertakings competing with them, such a measure is not within the scope of Article 107(1) TFEU.

Altmark

52

| (170) | However, the Court of Justice also made clear that for such public service compensation to escape qualification as State aid in a particular case, the four cumulative criteria (the ‘Altmark criteria’), summarised below, must be satisfied:






  — | the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge and these obligations must be clearly defined (‘
  Altmark 1’); |
| --- | --- | --- |

(170)

However, the Court of Justice also made clear that for such public service compensation to escape qualification as State aid in a particular case, the four cumulative criteria (the ‘Altmark criteria’), summarised below, must be satisfied:

Altmark

—

the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge and these obligations must be clearly defined (‘
  Altmark 1’);

Altmark

| — | the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner (‘
  Altmark 2’); |
| --- | --- |

—

the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner (‘
  Altmark 2’);

Altmark

| — | the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations (‘
  Altmark 3’); |
| --- | --- |

—

the compensation cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations (‘
  Altmark 3’);

Altmark

| — | where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations, in a specific case, is not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant revenues and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations (‘
  Altmark 4’). |
| --- | --- |

—

where the undertaking which is to discharge public service obligations, in a specific case, is not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant revenues and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations (‘
  Altmark 4’).

Altmark

| (171) | The Commission specified how it applies the Altmark criteria in its Communication on the application of State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest (the ‘SGEI Communication’) (53). |
| --- | --- |

(171)

The Commission specified how it applies the Altmark criteria in its Communication on the application of State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest (the ‘SGEI Communication’) (53).

Altmark

53

| (172) | Given that the Altmark criteria have to be complied with cumulatively, non-observance of either one of these criteria would lead the Commission to the conclusion that the measure under assessment provides an economic advantage to the beneficiary. The Commission will then first assess observance of Altmark 4. |
| --- | --- |

(172)

Given that the Altmark criteria have to be complied with cumulatively, non-observance of either one of these criteria would lead the Commission to the conclusion that the measure under assessment provides an economic advantage to the beneficiary. The Commission will then first assess observance of Altmark 4.

Altmark

Altmark

| (173) | Altmark 4 provides that the compensation must be the minimum necessary in order for it not to qualify as State aid. This criterion is deemed to be fulfilled if the recipient of the public service compensation has been chosen following a tender procedure, which allows for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing the services at the least cost to the community or, failing that, the compensation has been calculated by reference to the costs of an efficient undertaking. |
| --- | --- |

(173)

Altmark 4 provides that the compensation must be the minimum necessary in order for it not to qualify as State aid. This criterion is deemed to be fulfilled if the recipient of the public service compensation has been chosen following a tender procedure, which allows for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing the services at the least cost to the community or, failing that, the compensation has been calculated by reference to the costs of an efficient undertaking.

Altmark

| (174) | For none of the prolongations of the initial Convention in the period 1 January 2009 until 1 January 2012 Toremar was selected following a public tender procedure. Italy merely prolonged the system already in force thereby entitling the pre-established operator to continue receiving compensation for the discharge of the public service obligations. |
| --- | --- |

(174)

For none of the prolongations of the initial Convention in the period 1 January 2009 until 1 January 2012 Toremar was selected following a public tender procedure. Italy merely prolonged the system already in force thereby entitling the pre-established operator to continue receiving compensation for the discharge of the public service obligations.

| (175) | Moreover, Italy has not provided the Commission with any indication that the level of compensation has been determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant revenues and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations. Italy’s argument that the Region of Tuscany was monitoring Toremar’s efficiency during the period 2010-2011 is not sufficient for compliance with this criterion, as it does not show whether the costs actually incurred by Toremar in the provision of its public service obligations were in line with those of a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport. |
| --- | --- |

(175)

Moreover, Italy has not provided the Commission with any indication that the level of compensation has been determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs which a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport so as to be able to meet the necessary public service requirements, would have incurred in discharging those obligations, taking into account the relevant revenues and a reasonable profit for discharging the obligations. Italy’s argument that the Region of Tuscany was monitoring Toremar’s efficiency during the period 2010-2011 is not sufficient for compliance with this criterion, as it does not show whether the costs actually incurred by Toremar in the provision of its public service obligations were in line with those of a typical undertaking, well run and adequately provided with means of transport.

| (176) | The Commission therefore concludes that Altmark 4 has not been complied with in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

(176)

The Commission therefore concludes that Altmark 4 has not been complied with in the present case.

Altmark

| (177) | Given that the four Altmark conditions are not cumulatively observed in the present case, the Commission concludes that the compensation for the operation of maritime routes under the prolongation of the initial Convention provided Toremar with an economic advantage. |
| --- | --- |

(177)

Given that the four Altmark conditions are not cumulatively observed in the present case, the Commission concludes that the compensation for the operation of maritime routes under the prolongation of the initial Convention provided Toremar with an economic advantage.

Altmark

| (178) | With respect to the berthing priority, the Commission first recalls that the Italian competition authority AGCM has at least on two occasions considered that this measure has economic value (54). Nevertheless, Toremar does not pay any fee for the berthing priority (see recital (136)). Furthermore, the Commission observes that the berthing priority has at least in theory the potential to lower the operator’s costs (e.g. because the guaranteed berthing could reduce waiting times in ports and hence result in lower fuel costs) or increase its revenues (e.g. because some timings possibly attract more demand from passengers). Indeed, to the extent the berthing priority allows for a faster docking procedure, users of the ferry service may prefer the ferry operator that benefits from this measure. Even if these effects would only materialise in limited circumstances or would be relatively small, the berthing priority could nevertheless constitute an economic advantage for Toremar. |
| --- | --- |

(178)

With respect to the berthing priority, the Commission first recalls that the Italian competition authority AGCM has at least on two occasions considered that this measure has economic value (54). Nevertheless, Toremar does not pay any fee for the berthing priority (see recital (136)). Furthermore, the Commission observes that the berthing priority has at least in theory the potential to lower the operator’s costs (e.g. because the guaranteed berthing could reduce waiting times in ports and hence result in lower fuel costs) or increase its revenues (e.g. because some timings possibly attract more demand from passengers). Indeed, to the extent the berthing priority allows for a faster docking procedure, users of the ferry service may prefer the ferry operator that benefits from this measure. Even if these effects would only materialise in limited circumstances or would be relatively small, the berthing priority could nevertheless constitute an economic advantage for Toremar.

54

6.1.1.4.   Effect on competition and trade

| (179) | When aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared to other undertakings competing in intra-Union trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid (55). It is sufficient that the recipient of the aid competes with other undertakings on markets open to competition (56). |
| --- | --- |

(179)

When aid granted by a Member State strengthens the position of an undertaking compared to other undertakings competing in intra-Union trade, the latter must be regarded as affected by that aid (55). It is sufficient that the recipient of the aid competes with other undertakings on markets open to competition (56).

55

56

| (180) | In the present case, the beneficiary operates in competition with other undertakings providing maritime transport services in the Union, in particular since the entry into force of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 (57) and the Maritime Cabotage Regulation, liberalising the market of the international maritime transport and maritime cabotage, respectively. The fact that on some routes Toremar was at that time the only operator does not mean that other (international) operators could not be interested to offer similar maritime transport services. Therefore, the compensation for the operation of maritime routes under the prolongation of the initial Convention is liable to affect Union trade and distort competition within the internal market. For the same reasons that conclusion also holds for the berthing priority. |
| --- | --- |

(180)

In the present case, the beneficiary operates in competition with other undertakings providing maritime transport services in the Union, in particular since the entry into force of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 (57) and the Maritime Cabotage Regulation, liberalising the market of the international maritime transport and maritime cabotage, respectively. The fact that on some routes Toremar was at that time the only operator does not mean that other (international) operators could not be interested to offer similar maritime transport services. Therefore, the compensation for the operation of maritime routes under the prolongation of the initial Convention is liable to affect Union trade and distort competition within the internal market. For the same reasons that conclusion also holds for the berthing priority.

57

6.1.1.5.   Conclusion

| (181) | Since all criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are fulfilled, the Commission concludes that both the public service compensation paid on the basis of the successive prolongations of the initial Convention and the berthing priority for the public service routes constitutes State aid to Toremar. |
| --- | --- |

(181)

Since all criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are fulfilled, the Commission concludes that both the public service compensation paid on the basis of the successive prolongations of the initial Convention and the berthing priority for the public service routes constitutes State aid to Toremar.

6.1.1.6.   New or existing aid

| (182) | The Commission first notes that the compensation paid to Toremar for the operation of maritime public service obligations until the end of 2008 will not be assessed in this Decision. The assessment of that compensation, and whether or not it can be classified as existing aid on the basis of Article 4(3) of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation, is the subject of a separate Commission decision (58). |
| --- | --- |

(182)

The Commission first notes that the compensation paid to Toremar for the operation of maritime public service obligations until the end of 2008 will not be assessed in this Decision. The assessment of that compensation, and whether or not it can be classified as existing aid on the basis of Article 4(3) of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation, is the subject of a separate Commission decision (58).

58

| (183) | According to Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (59), new aid means ‘all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid’. Furthermore, Article 108(3) TFEU provides that plans to grant or alter existing aid must be notified, in due time, to the Commission and may not be implemented until the procedure has led to a final decision (60). In line with the position of the European Courts (61), the Commission considers that amending (i.e. prolonging) the duration of an aid scheme that had a clear expiry date (i.e. 31 December 2008) is sufficient to make it a new aid irrespective of whether or not other characteristics of the measure were changed. |
| --- | --- |

(183)

According to Article 1(c) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 (59), new aid means ‘all aid, that is to say, aid schemes and individual aid, which is not existing aid, including alterations to existing aid’. Furthermore, Article 108(3) TFEU provides that plans to grant or alter existing aid must be notified, in due time, to the Commission and may not be implemented until the procedure has led to a final decision (60). In line with the position of the European Courts (61), the Commission considers that amending (i.e. prolonging) the duration of an aid scheme that had a clear expiry date (i.e. 31 December 2008) is sufficient to make it a new aid irrespective of whether or not other characteristics of the measure were changed.

59

60

61

| (184) | For the above reasons, the Commission considers that regardless of the fact that the compensation awarded to Toremar up until end 2008 has been classified as existing aid (62), the public service compensation paid on the basis of the prolongation of the initial Convention should be considered as new aid. This conclusion also holds for the berthing priority. |
| --- | --- |

(184)

For the above reasons, the Commission considers that regardless of the fact that the compensation awarded to Toremar up until end 2008 has been classified as existing aid (62), the public service compensation paid on the basis of the prolongation of the initial Convention should be considered as new aid. This conclusion also holds for the berthing priority.

62

6.1.2.   The award of the new public service contract bundled with Toremar’s business to Moby/Toremar

The award of the new public service contract bundled with Toremar’s business to Moby/Toremar

| (185) | In order to conclude on whether the award of the new public service contract bundled with Toremar’s business constitutes an advantage to Moby/Toremar within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Commission must assess observance of the Altmark criteria (see recital (170)). |
| --- | --- |

(185)

In order to conclude on whether the award of the new public service contract bundled with Toremar’s business constitutes an advantage to Moby/Toremar within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU, the Commission must assess observance of the Altmark criteria (see recital (170)).

Altmark

6.1.2.1.   Altmark 1

| (186) | The Commission recalls that there is no uniform and precise definition of a service that may constitute an SGEI under Union law, either within the meaning of the first Altmark condition or within the meaning of Article 106(2) TFEU (63). Paragraph 46 of the SGEI Communication is worded as follows:

  ‘In the absence of specific Union rules defining the scope for the existence of an SGEI, Member States have a wide margin of discretion in defining a given service as an SGEI and in granting compensation to the service provider. The Commission’s competence in this respect is limited to checking whether the Member State has made a manifest error when defining the service as an SGEI and to assessing any State aid involved in the compensation. Where specific Union rules exist, the Member States’ discretion is further bound by those rules, without prejudice to the Commission’s duty to carry out an assessment of whether the SGEI has been correctly defined for the purpose of State aid control.’ |
| --- | --- |

(186)

The Commission recalls that there is no uniform and precise definition of a service that may constitute an SGEI under Union law, either within the meaning of the first Altmark condition or within the meaning of Article 106(2) TFEU (63). Paragraph 46 of the SGEI Communication is worded as follows:

Altmark

63

‘In the absence of specific Union rules defining the scope for the existence of an SGEI, Member States have a wide margin of discretion in defining a given service as an SGEI and in granting compensation to the service provider. The Commission’s competence in this respect is limited to checking whether the Member State has made a manifest error when defining the service as an SGEI and to assessing any State aid involved in the compensation. Where specific Union rules exist, the Member States’ discretion is further bound by those rules, without prejudice to the Commission’s duty to carry out an assessment of whether the SGEI has been correctly defined for the purpose of State aid control.’

| (187) | National authorities are therefore entitled to take the view that certain services are in the general interest and must be operated by means of public service obligations to ensure that the public interest is protected when market forces do not suffice to guarantee that they are provided at the level or conditions required. |
| --- | --- |

(187)

National authorities are therefore entitled to take the view that certain services are in the general interest and must be operated by means of public service obligations to ensure that the public interest is protected when market forces do not suffice to guarantee that they are provided at the level or conditions required.

| (188) | In the field of cabotage, detailed Union rules governing public service obligations have been laid down in the Maritime Cabotage Regulation and, for the purpose of examining potential State aid to undertakings engaged in maritime transport, in the Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (‘the Maritime Guidelines’) (64). |
| --- | --- |

(188)

In the field of cabotage, detailed Union rules governing public service obligations have been laid down in the Maritime Cabotage Regulation and, for the purpose of examining potential State aid to undertakings engaged in maritime transport, in the Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (‘the Maritime Guidelines’) (64).

64

| (189) | Article 4(1) of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation provides:

  ‘A Member State may conclude public service contracts with or impose public service obligations as a condition for the provision of cabotage services, on shipping companies participating in regular services to, from and between islands. Whenever a Member State concludes public service contracts or imposes public service obligations, it shall do so on a non-discriminatory basis in respect of all Community shipowners.’ |
| --- | --- |

(189)

Article 4(1) of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation provides:

‘A Member State may conclude public service contracts with or impose public service obligations as a condition for the provision of cabotage services, on shipping companies participating in regular services to, from and between islands. Whenever a Member State concludes public service contracts or imposes public service obligations, it shall do so on a non-discriminatory basis in respect of all Community shipowners.’

| (190) | Article 2(3) of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation sets out that a public service contract may cover: transport services satisfying fixed standards of continuity, regularity, capacity and quality, additional transport services, transport services at specified rates and subject to specified conditions, in particular for certain categories of passengers or on certain routes and adjustments of services to actual requirements. |
| --- | --- |

(190)

Article 2(3) of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation sets out that a public service contract may cover: transport services satisfying fixed standards of continuity, regularity, capacity and quality, additional transport services, transport services at specified rates and subject to specified conditions, in particular for certain categories of passengers or on certain routes and adjustments of services to actual requirements.

| (191) | In accordance with Section 9 of the Maritime Guidelines, ‘public service obligations may be imposed or public service contracts (PSCs) may be concluded for the services indicated in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92’, i.e. scheduled services to, from and between islands. |
| --- | --- |

(191)

In accordance with Section 9 of the Maritime Guidelines, ‘public service obligations may be imposed or public service contracts (PSCs) may be concluded for the services indicated in Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92’, i.e. scheduled services to, from and between islands.

| (192) | It results from established case-law that public service obligations may only be imposed if justified by the need to ensure adequate regular maritime transport services which cannot be ensured by market forces alone (65). The Communication on interpretation of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation (66) confirms that ‘it is for the Member States (including regional and local authorities where appropriate) and not the shipowners to determine which routes require public service obligations. In particular, public service obligations may be envisaged for regular (scheduled) island cabotage services in the event of market failure to provide adequate services’. Moreover, Article 2(4) of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation defines public service obligations as obligations, which ‘the ship-owner in question, if he were considering his own commercial interest, would not assume or would not assume to the same extent or under the same conditions’. |
| --- | --- |

(192)

It results from established case-law that public service obligations may only be imposed if justified by the need to ensure adequate regular maritime transport services which cannot be ensured by market forces alone (65). The Communication on interpretation of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation (66) confirms that ‘it is for the Member States (including regional and local authorities where appropriate) and not the shipowners to determine which routes require public service obligations. In particular, public service obligations may be envisaged for regular (scheduled) island cabotage services in the event of market failure to provide adequate services’. Moreover, Article 2(4) of the Maritime Cabotage Regulation defines public service obligations as obligations, which ‘the ship-owner in question, if he were considering his own commercial interest, would not assume or would not assume to the same extent or under the same conditions’.

65

66

| (193) | In line with the case-law (67), in order to examine whether the first Altmark criterion is met, the Commission will carry out a three-step assessment to verify whether there is a real public service need (steps one and two) and whether it was necessary and proportional (step three). The Commission will assess:






  (1) | Whether there was user demand; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(193)

In line with the case-law (67), in order to examine whether the first Altmark criterion is met, the Commission will carry out a three-step assessment to verify whether there is a real public service need (steps one and two) and whether it was necessary and proportional (step three). The Commission will assess:

67

Altmark

(1)

Whether there was user demand;

user demand

| (2) | Whether that demand was not capable of being satisfied by the market operators in the absence of an obligation imposed by the public authorities (existence of a market failure); |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Whether that demand was not capable of being satisfied by the market operators in the absence of an obligation imposed by the public authorities (existence of a market failure);

existence of a market failure

| (3) | Whether simply having recourse to public service obligations was insufficient to remedy that shortage (least harmful approach). |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Whether simply having recourse to public service obligations was insufficient to remedy that shortage (least harmful approach).

least harmful approach

(1)   User demand

| (194) | In this case, Toremar was entrusted with the provision of mixed services (passenger and vehicles) on multiple lines presented in Table 3. The public service obligations of Toremar concerned the ports served, the type and capacity of the vessels assigned to the maritime connections operated under the public service regime, the frequency of service and the maximum fares to be charged. |
| --- | --- |

(194)

In this case, Toremar was entrusted with the provision of mixed services (passenger and vehicles) on multiple lines presented in Table 3. The public service obligations of Toremar concerned the ports served, the type and capacity of the vessels assigned to the maritime connections operated under the public service regime, the frequency of service and the maximum fares to be charged.

| (195) | As described in recital (123), Italy has imposed the public service obligations laid down in the new Convention mainly to (i) ensure the territorial continuity between the mainland and the islands and (ii) contribute to the economic development of the islands concerned, through regular and reliable maritime transport services. The Commission considers that these are indeed legitimate public interest objectives. |
| --- | --- |

(195)

As described in recital (123), Italy has imposed the public service obligations laid down in the new Convention mainly to (i) ensure the territorial continuity between the mainland and the islands and (ii) contribute to the economic development of the islands concerned, through regular and reliable maritime transport services. The Commission considers that these are indeed legitimate public interest objectives.

| (196) | Historically, the objectives pursued by Italy have not been achieved through the interplay of market forces alone. In fact, the adequacy of these services has been traditionally ensured by public service obligations imposed to that effect on the companies of the former Tirrenia Group and enshrined in the initial Conventions. Indeed, the Commission notes that the routes in question have been operated, largely unaltered, for many years i.e. at least since the entry into force of the initial Convention. Italy, and in particular the regional authorities concerned, considered that these services were (and continued to be) necessary to meet user demand. |
| --- | --- |

(196)

Historically, the objectives pursued by Italy have not been achieved through the interplay of market forces alone. In fact, the adequacy of these services has been traditionally ensured by public service obligations imposed to that effect on the companies of the former Tirrenia Group and enshrined in the initial Conventions. Indeed, the Commission notes that the routes in question have been operated, largely unaltered, for many years i.e. at least since the entry into force of the initial Convention. Italy, and in particular the regional authorities concerned, considered that these services were (and continued to be) necessary to meet user demand.

| (197) | To illustrate the genuine demand from users for the services, Italy provided aggregated statistics which show that in 2010 Toremar transported 1 462 570 passengers and 317 488 vehicles on the five public service routes combined. The numbers for 2011 were slightly lower (i.e. 1 437 613 passengers and 294 433 vehicles). This shows that in the 2 years before Moby/Toremar was entrusted with its public service obligations, there was a significant aggregate demand for maritime transport services on the routes concerned (see recital (297) for route-by-route statistics for the years 2009 until 2011). |
| --- | --- |

(197)

To illustrate the genuine demand from users for the services, Italy provided aggregated statistics which show that in 2010 Toremar transported 1 462 570 passengers and 317 488 vehicles on the five public service routes combined. The numbers for 2011 were slightly lower (i.e. 1 437 613 passengers and 294 433 vehicles). This shows that in the 2 years before Moby/Toremar was entrusted with its public service obligations, there was a significant aggregate demand for maritime transport services on the routes concerned (see recital (297) for route-by-route statistics for the years 2009 until 2011).

| (198) | To further demonstrate that user demand remained present when Moby/Toremar started operating on the basis of the new public service contract in all six routes, Italy also provided aggregated statistics until the end of 2018 (see Tables 4 and 5). This confirms that user demand remained present, with some slight deviations, upwards or downwards, with the exception of 2012 that saw a higher upwards deviation, which is mainly due to the structural renewal of the sales network, which has had a positive impact on the increase of traffic during the high season of that year. In any case, an analysis of the route-by-route statistics for each year until end 2018 did not provide any indications that the user demand on specific routes would have disappeared.













  Year | Line A1 | Line A2 | Line A2 fast | Line A3 | Line A4 | Line A5 | Total No of passengers |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2012 | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| 2013 | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| 2014 | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| 2015 | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| 2016 | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| 2017 | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
| 2018 | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |

(198)

To further demonstrate that user demand remained present when Moby/Toremar started operating on the basis of the new public service contract in all six routes, Italy also provided aggregated statistics until the end of 2018 (see Tables 4 and 5). This confirms that user demand remained present, with some slight deviations, upwards or downwards, with the exception of 2012 that saw a higher upwards deviation, which is mainly due to the structural renewal of the sales network, which has had a positive impact on the increase of traffic during the high season of that year. In any case, an analysis of the route-by-route statistics for each year until end 2018 did not provide any indications that the user demand on specific routes would have disappeared.

Year

Year

Line A1

Line A1

Line A2

Line A2

Line A2 fast

Line A2 fast

Line A3

Line A3

Line A4

Line A4

Line A5

Line A5

Total No of passengers

Total No of passengers

2012

2012

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

2013

2013

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

2014

2014

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

2015

2015

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

2016

2016

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

2017

2017

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

2018

2018

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

Table 4 – Passengers’ statistics for the years 2012-2018

Table 4 – Passengers’ statistics for the years 2012-2018

| Year | Line A1 | Line A2 | Line A2 fast | Line A3 | Line A4 | Line A5 | Total No of vehicles |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2012 | [...] | [...] | | [...] | [...] | | [...] |
| 2013 | [...] | [...] | | [...] | [...] | | [...] |
| 2014 | [...] | [...] | | [...] | [...] | | [...] |
| 2015 | [...] | [...] | | [...] | [...] | | [...] |
| 2016 | [...] | [...] | | [...] | [...] | | [...] |
| 2017 | [...] | [...] | | [...] | [...] | | [...] |
| 2018 | [...] | [...] | | [...] | [...] | | [...] |

Year

Year

Line A1

Line A1

Line A2

Line A2

Line A2 fast

Line A2 fast

Line A3

Line A3

Line A4

Line A4

Line A5

Line A5

Total No of vehicles

Total No of vehicles

2012

2012

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

2013

2013

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

2014

2014

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

2015

2015

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

2016

2016

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

2017

2017

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

2018

2018

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

Table 5 – Vehicles’ statistics for the years 2012-2018
   (68)

Table 5 – Vehicles’ statistics for the years 2012-2018

68

| (199) | The Commission considers that the above statistics clearly demonstrate that there is a genuine demand for passenger and mixed services on each of the six public service routes in question. It can therefore be concluded that these services address real public needs and meet a genuine user demand. |
| --- | --- |

(199)

The Commission considers that the above statistics clearly demonstrate that there is a genuine demand for passenger and mixed services on each of the six public service routes in question. It can therefore be concluded that these services address real public needs and meet a genuine user demand.

(2)   Existence of market failure

| (200) | According to paragraph 48 of the SGEI Communication, ‘it would not be appropriate to attach specific public service obligations to an activity which is already provided or can be provided satisfactorily and under conditions, such as price, objective quality characteristics, continuity and access to the service, consistent with the public interest, as defined by the State, by undertakings operating under normal market conditions (69)’. Therefore, the Commission must examine whether the service would be inadequate if its provision were left to the market forces alone in the light of the public service requirements imposed by the Member State by virtue of the new public service contract. Paragraph 48 of the SGEI Communication notes in this respect that ‘the Commission’s assessment is limited to checking whether the Member State has made a manifest error’. |
| --- | --- |

(200)

According to paragraph 48 of the SGEI Communication, ‘it would not be appropriate to attach specific public service obligations to an activity which is already provided or can be provided satisfactorily and under conditions, such as price, objective quality characteristics, continuity and access to the service, consistent with the public interest, as defined by the State, by undertakings operating under normal market conditions (69)’. Therefore, the Commission must examine whether the service would be inadequate if its provision were left to the market forces alone in the light of the public service requirements imposed by the Member State by virtue of the new public service contract. Paragraph 48 of the SGEI Communication notes in this respect that ‘the Commission’s assessment is limited to checking whether the Member State has made a manifest error’.

69

| (201) | The Commission notes that during the time period leading up to the signature of the new public service contract with Moby/Toremar, other operators offered ferry services on some routes subject to the new public service contract albeit not necessarily throughout the year and with the same frequency. On the basis of the competitive situation leading up to the moment of entrustment on 2 January 2012 (as described in recital (38)), the Commission will assess for each of the routes concerned whether the services provided by other operators were equivalent to those that Moby/Toremar had to provide under the new public service contract. |
| --- | --- |

(201)

The Commission notes that during the time period leading up to the signature of the new public service contract with Moby/Toremar, other operators offered ferry services on some routes subject to the new public service contract albeit not necessarily throughout the year and with the same frequency. On the basis of the competitive situation leading up to the moment of entrustment on 2 January 2012 (as described in recital (38)), the Commission will assess for each of the routes concerned whether the services provided by other operators were equivalent to those that Moby/Toremar had to provide under the new public service contract.

| (202) | The table below describes the competitive situation on the routes operated by Moby/Toremar:








  Route | Moby/Toremar (all year round sailings per day) | Competitors (sailings per day) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Livorno – Gorgona – Capraia (Line A1) | Mixed service (passengers and vehicles) | None |
| Portoferraio –Piombino (island of Elba) (Line A2) | Mixed service with an average of:






  — | From January to April 8 sailings |

(202)

The table below describes the competitive situation on the routes operated by Moby/Toremar:

Route

Route

Moby/Toremar (all year round sailings per day)

Moby/Toremar (all year round sailings per day)

Competitors (sailings per day)

Competitors (sailings per day)

Livorno – Gorgona – Capraia (Line A1)

(Line A1)

Mixed service (passengers and vehicles)

None

Portoferraio –Piombino (island of Elba) (Line A2)

(Line A2)

Mixed service with an average of:

—

From January to April 8 sailings

| — | From April to September 15 sailings |
| --- | --- |

—

From April to September 15 sailings

| — | From September to December 8 sailings |
| --- | --- |

—

From September to December 8 sailings

Moby (mixed service all year round) with an average of:

Moby

| — | From January to March 6 sailings |
| --- | --- |

—

From January to March 6 sailings

| — | In April 8 sailings, in May 12 sailings and in September 10 sailings |
| --- | --- |

—

In April 8 sailings, in May 12 sailings and in September 10 sailings

| — | From June to August 12 sailings |
| --- | --- |

—

From June to August 12 sailings

| — | In October 8 sailings |
| --- | --- |

—

In October 8 sailings

| — | In November and December 6 sailings |
| --- | --- |

—

In November and December 6 sailings

Blu Navy (mixed service)

Blu Navy

| — | In 2012 (all year round) with an average of 5 sailings |
| --- | --- |

—

In 2012 (all year round) with an average of 5 sailings

| — | Since 2013, only between March to October, with an average of 5 sailings |
| --- | --- |

—

Since 2013, only between March to October, with an average of 5 sailings

Elba Ferries (mixed service from June to September) with an average of 5 to 6 sailings

Elba Ferries

Piombino –Cavo – Portoferraio (island of Elba (Line A2 fast)

(Line A2 fast)

Fast passenger service

None

Piombino – Rio Marina – Pianosa (island of Elba) (Line A3)

(Line A3)

Mixed service

None

Porto S. Stefano – Island of Giglio (Line A4)

(Line A4)

Mixed service with an average of:

| — | From January to March 3 to 4 sailings |
| --- | --- |

—

From January to March 3 to 4 sailings

| — | From April to September 4 to 5 sailings |
| --- | --- |

—

From April to September 4 to 5 sailings

| — | From September to December 4 sailings |
| --- | --- |

—

From September to December 4 sailings

Maregiglio (mixed service all year round) with an average of:

Maregiglio

| — | From January to March 0,5 to 1 sailing |
| --- | --- |

—

From January to March 0,5 to 1 sailing

| — | In April and May 2 sailings |
| --- | --- |

—

In April and May 2 sailings

| — | In June and July 5 to 6 sailings |
| --- | --- |

—

In June and July 5 to 6 sailings

| — | In August and September 3 to 4 sailings |
| --- | --- |

—

In August and September 3 to 4 sailings

| — | In October 1 to 2 sailings |
| --- | --- |

—

In October 1 to 2 sailings

| — | In November and December 1 sailing |
| --- | --- |

—

In November and December 1 sailing

Porto S. Stefano – Giannutri (Line A5)

(Line A5)

Passenger service offered by Maregiglio on subcontract with Moby/Toremar (70)

70

None

Table 6 – Competitive situation on the routes operated by Moby/Toremar

Table 6 – Competitive situation on the routes operated by Moby/Toremar

| (203) | The Commission considers, as it is clearly shown in Table 6, that the services offered by Moby/Toremar are not substitutable to those offered by other competitors, as the latter do not serve or do not serve in full the public service obligations laid down by the new public service contract, notably in terms of the continuity throughout the year of the service operated by Toremar. That said, on three of the six routes, there is no other operator apart from Moby/Toremar offering the service (Lines A2 fast, A3 and A5). As a result, the public service obligations laid down in the contract with Moby/Toremar for operating those three routes are justified by a genuine public need to ensure territorial continuity, when this cannot be offered by the market alone. |
| --- | --- |

(203)

The Commission considers, as it is clearly shown in Table 6, that the services offered by Moby/Toremar are not substitutable to those offered by other competitors, as the latter do not serve or do not serve in full the public service obligations laid down by the new public service contract, notably in terms of the continuity throughout the year of the service operated by Toremar. That said, on three of the six routes, there is no other operator apart from Moby/Toremar offering the service (Lines A2 fast, A3 and A5). As a result, the public service obligations laid down in the contract with Moby/Toremar for operating those three routes are justified by a genuine public need to ensure territorial continuity, when this cannot be offered by the market alone.

| (204) | As regards the routes where other operators also offer services (Lines A2, and A4), the Commission considers that there are major differences concerning the regularity of the services offered. Moby/Toremar sails those routes throughout the year continuously, whereas all the other operators mentioned above in the table (i.e. Blu Navy, Elba Ferries and Maregiglio) do not offer this continuous service all year round (in the case of Blu Navy and Elba Ferries) nor do they do so at the same level of frequency as Moby/Toremar. For example, Blu Navy started sailing in 2010 between April and November. Then in 2012 it sailed all year round with an average of 5 sailings and in 2013 it returned to its initial schedule of sailing only during March and October. Maregiglio sails the Line A4 all year round, nevertheless with a reduced number of sailings compared to Moby/Toremar. In particular, during the period January to February and November to December, Maregiglio does not sail every day, with the monthly sailings varying between 20 and 30. As a result, without the service of Moby/Toremar on those particular routes, the need for regular and frequent connectivity of those islands with the mainland all year round would be materially jeopardised, as both Blu Navy and Elba Ferries could not have provided the service under the same conditions as Moby/Toremar over the whole contract period. |
| --- | --- |

(204)

As regards the routes where other operators also offer services (Lines A2, and A4), the Commission considers that there are major differences concerning the regularity of the services offered. Moby/Toremar sails those routes throughout the year continuously, whereas all the other operators mentioned above in the table (i.e. Blu Navy, Elba Ferries and Maregiglio) do not offer this continuous service all year round (in the case of Blu Navy and Elba Ferries) nor do they do so at the same level of frequency as Moby/Toremar. For example, Blu Navy started sailing in 2010 between April and November. Then in 2012 it sailed all year round with an average of 5 sailings and in 2013 it returned to its initial schedule of sailing only during March and October. Maregiglio sails the Line A4 all year round, nevertheless with a reduced number of sailings compared to Moby/Toremar. In particular, during the period January to February and November to December, Maregiglio does not sail every day, with the monthly sailings varying between 20 and 30. As a result, without the service of Moby/Toremar on those particular routes, the need for regular and frequent connectivity of those islands with the mainland all year round would be materially jeopardised, as both Blu Navy and Elba Ferries could not have provided the service under the same conditions as Moby/Toremar over the whole contract period.

| (205) | Particularly as regards the service operated by Moby (as a competitor to Moby/Toremar) on Line A2, the Commission notes that Moby sails regularly throughout the year as well as frequently on a daily basis (e.g. from 5 sailings during the winter period to 17 sailings during the summer period), performing thus a very similar service to that of Moby/Toremar. |
| --- | --- |

(205)

Particularly as regards the service operated by Moby (as a competitor to Moby/Toremar) on Line A2, the Commission notes that Moby sails regularly throughout the year as well as frequently on a daily basis (e.g. from 5 sailings during the winter period to 17 sailings during the summer period), performing thus a very similar service to that of Moby/Toremar.

| (206) | Nevertheless, Italy has provided information showing that the continuation of the public service by Moby/Toremar was necessary and responded to a real public service need and that this public need for maritime connectivity could not be met by Moby alone.






  (1) | First, the timetable of Moby/Toremar had been adjusted in the context of the new public service contract in order to ensure intermodal transportation, notably a better integration of maritime services with the railway services offered at the Piombino and Campiglia Marittima railway stations; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(206)

Nevertheless, Italy has provided information showing that the continuation of the public service by Moby/Toremar was necessary and responded to a real public service need and that this public need for maritime connectivity could not be met by Moby alone.

(1)

First, the timetable of Moby/Toremar had been adjusted in the context of the new public service contract in order to ensure intermodal transportation, notably a better integration of maritime services with the railway services offered at the Piombino and Campiglia Marittima railway stations;

| (2) | Second, Italy has demonstrated that the existence of an operator entrusted with public service obligations would enable effective maritime service continuity throughout the winter period and reduce substantially and at the interest of the general population, the waiting time at the dock by almost one hour and a half (e.g. from three hours in Piombino in the absence of Toremar to one hour and a half in the case of both Toremar and Moby); |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Second, Italy has demonstrated that the existence of an operator entrusted with public service obligations would enable effective maritime service continuity throughout the winter period and reduce substantially and at the interest of the general population, the waiting time at the dock by almost one hour and a half (e.g. from three hours in Piombino in the absence of Toremar to one hour and a half in the case of both Toremar and Moby);

| (3) | Third, on the basis of the public service contract Moby/Toremar performs an additional daily all year round evening sailing within the time span between 30 minutes after its last (at the time of entrustment) sail and 00.30 am (see recital (258)). Moby/Toremar thus runs the last time slot daily on Line A2 (22.00 pm or 22.30 pm depending on day and month). The timetables assessed also show that Moby/Toremar has the first sailing from Portoferraio to the mainland. Therefore, the vessels of Moby/Toremar dock in the island port at night, with higher costs, to provide the very first connection in the morning for residents commuting for either education or work and to ensure connections in case of medical emergencies; |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Third, on the basis of the public service contract Moby/Toremar performs an additional daily all year round evening sailing within the time span between 30 minutes after its last (at the time of entrustment) sail and 00.30 am (see recital (258)). Moby/Toremar thus runs the last time slot daily on Line A2 (22.00 pm or 22.30 pm depending on day and month). The timetables assessed also show that Moby/Toremar has the first sailing from Portoferraio to the mainland. Therefore, the vessels of Moby/Toremar dock in the island port at night, with higher costs, to provide the very first connection in the morning for residents commuting for either education or work and to ensure connections in case of medical emergencies;

| (4) | Fourth, it has been submitted that Moby alone could not be in a position to satisfy the high volume of passengers in need of transportation between Piombino and Portoferraio and vice versa. Although, much higher volume of passengers is evidently transported during the summer months, the figures observed in the first 3 months of 2012 (i.e. during the low season) indicate that there has been a constant presence of passengers on board for either vessel (Moby/Toremar or Moby) that needed to commute in both directions for work, study or other personal purposes. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Fourth, it has been submitted that Moby alone could not be in a position to satisfy the high volume of passengers in need of transportation between Piombino and Portoferraio and vice versa. Although, much higher volume of passengers is evidently transported during the summer months, the figures observed in the first 3 months of 2012 (i.e. during the low season) indicate that there has been a constant presence of passengers on board for either vessel (Moby/Toremar or Moby) that needed to commute in both directions for work, study or other personal purposes.

vice versa

| (207) | In light of the above, the Commission concludes that at the moment of the entrustment, market forces alone were insufficient to meet the public service needs. Indeed, on a number of routes Moby/Toremar was the only operator while on the other routes the services provided by the competitors in the Tuscany archipelago were not equivalent in terms of continuity, regularity, capacity and quality and therefore did not satisfy in full the public service requirements laid down in the new service contract with Moby/Toremar. |
| --- | --- |

(207)

In light of the above, the Commission concludes that at the moment of the entrustment, market forces alone were insufficient to meet the public service needs. Indeed, on a number of routes Moby/Toremar was the only operator while on the other routes the services provided by the competitors in the Tuscany archipelago were not equivalent in terms of continuity, regularity, capacity and quality and therefore did not satisfy in full the public service requirements laid down in the new service contract with Moby/Toremar.

(3)   Least harmful approach

| (208) | The Commission notes that Italy has chosen to conclude a public service contract with one operator (Moby/Toremar) rather than to impose public service obligations on all operators interested in serving the routes at stake. Based on the information provided by Italy, the Commission accepts that user demand could not have been met by imposing public service obligations (see recital (196)). In particular, on several routes Moby/Toremar is the only operator and where this is not the case, the offer provided by the other operators does not meet (all) the requirements of regularity, continuity and quality. Further, the operation of most routes, especially in the low season, is loss-making, so that without public service compensation they would not be operated at all. In addition, the Commission takes note of Italy’s and the beneficiaries’ argument that the choice for a public service contract was also necessary in view of the privatisation of Toremar. More specifically, Italy argues that tendering out Toremar together with a new public service contract allowed to (i) ensure continuity of the maritime public service and (ii) maximise value for the State. It is for these reasons that the Commission agreed (see recital (96)) that Italy would tender out Toremar business together with a new public service contract. In doing so, the Commission also accepted, and reiterates in this Decision, that Italy could not rely on public service obligations that apply to all operators but that it would rather conclude a public service contract with Moby/Toremar only. |
| --- | --- |

(208)

The Commission notes that Italy has chosen to conclude a public service contract with one operator (Moby/Toremar) rather than to impose public service obligations on all operators interested in serving the routes at stake. Based on the information provided by Italy, the Commission accepts that user demand could not have been met by imposing public service obligations (see recital (196)). In particular, on several routes Moby/Toremar is the only operator and where this is not the case, the offer provided by the other operators does not meet (all) the requirements of regularity, continuity and quality. Further, the operation of most routes, especially in the low season, is loss-making, so that without public service compensation they would not be operated at all. In addition, the Commission takes note of Italy’s and the beneficiaries’ argument that the choice for a public service contract was also necessary in view of the privatisation of Toremar. More specifically, Italy argues that tendering out Toremar together with a new public service contract allowed to (i) ensure continuity of the maritime public service and (ii) maximise value for the State. It is for these reasons that the Commission agreed (see recital (96)) that Italy would tender out Toremar business together with a new public service contract. In doing so, the Commission also accepted, and reiterates in this Decision, that Italy could not rely on public service obligations that apply to all operators but that it would rather conclude a public service contract with Moby/Toremar only.

Conclusion

| (209) | On the basis of the above assessment, the Commission concludes that Italy has not made a manifest error when defining the services entrusted to Moby/Toremar as SGEI. The doubts expressed by the Commission in the 2012 Decision are hence dispelled. |
| --- | --- |

(209)

On the basis of the above assessment, the Commission concludes that Italy has not made a manifest error when defining the services entrusted to Moby/Toremar as SGEI. The doubts expressed by the Commission in the 2012 Decision are hence dispelled.

| (210) | In order to conclude that Altmark 1 is complied with, the Commission must still check whether Moby/Toremar was entrusted with public service obligations which were clearly defined. In this regard, the Commission notes that the public service obligations are clearly described in the new public service contract and its annexes (which include for instance ship specifications for each route). Likewise, the rules regulating the compensation are detailed in the new public service contract, the 2009 Law and the CIPE Directive. The new public service contract also has a clear duration (12 years), identifies Moby/Toremar as the public service operator and contains the arrangements for avoiding and recovering any overcompensation (see also recital (228)). Therefore, the Commission concludes that the first Altmark criterion is observed. |
| --- | --- |

(210)

In order to conclude that Altmark 1 is complied with, the Commission must still check whether Moby/Toremar was entrusted with public service obligations which were clearly defined. In this regard, the Commission notes that the public service obligations are clearly described in the new public service contract and its annexes (which include for instance ship specifications for each route). Likewise, the rules regulating the compensation are detailed in the new public service contract, the 2009 Law and the CIPE Directive. The new public service contract also has a clear duration (12 years), identifies Moby/Toremar as the public service operator and contains the arrangements for avoiding and recovering any overcompensation (see also recital (228)). Therefore, the Commission concludes that the first Altmark criterion is observed.

Altmark

Altmark

Berthing priority

| (211) | Article 19-ter, paragraph 21, of the 2009 Law clearly specifies that the berthing priority is necessary to guarantee the territorial continuity with the islands and in light of the public service obligations of the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Moby/Toremar. Indeed, if there were no priority berthing for companies entrusted with public service obligations, these may (sometimes) have to wait their turn before docking and thereby incur delays, which would defeat the purpose of ensuring reliable and convenient connectivity to the citizens. A regular timetable is indeed necessary to satisfy mobility needs of the islands’ population and to contribute to the economic development of the islands concerned. Furthermore, since there are specific time scheduling obligations in the new public service contract for the departure of public service routes, the berthing priority helps to ensure that ports allocate the berths and berthing times in such a way to enable the public service operator to respect its public service obligations. This berthing priority was transferred to Moby/Toremar when Toremar was acquired. Against this background, the Commission considers that this measure is awarded to enable Moby/Toremar to perform their public service obligations which constitute genuine SGEI (see recital (209)). Furthermore, Italy has confirmed that the berthing priority is only applicable to services provided under the public service regime. Therefore, the berthing priority also complies with the first condition of the Altmark judgment. |
| --- | --- |

(211)

Article 19-ter, paragraph 21, of the 2009 Law clearly specifies that the berthing priority is necessary to guarantee the territorial continuity with the islands and in light of the public service obligations of the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Moby/Toremar. Indeed, if there were no priority berthing for companies entrusted with public service obligations, these may (sometimes) have to wait their turn before docking and thereby incur delays, which would defeat the purpose of ensuring reliable and convenient connectivity to the citizens. A regular timetable is indeed necessary to satisfy mobility needs of the islands’ population and to contribute to the economic development of the islands concerned. Furthermore, since there are specific time scheduling obligations in the new public service contract for the departure of public service routes, the berthing priority helps to ensure that ports allocate the berths and berthing times in such a way to enable the public service operator to respect its public service obligations. This berthing priority was transferred to Moby/Toremar when Toremar was acquired. Against this background, the Commission considers that this measure is awarded to enable Moby/Toremar to perform their public service obligations which constitute genuine SGEI (see recital (209)). Furthermore, Italy has confirmed that the berthing priority is only applicable to services provided under the public service regime. Therefore, the berthing priority also complies with the first condition of the Altmark judgment.

-ter,

Altmark

6.1.2.2.   Altmark 2

| (212) | The Commission recalls that in the 2012 Decision (see its paragraph 205), it had taken the preliminary view that the second criterion of the Altmark judgment is observed. |
| --- | --- |

(212)

The Commission recalls that in the 2012 Decision (see its paragraph 205), it had taken the preliminary view that the second criterion of the Altmark judgment is observed.

Altmark

| (213) | Against this background, the Commission notes that the parameters at the basis of the calculation of the compensation have been established in advance and observe the transparency requirements in line with the second Altmark criterion. |
| --- | --- |

(213)

Against this background, the Commission notes that the parameters at the basis of the calculation of the compensation have been established in advance and observe the transparency requirements in line with the second Altmark criterion.

Altmark

| (214) | More specifically, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation was calculated are explained in detail in the CIPE Directive and have been applied in the new public service contract (and annexes thereto). The method of calculation of the compensation, including for instance the cost elements taken into account, are detailed in the CIPE Directive. Since the berthing priority does not entail financial compensation for Moby/Toremar, the Commission considers that this measure complies with Altmark 2. |
| --- | --- |

(214)

More specifically, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation was calculated are explained in detail in the CIPE Directive and have been applied in the new public service contract (and annexes thereto). The method of calculation of the compensation, including for instance the cost elements taken into account, are detailed in the CIPE Directive. Since the berthing priority does not entail financial compensation for Moby/Toremar, the Commission considers that this measure complies with Altmark 2.

Altmark

| (215) | Therefore, the Commission concludes that the second condition of the Altmark judgment is observed. |
| --- | --- |

(215)

Therefore, the Commission concludes that the second condition of the Altmark judgment is observed.

Altmark

6.1.2.3.   Altmark 3

| (216) | According to the third Altmark condition, the compensation received for the discharge of the SGEI cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations. |
| --- | --- |

(216)

According to the third Altmark condition, the compensation received for the discharge of the SGEI cannot exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit for discharging those obligations.

Altmark

| (217) | However, the Altmark ruling does not provide a precise definition of the reasonable profit. According to the SGEI Communication, reasonable profit should be taken to mean the rate of return on capital that would be required by a typical company considering whether or not to provide the service of general economic interest for the whole duration of the period of entrustment, taking into account the level of risk. The level of risk depends on the sector concerned, the type of service and the characteristics of the compensation mechanism. |
| --- | --- |

(217)

However, the Altmark ruling does not provide a precise definition of the reasonable profit. According to the SGEI Communication, reasonable profit should be taken to mean the rate of return on capital that would be required by a typical company considering whether or not to provide the service of general economic interest for the whole duration of the period of entrustment, taking into account the level of risk. The level of risk depends on the sector concerned, the type of service and the characteristics of the compensation mechanism.

Altmark

| (218) | In the 2012 Decision, the Commission expressed doubts as to the proportionality of the compensation paid to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Moby/Toremar as from 2012. In particular, the Commission took the preliminary view that the 6,5 % fixed risk premium did not reflect an appropriate level of risk because prima facie Moby/Toremar did not appear to assume the risks normally borne in the operation of such services. More specifically, the cost elements for the purpose of calculation of the compensation include all costs involved in the provision of the service and variations in e.g. fuel prices have been taken into account. As a result, the Commission considered at that stage that Moby/Toremar may have been overcompensated. |
| --- | --- |

(218)

In the 2012 Decision, the Commission expressed doubts as to the proportionality of the compensation paid to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Moby/Toremar as from 2012. In particular, the Commission took the preliminary view that the 6,5 % fixed risk premium did not reflect an appropriate level of risk because prima facie Moby/Toremar did not appear to assume the risks normally borne in the operation of such services. More specifically, the cost elements for the purpose of calculation of the compensation include all costs involved in the provision of the service and variations in e.g. fuel prices have been taken into account. As a result, the Commission considered at that stage that Moby/Toremar may have been overcompensated.

prima facie

| (219) | The Commission notes that certain aspects of the compensation method as laid down in the new public service contract, indeed seem to reduce the commercial risk incurred by Moby/Toremar. In particular, the maximum fares that Moby/Toremar can charge are adjusted annually to take into account inflation and reflect variations in the consumer price index. Moreover, the new public service contract contains certain clauses (see recital (87)) that aim at maintaining the economic-financial equilibrium of the public service. In particular, in case the public service compensation would be insufficient to cover the cost of the services entrusted by the new public service contract, these clauses allow to revise (i) the tariff system, (ii) the level of the public services offered, (iii) the level of the annual price cap, and (iv) the capital grants for investments. |
| --- | --- |

(219)

The Commission notes that certain aspects of the compensation method as laid down in the new public service contract, indeed seem to reduce the commercial risk incurred by Moby/Toremar. In particular, the maximum fares that Moby/Toremar can charge are adjusted annually to take into account inflation and reflect variations in the consumer price index. Moreover, the new public service contract contains certain clauses (see recital (87)) that aim at maintaining the economic-financial equilibrium of the public service. In particular, in case the public service compensation would be insufficient to cover the cost of the services entrusted by the new public service contract, these clauses allow to revise (i) the tariff system, (ii) the level of the public services offered, (iii) the level of the annual price cap, and (iv) the capital grants for investments.

| (220) | According to Article 26 of the contract, when there is a discrepancy in its economic and financial balance, Moby/Toremar may request a rebalancing by submitting a proposal to the Region of Tuscany. This proposal is then submitted to the Technical Committee responsible of managing the contract. Italy has supplied the Commission with information (see Table 7) showing the rebalancing contributions, due to higher VAT costs borne by Moby/Toremar and fuel price increases, during the period 2012-2018.









  EUR | Public compensation under the contract | Rebalancing contribution | Total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2012 | 13 291 109 | 2 033 145 | 15 324 254 |
| 2013 | 13 234 326 | - | 13 234 326 |
| 2014 | 13 287 102 | 1 150 000 | 14 437 102 |
| 2015 | 13 366 507 | 677 052 | 14 043 559 |
| 2016 | 13 212 118 | - | 13 212 118 |
| 2017 | 13 523 598 | - | 13 523 598 |
| 2018 | 13 706 440 | - | 13 706 440 |

(220)

According to Article 26 of the contract, when there is a discrepancy in its economic and financial balance, Moby/Toremar may request a rebalancing by submitting a proposal to the Region of Tuscany. This proposal is then submitted to the Technical Committee responsible of managing the contract. Italy has supplied the Commission with information (see Table 7) showing the rebalancing contributions, due to higher VAT costs borne by Moby/Toremar and fuel price increases, during the period 2012-2018.

EUR

EUR

Public compensation under the contract

Public compensation under the contract

Rebalancing contribution

Rebalancing contribution

Total

Total

2012

2012

13 291 109

2 033 145

15 324 254

2013

2013

13 234 326

-

13 234 326

2014

2014

13 287 102

1 150 000

14 437 102

2015

2015

13 366 507

677 052

14 043 559

2016

2016

13 212 118

-

13 212 118

2017

2017

13 523 598

-

13 523 598

2018

2018

13 706 440

-

13 706 440

Table 7 – Rebalancing contributions

Table 7 – Rebalancing contributions

| (221) | As illustrated in the table above and further explained by Italy, in order to maintain the economic balance of the contract, the compensation was adjusted for 2012, whereas from 2013 until the end of the contract, action was taken on the tariff system, adjusting the fare pricing. A further adjustment of the compensation took place in 2014 and 2015 resulting in an additional rebalancing contribution due to the inadequate tariff system of 2013 and 2014 respectively, while no adjustment was necessary for 2016 to 2018. |
| --- | --- |

(221)

As illustrated in the table above and further explained by Italy, in order to maintain the economic balance of the contract, the compensation was adjusted for 2012, whereas from 2013 until the end of the contract, action was taken on the tariff system, adjusting the fare pricing. A further adjustment of the compensation took place in 2014 and 2015 resulting in an additional rebalancing contribution due to the inadequate tariff system of 2013 and 2014 respectively, while no adjustment was necessary for 2016 to 2018.

| (222) | Although these safeguards seem to reduce the commercial risk incurred by Moby/Toremar, the Commission considers that the company remains exposed to the risk that the compensation may not be sufficient to cover the costs of running the service. The rebalancing proposal may not always be accepted, as the Region of Tuscany shall rule on the merits and adopt its decision having obtained the Technical Committee’s opinion within 90 days of Moby/Toremar submitting its request. Until a decision is adopted, Moby/Toremar must continue to operate the public service unaltered. Indeed, in one instance, such rebalancing request has been rejected because the conditions of Article 26 of the public service contract were not met (71). |
| --- | --- |

(222)

Although these safeguards seem to reduce the commercial risk incurred by Moby/Toremar, the Commission considers that the company remains exposed to the risk that the compensation may not be sufficient to cover the costs of running the service. The rebalancing proposal may not always be accepted, as the Region of Tuscany shall rule on the merits and adopt its decision having obtained the Technical Committee’s opinion within 90 days of Moby/Toremar submitting its request. Until a decision is adopted, Moby/Toremar must continue to operate the public service unaltered. Indeed, in one instance, such rebalancing request has been rejected because the conditions of Article 26 of the public service contract were not met (71).

71

| (223) | In addition, the Commission notes that not all cost categories are subjected to a rebalancing contribution. Particularly, according to Article 26 of the public service contract, the costs related to managerial inefficiencies, the borrowing costs and increases in staff unit costs to meet labour legal requirements should be borne by Moby/Toremar. Therefore, Moby/Toremar remains incentivised to perform its services efficiently and at the least cost to the community. |
| --- | --- |

(223)

In addition, the Commission notes that not all cost categories are subjected to a rebalancing contribution. Particularly, according to Article 26 of the public service contract, the costs related to managerial inefficiencies, the borrowing costs and increases in staff unit costs to meet labour legal requirements should be borne by Moby/Toremar. Therefore, Moby/Toremar remains incentivised to perform its services efficiently and at the least cost to the community.

| (224) | As mentioned above in recitals (46) to (50), the CIPE Directive provides that a risk premium of 6,5 % would be used to determine the return on capital using the WACC formula. However, in practice the 6,5 % was applied as a flat rate return on capital (see also recital (133)). |
| --- | --- |

(224)

As mentioned above in recitals (46) to (50), the CIPE Directive provides that a risk premium of 6,5 % would be used to determine the return on capital using the WACC formula. However, in practice the 6,5 % was applied as a flat rate return on capital (see also recital (133)).

| (225) | As illustrated in Table 8, the figures for the period 2012-2018 show that the actual public service compensation was insufficient to cover the net cost of the service including the 6,5 % return on capital. In line with paragraph 47 of the 2011 SGEI Framework, the Commission assesses whether there was overcompensation over the whole duration of the contract. For the period 2012-2018, Moby/Toremar received slightly over EUR 4 million less than the eligible amount. In essence, over this period the compensation paid to Moby/Toremar covered the net cost of the public service but there was hardly any (i.e. slightly over EUR 30 000 in total) return on capital in practice. These figures confirm that the rebalancing provisions of Article 26 of the contract do not protect Moby/Toremar from all the risks related to the operation of the public service.






  Table 8 – Net cost of the public service operated by Toremar for the period 2012-2018 |
| --- | --- |

(225)

As illustrated in Table 8, the figures for the period 2012-2018 show that the actual public service compensation was insufficient to cover the net cost of the service including the 6,5 % return on capital. In line with paragraph 47 of the 2011 SGEI Framework, the Commission assesses whether there was overcompensation over the whole duration of the contract. For the period 2012-2018, Moby/Toremar received slightly over EUR 4 million less than the eligible amount. In essence, over this period the compensation paid to Moby/Toremar covered the net cost of the public service but there was hardly any (i.e. slightly over EUR 30 000 in total) return on capital in practice. These figures confirm that the rebalancing provisions of Article 26 of the contract do not protect Moby/Toremar from all the risks related to the operation of the public service.

Image 1

Table 8 – Net cost of the public service operated by Toremar for the period 2012-2018

Table 8 – Net cost of the public service operated by Toremar for the period 2012-2018

| (226) | In the course of the formal investigation (see recital (133)), Italy has clarified that, because the tender amount of compensation was capped by the 2009 Law, the decision was taken to simplify the calculation by applying the 6,5 % as a flat rate return on capital. Italy considers that its simplified approach is conservative (see recital (134)) and does not allow for higher compensation for Moby/Toremar than what was established under the CIPE Directive. |
| --- | --- |

(226)

In the course of the formal investigation (see recital (133)), Italy has clarified that, because the tender amount of compensation was capped by the 2009 Law, the decision was taken to simplify the calculation by applying the 6,5 % as a flat rate return on capital. Italy considers that its simplified approach is conservative (see recital (134)) and does not allow for higher compensation for Moby/Toremar than what was established under the CIPE Directive.

| (227) | Against this background, the Commission has compared the return on capital employed of 6,5 % % that has been applied to Moby/Toremar with the median return on capital generated by a benchmark group in 2011 (the year before Moby/Toremar’s entrustment). The benchmark group consists of selected ferry operators that offered maritime connections within Italy or between Italy and other Member States (72). The analysis shows that the return on capital realised by Moby/Toremar is just below the median return generated by the benchmark group. This comparison illustrates that in the year before Moby/Toremar’s entrustment, a 6,5 % return on capital was not unreasonable. |
| --- | --- |

(227)

Against this background, the Commission has compared the return on capital employed of 6,5 % % that has been applied to Moby/Toremar with the median return on capital generated by a benchmark group in 2011 (the year before Moby/Toremar’s entrustment). The benchmark group consists of selected ferry operators that offered maritime connections within Italy or between Italy and other Member States (72). The analysis shows that the return on capital realised by Moby/Toremar is just below the median return generated by the benchmark group. This comparison illustrates that in the year before Moby/Toremar’s entrustment, a 6,5 % return on capital was not unreasonable.

72

| (228) | The Commission further notes positively that the new public service contract requires Moby/Toremar to send its management accounts (sub-divided per route and certified by an independent auditor) every year to the Region of Tuscany to enable the latter to check if there was any overcompensation. This provides an additional safeguard to ensure that Toremar cannot benefit from any overcompensation. In addition, since Toremar performed only commercial activities, cross-subsidisation is in any event excluded. Italy also submitted these management accounts for the period 2012-2018 thereby enabling the Commission to make the calculations in Table 8. |
| --- | --- |

(228)

The Commission further notes positively that the new public service contract requires Moby/Toremar to send its management accounts (sub-divided per route and certified by an independent auditor) every year to the Region of Tuscany to enable the latter to check if there was any overcompensation. This provides an additional safeguard to ensure that Toremar cannot benefit from any overcompensation. In addition, since Toremar performed only commercial activities, cross-subsidisation is in any event excluded. Italy also submitted these management accounts for the period 2012-2018 thereby enabling the Commission to make the calculations in Table 8.

| (229) | In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the public service compensation granted to Toremar does not exceed what is necessary to cover the costs incurred in the discharge of its public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit. More specifically, the Commission considers that the risk premium of 6,5 % laid down by the CIPE Directive, has to be assessed in combination with the maximum compensation amount laid down in the 2009 Law. With this in mind, the return on capital that Toremar could expect from an ex ante perspective was in line with the risks it ran when operating the public services under the public service contract. The Commission’s doubts concerning compliance with the third condition of the Altmark judgment are therefore dispelled. |
| --- | --- |

(229)

In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the public service compensation granted to Toremar does not exceed what is necessary to cover the costs incurred in the discharge of its public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit. More specifically, the Commission considers that the risk premium of 6,5 % laid down by the CIPE Directive, has to be assessed in combination with the maximum compensation amount laid down in the 2009 Law. With this in mind, the return on capital that Toremar could expect from an ex ante perspective was in line with the risks it ran when operating the public services under the public service contract. The Commission’s doubts concerning compliance with the third condition of the Altmark judgment are therefore dispelled.

ex ante

Altmark

| (230) | With respect to the berthing priority and any possible overcompensation that might result from it, the Commission notes the following. Italy argues that any possible monetary advantage from the berthing priority would be limited (see recital (137)). As a result, also the risk of overcompensation stemming from this measure would be limited. In addition, to the extent that this measure would reduce the operating costs or increase the revenues of the public service operator, these effects would be fully reflected in the operator’s internal accounts. The Commission’s analysis above (see recital (228)) confirmed that in the period 2012-2018 Moby/Toremar did not receive overcompensation. Therefore, the Commission concludes that also the berthing priority complies with the third Altmark criterion. |
| --- | --- |

(230)

With respect to the berthing priority and any possible overcompensation that might result from it, the Commission notes the following. Italy argues that any possible monetary advantage from the berthing priority would be limited (see recital (137)). As a result, also the risk of overcompensation stemming from this measure would be limited. In addition, to the extent that this measure would reduce the operating costs or increase the revenues of the public service operator, these effects would be fully reflected in the operator’s internal accounts. The Commission’s analysis above (see recital (228)) confirmed that in the period 2012-2018 Moby/Toremar did not receive overcompensation. Therefore, the Commission concludes that also the berthing priority complies with the third Altmark criterion.

Altmark

6.1.2.4.   Altmark 4

| (231) | The fourth Altmark criterion is fulfilled if the recipient of the compensation for the operation of an SGEI has been chosen following a tender procedure, which allows for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing the SGEI at the least cost to the community or, failing that, the compensation has been calculated by reference to the costs of an efficient undertaking. |
| --- | --- |

(231)

The fourth Altmark criterion is fulfilled if the recipient of the compensation for the operation of an SGEI has been chosen following a tender procedure, which allows for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing the SGEI at the least cost to the community or, failing that, the compensation has been calculated by reference to the costs of an efficient undertaking.

Altmark

| (232) | According to paragraph 63 of the SGEI Communication, the simplest way for public authorities to meet the fourth Altmark criterion is to conduct an open, transparent and non-discriminatory public procurement procedure in line with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (73) and Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (74). |
| --- | --- |

(232)

According to paragraph 63 of the SGEI Communication, the simplest way for public authorities to meet the fourth Altmark criterion is to conduct an open, transparent and non-discriminatory public procurement procedure in line with Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (73) and Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (74).

Altmark

73

74

| (233) | The Commission observes that in the present case, the tender procedure was launched before the entry into force of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (75) (which applies to public contracts awarded for the operation of maritime transport services) and Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (76). At that time, Directive 2004/17/EC and Directive 2004/18/EC were applicable. However, Directive 2004/17/EC does not apply to maritime transport services, such as those provided by Moby/Toremar. Indeed, Article 5 of Directive 2004/17/EC makes clear that only transport services by railway, automated systems, tramway, trolley bus, bus or cable are included in its scope. |
| --- | --- |

(233)

The Commission observes that in the present case, the tender procedure was launched before the entry into force of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (75) (which applies to public contracts awarded for the operation of maritime transport services) and Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (76). At that time, Directive 2004/17/EC and Directive 2004/18/EC were applicable. However, Directive 2004/17/EC does not apply to maritime transport services, such as those provided by Moby/Toremar. Indeed, Article 5 of Directive 2004/17/EC makes clear that only transport services by railway, automated systems, tramway, trolley bus, bus or cable are included in its scope.

75

76

| (234) | Public contracts awarded by the contracting authorities in the context of their service activities for maritime, coastal or river transport fall instead within the scope of Directive 2004/18/EC on the basis of its paragraph 20. However, water transport services are also listed in Annex II B to that Directive which implies (77) that they are only subject to its Articles 23 and 35(4). This means that, under Directive 2004/18/EC, a public contract for maritime transport services is subject only to the obligations concerning technical specifications (Article 23) and to the obligation to publish a contract award notice (after the contract has been awarded and, therefore, at the end, not at the beginning, of the award procedure: Article 35(4)). All the other rules dictated by Directive 2004/18/EC – including the provisions on the content of notices to be published (Article 36(1)) and the provisions on selection criteria (Articles 45 to 52) – are not applicable to public contracts for maritime transport services. |
| --- | --- |

(234)

Public contracts awarded by the contracting authorities in the context of their service activities for maritime, coastal or river transport fall instead within the scope of Directive 2004/18/EC on the basis of its paragraph 20. However, water transport services are also listed in Annex II B to that Directive which implies (77) that they are only subject to its Articles 23 and 35(4). This means that, under Directive 2004/18/EC, a public contract for maritime transport services is subject only to the obligations concerning technical specifications (Article 23) and to the obligation to publish a contract award notice (after the contract has been awarded and, therefore, at the end, not at the beginning, of the award procedure: Article 35(4)). All the other rules dictated by Directive 2004/18/EC – including the provisions on the content of notices to be published (Article 36(1)) and the provisions on selection criteria (Articles 45 to 52) – are not applicable to public contracts for maritime transport services.

77

| (235) | Furthermore, Directive 2004/18/EC does in any case not apply to service concessions as defined in its Article 1(4) (78). The Commission notes that service concessions (and public contracts), which have certain cross-border interest nevertheless remain subject to the general Treaty principles of transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

(235)

Furthermore, Directive 2004/18/EC does in any case not apply to service concessions as defined in its Article 1(4) (78). The Commission notes that service concessions (and public contracts), which have certain cross-border interest nevertheless remain subject to the general Treaty principles of transparency, non-discrimination and equal treatment.

78

| (236) | On the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that Directive 2004/18/EC can only apply in case of a public contract but not when it concerns a service concession. In addition, since the present case concerns water transport services subjected to a public service contract, only some of that Directive’s requirements, as aforementioned, would be applicable. Against this background, the Commission considers that it cannot rely solely on compliance with the Public Procurement Directives to demonstrate compliance with the fourth Altmark criterion. For this reason, the Commission assesses below whether the tender procedure used by Italy was competitive, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional. To make this assessment, the Commission relies on the relevant guidance set out in its Notion of Aid Communication (79) (in particular in its paragraphs 89 et seq.) and the SGEI Communication (in particular in its paragraphs 63 et seq.). |
| --- | --- |

(236)

On the basis of the above, the Commission concludes that Directive 2004/18/EC can only apply in case of a public contract but not when it concerns a service concession. In addition, since the present case concerns water transport services subjected to a public service contract, only some of that Directive’s requirements, as aforementioned, would be applicable. Against this background, the Commission considers that it cannot rely solely on compliance with the Public Procurement Directives to demonstrate compliance with the fourth Altmark criterion. For this reason, the Commission assesses below whether the tender procedure used by Italy was competitive, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional. To make this assessment, the Commission relies on the relevant guidance set out in its Notion of Aid Communication (79) (in particular in its paragraphs 89 et seq.) and the SGEI Communication (in particular in its paragraphs 63 et seq.).

Altmark

79

et seq.

et seq.

Competitive and transparent nature of the tender

| (237) | Paragraph 90 of the Notion of Aid Communication specifies that a tender procedure has to be competitive (80) to allow all interested and qualified bidders to participate in the process. Furthermore, according to paragraph 91 of that Communication, the procedure has to be transparent to allow all interested tenderers to be equally and duly informed at each stage of the tender procedure. That paragraph also emphasises that accessibility of information, sufficient time for interested tenderers, and the clarity of the selection and award criteria are all crucial elements for a transparent selection procedure and indicates that a tender has to be sufficiently well-publicised, so that all potential bidders can take note of it. |
| --- | --- |

(237)

Paragraph 90 of the Notion of Aid Communication specifies that a tender procedure has to be competitive (80) to allow all interested and qualified bidders to participate in the process. Furthermore, according to paragraph 91 of that Communication, the procedure has to be transparent to allow all interested tenderers to be equally and duly informed at each stage of the tender procedure. That paragraph also emphasises that accessibility of information, sufficient time for interested tenderers, and the clarity of the selection and award criteria are all crucial elements for a transparent selection procedure and indicates that a tender has to be sufficiently well-publicised, so that all potential bidders can take note of it.

80

| (238) | In the present case, the call for expression of interest was published in the Official Journal of the European Union, as well as in the national and regional Official Journal and in national newspapers (see recital (56)). This call invited anyone who could ‘guarantee the continuity of the maritime transport service’ to express its interest and did not impose any further conditions. Potential bidders were given sufficient time to adequately express their interests allowing them to participate in the further process. The Commission therefore considers that the intention of the Region of Tuscany to sell Toremar and award the public service contract was made available widely in a way reaching all possible bidders. |
| --- | --- |

(238)

In the present case, the call for expression of interest was published in the Official Journal of the European Union, as well as in the national and regional Official Journal and in national newspapers (see recital (56)). This call invited anyone who could ‘guarantee the continuity of the maritime transport service’ to express its interest and did not impose any further conditions. Potential bidders were given sufficient time to adequately express their interests allowing them to participate in the further process. The Commission therefore considers that the intention of the Region of Tuscany to sell Toremar and award the public service contract was made available widely in a way reaching all possible bidders.

Official Journal of the European Union

| (239) | Further, bidders need to be provided with all documents and information required for the participation in the bidding process enabling them to properly assess the company put up for sale. Such information has to be made available to potential bidders in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner with all interested participants having equal access to relevant information. |
| --- | --- |

(239)

Further, bidders need to be provided with all documents and information required for the participation in the bidding process enabling them to properly assess the company put up for sale. Such information has to be made available to potential bidders in a transparent and non-discriminatory manner with all interested participants having equal access to relevant information.

| (240) | First, the call for expressions of interest mentioned that bidders needed to be able to ‘guarantee the continuity of the maritime transport service’. This was the only selection criterion that Italy applied to determine whether or not interested parties would be allowed to participate in the tender procedure. While the call did not specify how bidders could prove they met this requirement, by default this meant that any appropriate means of evidence could be used (81). As none of the 11 parties that expressed an interest in participating in the tender process was excluded, the Commission considers that this selection criterion was clear to all interested bidders and was also justified in light of the objective pursued. |
| --- | --- |

(240)

First, the call for expressions of interest mentioned that bidders needed to be able to ‘guarantee the continuity of the maritime transport service’. This was the only selection criterion that Italy applied to determine whether or not interested parties would be allowed to participate in the tender procedure. While the call did not specify how bidders could prove they met this requirement, by default this meant that any appropriate means of evidence could be used (81). As none of the 11 parties that expressed an interest in participating in the tender process was excluded, the Commission considers that this selection criterion was clear to all interested bidders and was also justified in light of the objective pursued.

81

| (241) | Second, the 2009 Law made clear to interested parties that a new convention/public service contract would be concluded upon completion of the tender procedure and that the annual amount of public service compensation had been set at maximum EUR 13 005 441 million per year. In addition, the call for expressions of interest indicated that the objective was to sell Toremar with a fixed price of EUR 10 258 397. Furthermore, as confirmed by Italy, all relevant information as regards the scope of the sale, including the draft public service contract to be concluded between the buyer and Italy, was made available to the 11 parties who expressed an interest in participating in the tender process. This allowed these parties to decide whether or not to bid and if so how much to bid. On this basis, the Commission considers that it was sufficiently clear from the call for expressions of interest that the sale concerned the Toremar business bundled with a new public service contract. After having expressed their interest, parties were given access to all necessary information to decide on a possible bid. |
| --- | --- |

(241)

Second, the 2009 Law made clear to interested parties that a new convention/public service contract would be concluded upon completion of the tender procedure and that the annual amount of public service compensation had been set at maximum EUR 13 005 441 million per year. In addition, the call for expressions of interest indicated that the objective was to sell Toremar with a fixed price of EUR 10 258 397. Furthermore, as confirmed by Italy, all relevant information as regards the scope of the sale, including the draft public service contract to be concluded between the buyer and Italy, was made available to the 11 parties who expressed an interest in participating in the tender process. This allowed these parties to decide whether or not to bid and if so how much to bid. On this basis, the Commission considers that it was sufficiently clear from the call for expressions of interest that the sale concerned the Toremar business bundled with a new public service contract. After having expressed their interest, parties were given access to all necessary information to decide on a possible bid.

| (242) | Third, the Commission considers that the call for expression of interest attracted a substantial number of potential tenderers. All 11 companies that submitted an expression of interest, received thereafter detailed information from the Region of Tuscany about the process. Further, in compliance with the provisions of Directive 2004/18/EC, it appears that Italy had no obligation to provide, in the call, any more information about the contract to be awarded apart from the mere mention of the continuation to provide the public service and the reference to the legal rules regulating that service (see recital (234)). |
| --- | --- |

(242)

Third, the Commission considers that the call for expression of interest attracted a substantial number of potential tenderers. All 11 companies that submitted an expression of interest, received thereafter detailed information from the Region of Tuscany about the process. Further, in compliance with the provisions of Directive 2004/18/EC, it appears that Italy had no obligation to provide, in the call, any more information about the contract to be awarded apart from the mere mention of the continuation to provide the public service and the reference to the legal rules regulating that service (see recital (234)).

| (243) | Fourth, the call contained the minimum necessary information needed in order to submit an expression of interest (i.e. the continuation of the public service), and it could not have prompted the exclusion of otherwise interested maritime operators. It was the decision of the planning authorities to ensure continuity of the public service and connectivity of the islands of the Tuscany archipelago with the mainland. This condition was made known in advance, as above explained, to all potential operators expressing an interest to participate in the tender procedure. The Commission hence agrees with Italy that at that stage there was no control over the potential tenderers (see recital (127)), which shows that it was not the intention of the planning authorities, as a result of the inclusion of the mandatory requirement to continue the public service, to selectively favour any potential tenderer, to be awarded the contract for the public service and the ownership of the Toremar business. The Commission also notes that all relevant information on the selection criteria and the further development of the procedure was provided for in the invitation letter sent to all 11 parties having expressed an interest to participate in the procedure (82). |
| --- | --- |

(243)

Fourth, the call contained the minimum necessary information needed in order to submit an expression of interest (i.e. the continuation of the public service), and it could not have prompted the exclusion of otherwise interested maritime operators. It was the decision of the planning authorities to ensure continuity of the public service and connectivity of the islands of the Tuscany archipelago with the mainland. This condition was made known in advance, as above explained, to all potential operators expressing an interest to participate in the tender procedure. The Commission hence agrees with Italy that at that stage there was no control over the potential tenderers (see recital (127)), which shows that it was not the intention of the planning authorities, as a result of the inclusion of the mandatory requirement to continue the public service, to selectively favour any potential tenderer, to be awarded the contract for the public service and the ownership of the Toremar business. The Commission also notes that all relevant information on the selection criteria and the further development of the procedure was provided for in the invitation letter sent to all 11 parties having expressed an interest to participate in the procedure (82).

82

| (244) | Finally, the Commission considers that the initiative of the Region of Tuscany to set up a special digital platform or data-room, containing all the necessary documentation has allowed all potential tenderers to be equally, fully and duly aware of all information needed for the preparation of their bid. |
| --- | --- |

(244)

Finally, the Commission considers that the initiative of the Region of Tuscany to set up a special digital platform or data-room, containing all the necessary documentation has allowed all potential tenderers to be equally, fully and duly aware of all information needed for the preparation of their bid.

| (245) | In the 2012 Decision, the Commission expressed doubts that certain technical and financial requirements of the tender (see recital (113)) needed to be imposed on tenderers, in addition to the standard qualitative conditions that are in any event imposed as public service obligations. Further, the Commission doubted that such requirements could be accepted in a situation, as the present one, where the whole company is put up on sale. |
| --- | --- |

(245)

In the 2012 Decision, the Commission expressed doubts that certain technical and financial requirements of the tender (see recital (113)) needed to be imposed on tenderers, in addition to the standard qualitative conditions that are in any event imposed as public service obligations. Further, the Commission doubted that such requirements could be accepted in a situation, as the present one, where the whole company is put up on sale.

technical and financial requirements of the tender

| (246) | In the course of the investigation, the Commission received information that alleviated its concerns. The Commission considers that the technical and financial requirements have not resulted in the exclusion of any potential tenderer, for the following reasons. |
| --- | --- |

(246)

In the course of the investigation, the Commission received information that alleviated its concerns. The Commission considers that the technical and financial requirements have not resulted in the exclusion of any potential tenderer, for the following reasons.

| (247) | First, the technical and financial requirements were included in the tender documentation and known thus to all potential tenderers at the very early stages of the process. Particularly, these requirements were included in the contract notice that was internationally published, inviting all interested operators meeting these requirements, to submit an expression of interest. |
| --- | --- |

(247)

First, the technical and financial requirements were included in the tender documentation and known thus to all potential tenderers at the very early stages of the process. Particularly, these requirements were included in the contract notice that was internationally published, inviting all interested operators meeting these requirements, to submit an expression of interest.

| (248) | Second, the Commission notes that the specific requirements were expressed as objective conditions for participating in the procedure and did not hence constitute award criteria nor were they attributed scoring points. As a result, the contracting authorities did not have any discretion as regards the selection of tenderers to the next phase of the procedure. |
| --- | --- |

(248)

Second, the Commission notes that the specific requirements were expressed as objective conditions for participating in the procedure and did not hence constitute award criteria nor were they attributed scoring points. As a result, the contracting authorities did not have any discretion as regards the selection of tenderers to the next phase of the procedure.

| (249) | Third, considering the way the tender was conducted (i.e. bundling the sale of the company with the conclusion of a new public service contract), the Commission is of the view that the Region of Tuscany’s objective to ensure the continuity of the public service at the highest possible quality standards, constitutes a legitimate public interest objective (83), which could not have been achieved without the said requirements. The fact, further, that the publication of the contract notice with the said requirements resulted in the submission of 11 expressions of interests evidently shows that the inclusion of these requirements did not have a deterrent effect. |
| --- | --- |

(249)

Third, considering the way the tender was conducted (i.e. bundling the sale of the company with the conclusion of a new public service contract), the Commission is of the view that the Region of Tuscany’s objective to ensure the continuity of the public service at the highest possible quality standards, constitutes a legitimate public interest objective (83), which could not have been achieved without the said requirements. The fact, further, that the publication of the contract notice with the said requirements resulted in the submission of 11 expressions of interests evidently shows that the inclusion of these requirements did not have a deterrent effect.

83

| (250) | On the basis of the above, the Commission considers that, taken as a whole, the tender procedure was competitive and transparent. In particular, the intention of the Region of Tuscany to divest the Toremar business and to conclude a new public service contract with a duration of 12 years with the winning tenderer was made available widely in a way reaching all possible bidders in the relevant regional or international market. Furthermore, the Commission takes into account that potential bidders could easily express their interest and did not have to commit themselves to anything at that stage. Provided that they could show they fulfilled the sole selection criterion of guaranteeing the continuity of the service, these parties were then given all the necessary information and time to allow them to decide if and how much they wanted to bid for the service. For these reasons, the Commission considers that its doubts that the tender procedure was not sufficiently transparent due to possible deficiencies in the call for expressions of interest are dispelled. |
| --- | --- |

(250)

On the basis of the above, the Commission considers that, taken as a whole, the tender procedure was competitive and transparent. In particular, the intention of the Region of Tuscany to divest the Toremar business and to conclude a new public service contract with a duration of 12 years with the winning tenderer was made available widely in a way reaching all possible bidders in the relevant regional or international market. Furthermore, the Commission takes into account that potential bidders could easily express their interest and did not have to commit themselves to anything at that stage. Provided that they could show they fulfilled the sole selection criterion of guaranteeing the continuity of the service, these parties were then given all the necessary information and time to allow them to decide if and how much they wanted to bid for the service. For these reasons, the Commission considers that its doubts that the tender procedure was not sufficiently transparent due to possible deficiencies in the call for expressions of interest are dispelled.

Non-discriminatory nature of the tender

| (251) | Paragraph 92 of the Notion of Aid Communication highlights that non-discriminatory treatment of all bidders at all stages of the procedure and objective selection and award criteria specified in advance of the process are indispensable conditions for ensuring that the resulting transaction is in line with market conditions. Furthermore, that paragraph specifies that to guarantee equal treatment, the criteria for the award of the contract should enable tenders to be compared and assessed objectively. |
| --- | --- |

(251)

Paragraph 92 of the Notion of Aid Communication highlights that non-discriminatory treatment of all bidders at all stages of the procedure and objective selection and award criteria specified in advance of the process are indispensable conditions for ensuring that the resulting transaction is in line with market conditions. Furthermore, that paragraph specifies that to guarantee equal treatment, the criteria for the award of the contract should enable tenders to be compared and assessed objectively.

| (252) | As indicated above (see recital (240)), the call for expressions of interest contained the sole condition that bidders needed to be able to ‘guarantee the continuity of the maritime transport service’. All 11 parties that responded to the call and expressed an interest were aware of that obligation. The Commission considers that this condition was objective and had been made sufficiently clear to all interested parties in the call for expressions of interest. |
| --- | --- |

(252)

As indicated above (see recital (240)), the call for expressions of interest contained the sole condition that bidders needed to be able to ‘guarantee the continuity of the maritime transport service’. All 11 parties that responded to the call and expressed an interest were aware of that obligation. The Commission considers that this condition was objective and had been made sufficiently clear to all interested parties in the call for expressions of interest.

| (253) | The 11 interested bidders were then invited to submit a bid and were all given access to a virtual data room containing all relevant information (see recital (62)) allowing them to assess the Toremar business and the new public service contract put up for sale. All bidders hence received the same information and were treated equally at all times. |
| --- | --- |

(253)

The 11 interested bidders were then invited to submit a bid and were all given access to a virtual data room containing all relevant information (see recital (62)) allowing them to assess the Toremar business and the new public service contract put up for sale. All bidders hence received the same information and were treated equally at all times.

| (254) | The Commission’s doubts in the 2011 Decision that the call for expression of interest was non-discriminatory are therefore resolved. All parties were correctly and equally informed throughout the various steps of the tender procedure enabling them to make a bid with full knowledge of the procedure and requirements. The Commission also considers that the award criteria allowed for an objective comparison and assessment of the tenders. |
| --- | --- |

(254)

The Commission’s doubts in the 2011 Decision that the call for expression of interest was non-discriminatory are therefore resolved. All parties were correctly and equally informed throughout the various steps of the tender procedure enabling them to make a bid with full knowledge of the procedure and requirements. The Commission also considers that the award criteria allowed for an objective comparison and assessment of the tenders.

Ensuring that the services are provided at the least cost to the community

| (255) | Paragraph 65 of the SGEI Communication provides that based on the case law of the Court of Justice, a public procurement procedure only excludes the existence of State aid where it allows for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing the service at ‘the least cost to the community’. |
| --- | --- |

(255)

Paragraph 65 of the SGEI Communication provides that based on the case law of the Court of Justice, a public procurement procedure only excludes the existence of State aid where it allows for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing the service at ‘the least cost to the community’.

| (256) | In this case, the new public service contract bundled with the Toremar business, rather than only the public service contract itself, has been tendered out. Italy decided that the price for the sale of the Toremar business was fixed (based on the valuation performed by an independent expert) and not negotiable, whilst for the service contract Italy chose the most economically advantageous offer with price scoring 20 points, quality 70 points and additional services 10 points (see recitals (60) and (61)). |
| --- | --- |

(256)

In this case, the new public service contract bundled with the Toremar business, rather than only the public service contract itself, has been tendered out. Italy decided that the price for the sale of the Toremar business was fixed (based on the valuation performed by an independent expert) and not negotiable, whilst for the service contract Italy chose the most economically advantageous offer with price scoring 20 points, quality 70 points and additional services 10 points (see recitals (60) and (61)).

| (257) | In relation to the use of the most economically advantageous offer, paragraph 67 of the SGEI Communication indicates that the ‘most economically advantageous offer’ is deemed also (in addition to the ‘lowest price’) sufficient to satisfy fourth Altmark criterion ‘[...] provided that the award criteria [...], are closely related to the subject matter of the service provided and allow for the most economically advantageous offer to match the value of the market’ (84). |
| --- | --- |

(257)

In relation to the use of the most economically advantageous offer, paragraph 67 of the SGEI Communication indicates that the ‘most economically advantageous offer’ is deemed also (in addition to the ‘lowest price’) sufficient to satisfy fourth Altmark criterion ‘[...] provided that the award criteria [...], are closely related to the subject matter of the service provided and allow for the most economically advantageous offer to match the value of the market’ (84).

Altmark

84

| (258) | The Commission notes that Italy gave emphasis on choosing an operator that would provide the service at high quality standards taking into account certain requirements. The invitation letter to submit a tender included all necessary information needed in order to fill out the financial and technical offers. Especially as regards the technical offer (which was scored with 80 points in total, with the remaining 20 points allocated to the price criterion), all 11 maritime operators that expressed an interest were invited to submit information related to the average age of the vessels provided for each line and for each contractual year, the capacity and structural facilities provided for disabled passengers, as well as information related to the possibility for the selected operator to schedule additional sailings on specific time slots (including night sailings) all year round. These quality criteria are evidently closely related to and confer added value to the provision of the maritime service. Therefore, the Commission considers that the use of the most economically advantageous tender for the service concerned bundled with the sale of the Toremar business enabled Italy to create effective competition and obtain a service with the highest possible value at the least cost to the community. |
| --- | --- |

(258)

The Commission notes that Italy gave emphasis on choosing an operator that would provide the service at high quality standards taking into account certain requirements. The invitation letter to submit a tender included all necessary information needed in order to fill out the financial and technical offers. Especially as regards the technical offer (which was scored with 80 points in total, with the remaining 20 points allocated to the price criterion), all 11 maritime operators that expressed an interest were invited to submit information related to the average age of the vessels provided for each line and for each contractual year, the capacity and structural facilities provided for disabled passengers, as well as information related to the possibility for the selected operator to schedule additional sailings on specific time slots (including night sailings) all year round. These quality criteria are evidently closely related to and confer added value to the provision of the maritime service. Therefore, the Commission considers that the use of the most economically advantageous tender for the service concerned bundled with the sale of the Toremar business enabled Italy to create effective competition and obtain a service with the highest possible value at the least cost to the community.

| (259) | As far as the bundling of the service with the sale of the Toremar business is particularly concerned, in the 2012 Decision, the Commission took the preliminary view that the tendering of the new public service contract without an obligation to take over the vessels of Toremar necessary to perform the public service, would have resulted in a lower cost to the community. |
| --- | --- |

(259)

As far as the bundling of the service with the sale of the Toremar business is particularly concerned, in the 2012 Decision, the Commission took the preliminary view that the tendering of the new public service contract without an obligation to take over the vessels of Toremar necessary to perform the public service, would have resulted in a lower cost to the community.

| (260) | The Commission has already concluded above that the tender procedure has been sufficiently transparent and non-discriminatory to enable the participation of as many potential tenderers as possible. Indeed, following the widespread publication of the call for expression of interest, 11 maritime operators responded affirmatively. All relevant information concerning the tender procedure was provided for in the invitation letter sent to all 11 participants. The Region of Tuscany, further, set up a special digital platform or data-room, containing all the necessary documentation to allow all potential tenderers to be equally informed. |
| --- | --- |

(260)

The Commission has already concluded above that the tender procedure has been sufficiently transparent and non-discriminatory to enable the participation of as many potential tenderers as possible. Indeed, following the widespread publication of the call for expression of interest, 11 maritime operators responded affirmatively. All relevant information concerning the tender procedure was provided for in the invitation letter sent to all 11 participants. The Region of Tuscany, further, set up a special digital platform or data-room, containing all the necessary documentation to allow all potential tenderers to be equally informed.

| (261) | Following the expression of interest stage, two competitive bids were submitted (Moby and Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l.), which the Region of Tuscany evaluated, taking into account their technical and financial offers. As mentioned in recitals (62) and (64), during the evaluation phase, the Region of Tuscany detected some inconsistencies pertaining to differences between the technical and economic offers submitted by Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l. resulting to the latter being further excluded from the process, and the contract was thus ultimately awarded to Moby. |
| --- | --- |

(261)

Following the expression of interest stage, two competitive bids were submitted (Moby and Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l.), which the Region of Tuscany evaluated, taking into account their technical and financial offers. As mentioned in recitals (62) and (64), during the evaluation phase, the Region of Tuscany detected some inconsistencies pertaining to differences between the technical and economic offers submitted by Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l. resulting to the latter being further excluded from the process, and the contract was thus ultimately awarded to Moby.

| (262) | The mandatory condition to guarantee the continuity of the public service and the bundling of the assets with the public service obligations are interrelated. In particular, by having bundled the sale of Toremar with a new public service contract, the acquirer, Moby, automatically becomes subject to the requirement to ensure the continuity of the public service and is awarded the berthing priority. The Commission considers that the bundling of the Toremar business with the new public service contract and the award of the berthing priority do not result in a lower price than if the assets and this contract would have been sold separately, for the following reasons. |
| --- | --- |

(262)

The mandatory condition to guarantee the continuity of the public service and the bundling of the assets with the public service obligations are interrelated. In particular, by having bundled the sale of Toremar with a new public service contract, the acquirer, Moby, automatically becomes subject to the requirement to ensure the continuity of the public service and is awarded the berthing priority. The Commission considers that the bundling of the Toremar business with the new public service contract and the award of the berthing priority do not result in a lower price than if the assets and this contract would have been sold separately, for the following reasons.

| (263) | The Toremar business has been solely purposed for the delivery of the public service and to ensure the territorial continuity. Indeed, all of Toremar’s vessels have been and currently are used for the public service. The Commission is of the view that a private vendor would not have been able to obtain a higher price for the vessels on the market. Indeed, according to the Fidi report, out of the eight vessels of Toremar, three were budgeted for the residual value, whereas the remaining five, which have been completely amortised, were budgeted to their scrap values. However, it seems unlikely that these vessels could have been sold for shipping purposes, other than that including the condition to continue the public service, for a higher price than that which they were budgeted for. This is because when a ship is not yet at the end of its useful life, its value for shipping purposes would be higher than its scrap value. In the scenario where the ships are sold separately, it is likely that at least some ships would have to be sold at their scrap value if they could be sold at all. Therefore, by bundling the ships with the public service contract, all ships keep operating and can hence be sold at a higher price than their scrap value. |
| --- | --- |

(263)

The Toremar business has been solely purposed for the delivery of the public service and to ensure the territorial continuity. Indeed, all of Toremar’s vessels have been and currently are used for the public service. The Commission is of the view that a private vendor would not have been able to obtain a higher price for the vessels on the market. Indeed, according to the Fidi report, out of the eight vessels of Toremar, three were budgeted for the residual value, whereas the remaining five, which have been completely amortised, were budgeted to their scrap values. However, it seems unlikely that these vessels could have been sold for shipping purposes, other than that including the condition to continue the public service, for a higher price than that which they were budgeted for. This is because when a ship is not yet at the end of its useful life, its value for shipping purposes would be higher than its scrap value. In the scenario where the ships are sold separately, it is likely that at least some ships would have to be sold at their scrap value if they could be sold at all. Therefore, by bundling the ships with the public service contract, all ships keep operating and can hence be sold at a higher price than their scrap value.

| (264) | Moreover, the Commission agrees with the comments submitted by the beneficiary, concerning the substantial costs that the Region of Tuscany would need to bear, had Toremar been sold separately for any shipping purpose without the public service (i.e. liquidation costs, costs of equipping itself with necessary vessels etc.). In addition, had Toremar been sold separately, the Commission considers it unlikely that potential bidders could have had the necessary eight vessels readily available for redeployment to operate the public service obligations laid down in the new public service contract. This is particularly true since the new contract contains specific requirements (e.g. size) about the vessels to be used on the different public service routes. Any operator who had the required resources would likely have employed them already on other routes and their redeployment in line with the new public service contract would inevitably have led to losing the revenues from their previous use. |
| --- | --- |

(264)

Moreover, the Commission agrees with the comments submitted by the beneficiary, concerning the substantial costs that the Region of Tuscany would need to bear, had Toremar been sold separately for any shipping purpose without the public service (i.e. liquidation costs, costs of equipping itself with necessary vessels etc.). In addition, had Toremar been sold separately, the Commission considers it unlikely that potential bidders could have had the necessary eight vessels readily available for redeployment to operate the public service obligations laid down in the new public service contract. This is particularly true since the new contract contains specific requirements (e.g. size) about the vessels to be used on the different public service routes. Any operator who had the required resources would likely have employed them already on other routes and their redeployment in line with the new public service contract would inevitably have led to losing the revenues from their previous use.

| (265) | The Commission considers therefore that bundling those ships with the public service contract allowed obtaining a higher price for Toremar’s vessels since in return for operating the vessels on the public service routes, their acquirer would receive public service compensation for a period of 12 years. In addition, any market economy vendor would have decided to sell Toremar along with a new public service contract in order to obtain the highest price. On this basis, the Commission concludes that Italy has not attached conditions that were likely to depress the price or which a private seller would not have demanded. |
| --- | --- |

(265)

The Commission considers therefore that bundling those ships with the public service contract allowed obtaining a higher price for Toremar’s vessels since in return for operating the vessels on the public service routes, their acquirer would receive public service compensation for a period of 12 years. In addition, any market economy vendor would have decided to sell Toremar along with a new public service contract in order to obtain the highest price. On this basis, the Commission concludes that Italy has not attached conditions that were likely to depress the price or which a private seller would not have demanded.

| (266) | The Commission concludes that its doubt that tendering out the new public service contract together with the Toremar business could not result in a lower cost to the community, is dispelled. |
| --- | --- |

(266)

The Commission concludes that its doubt that tendering out the new public service contract together with the Toremar business could not result in a lower cost to the community, is dispelled.

| (267) | In view of the above, the Commission considers that the use of the most economically advantageous tender for the new public service contract bundled with the Toremar business created genuine competition until the end of the tender procedure with the submission of two competitive and binding bids. The exclusion of Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l. only took place during the subsequent evaluation of the bids and did not thus alter the competitive nature of the tender process. As a result, the Commission concludes that Altmark 4 is complied with in the present case. |
| --- | --- |

(267)

In view of the above, the Commission considers that the use of the most economically advantageous tender for the new public service contract bundled with the Toremar business created genuine competition until the end of the tender procedure with the submission of two competitive and binding bids. The exclusion of Toscana di Navigazione S.r.l. only took place during the subsequent evaluation of the bids and did not thus alter the competitive nature of the tender process. As a result, the Commission concludes that Altmark 4 is complied with in the present case.

Altmark

| (268) | Given that the four conditions set out by the Court of Justice in the Altmark case are cumulatively met, the Commission concludes that the award of the public service contract bundled with the Toremar business and the berthing priority to Moby/Toremar does not confer an economic advantage on the latter. |
| --- | --- |

(268)

Given that the four conditions set out by the Court of Justice in the Altmark case are cumulatively met, the Commission concludes that the award of the public service contract bundled with the Toremar business and the berthing priority to Moby/Toremar does not confer an economic advantage on the latter.

Altmark

6.1.2.5.   Conclusion

| (269) | Since not all criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are fulfilled, the Commission concludes that the award of the public service contract bundled with the Toremar business and the berthing priority to Moby/Toremar do not constitute State aid within the meaning of article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(269)

Since not all criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are fulfilled, the Commission concludes that the award of the public service contract bundled with the Toremar business and the berthing priority to Moby/Toremar do not constitute State aid within the meaning of article 107(1) TFEU.

6.1.3.   The measures laid down by the 2010 Law

The measures laid down by the 2010 Law

| (270) | The Commission took the preliminary view in the 2011 Decision that all measures laid down by Decree Law 125/2010 converted with amendments into the 2010 Law constituted State aid in favour of the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, as long as the respective beneficiaries were able to use these measures to cover liquidity needs and thereby improve their overall financial position. |
| --- | --- |

(270)

The Commission took the preliminary view in the 2011 Decision that all measures laid down by Decree Law 125/2010 converted with amendments into the 2010 Law constituted State aid in favour of the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, as long as the respective beneficiaries were able to use these measures to cover liquidity needs and thereby improve their overall financial position.

| (271) | Based on the information received during the formal investigation, the Commission considers that the three measures should be assessed separately. |
| --- | --- |

(271)

Based on the information received during the formal investigation, the Commission considers that the three measures should be assessed separately.

6.1.3.1.   Possible use of funds to upgrade ships for liquidity purposes

| (272) | State resources: The funds in question were granted by the State from its own budget (see recital (91)) and their use for liquidity purposes was enabled by the 2010 Law. The measure is therefore imputable to the State and is given through State resources. |
| --- | --- |

(272)

State resources: The funds in question were granted by the State from its own budget (see recital (91)) and their use for liquidity purposes was enabled by the 2010 Law. The measure is therefore imputable to the State and is given through State resources.

| (273) | Selectivity: this measure was only granted to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including to Toremar, and is therefore selective. For completeness, the Commission points out that this measure was not granted to Moby. |
| --- | --- |

(273)

Selectivity: this measure was only granted to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including to Toremar, and is therefore selective. For completeness, the Commission points out that this measure was not granted to Moby.

| (274) | Economic advantage: the Commission notes that Toremar used EUR 1 617 300 to upgrade its fleet in order to respect international safety standards (EUR 808 650 for the upgrade of the vessel Aethalia and EUR 808 650 for the upgrade of the vessel Liburna). According to Italy, these funds were never used for liquidity purposes (see recital (138)) and the Commission did not find evidence to support the opposite. |
| --- | --- |

(274)

Economic advantage: the Commission notes that Toremar used EUR 1 617 300 to upgrade its fleet in order to respect international safety standards (EUR 808 650 for the upgrade of the vessel Aethalia and EUR 808 650 for the upgrade of the vessel Liburna). According to Italy, these funds were never used for liquidity purposes (see recital (138)) and the Commission did not find evidence to support the opposite.

| (275) | Since Toremar did not use these funds for liquidity purposes in order to avoid costs, which it would ordinarily have to cover itself by means of its own financial resources, the doubts expressed in the 2011 Decision are no longer valid and the Commission considers that no economic advantage has thus been conferred to Toremar through the use of the said funds. |
| --- | --- |

(275)

Since Toremar did not use these funds for liquidity purposes in order to avoid costs, which it would ordinarily have to cover itself by means of its own financial resources, the doubts expressed in the 2011 Decision are no longer valid and the Commission considers that no economic advantage has thus been conferred to Toremar through the use of the said funds.

| (276) | Conclusion: since not all criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are fulfilled, the Commission concludes that the funds granted to Toremar to upgrade its fleet do not constitute State aid within the meaning of article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(276)

Conclusion: since not all criteria laid down in Article 107(1) TFEU are fulfilled, the Commission concludes that the funds granted to Toremar to upgrade its fleet do not constitute State aid within the meaning of article 107(1) TFEU.

6.1.3.2.   Fiscal exemptions related to the privatisation process

| (277) | As described in recital (93), pursuant to Article 1 of the 2010 Law, certain acts and operations undertaken to privatise the Tirrenia group and described in paragraphs 1 to 15 of Article 19-ter of Decree Law 135/2009, converted with modifications into the 2009 Law, are exempt from any taxes ordinarily due on those acts and operations. |
| --- | --- |

(277)

As described in recital (93), pursuant to Article 1 of the 2010 Law, certain acts and operations undertaken to privatise the Tirrenia group and described in paragraphs 1 to 15 of Article 19-ter of Decree Law 135/2009, converted with modifications into the 2009 Law, are exempt from any taxes ordinarily due on those acts and operations.

-ter

| (278) | The Commission first notes that two separate sets of transfers have to be assessed: (1) the transfers of Tirrenia’s former subsidiaries Caremar, Saremar and Toremar from Tirrenia to the Regions of Campania, Sardinia and Tuscany respectively, and (2) the transfer of the Toremar business from the Region of Tuscany to Moby. The taxes exempted are in particular registration duty, land registry and mortgage registration fees, stamp duty (together, ‘the indirect taxes’), VAT and corporate income tax. The beneficiaries of this aid measure would be the seller, the buyer, or both. Only the second set of transfers will be assessed in this Decision (85). |
| --- | --- |

(278)

The Commission first notes that two separate sets of transfers have to be assessed: (1) the transfers of Tirrenia’s former subsidiaries Caremar, Saremar and Toremar from Tirrenia to the Regions of Campania, Sardinia and Tuscany respectively, and (2) the transfer of the Toremar business from the Region of Tuscany to Moby. The taxes exempted are in particular registration duty, land registry and mortgage registration fees, stamp duty (together, ‘the indirect taxes’), VAT and corporate income tax. The beneficiaries of this aid measure would be the seller, the buyer, or both. Only the second set of transfers will be assessed in this Decision (85).

85

| (279) | At the outset, the Commission also notes that under Presidential Decree No 633 of 26 October 1972, transfers of going concerns or business units to another company are not considered a supply of goods and therefore are exempt from VAT. Therefore, as transactions such as the sale of the Toremar business to Moby are not subject to VAT, the tax exemption cannot have conferred an advantage to Toremar with regard to VAT. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the sale contract for the Toremar business clearly states that the purchaser, i.e. Moby, has to bear all costs related to the sale (i.e. registration fees, notarial costs, land registry etc.), without reference to any exemption enjoyed by Moby on these costs. As regards the exemption from corporate income tax, the Commission considers that such tax would only apply to the proceeds of a sale. In this case, however, Moby purchased Toremar from the Region of Tuscany which means that this transaction constituted an expense for Moby and as a result no corporate income tax could be due. Therefore, this measure does not apply to Moby. The Commission, in view of the above, concludes that neither Toremar nor Moby have benefited from these fiscal exemptions. |
| --- | --- |

(279)

At the outset, the Commission also notes that under Presidential Decree No 633 of 26 October 1972, transfers of going concerns or business units to another company are not considered a supply of goods and therefore are exempt from VAT. Therefore, as transactions such as the sale of the Toremar business to Moby are not subject to VAT, the tax exemption cannot have conferred an advantage to Toremar with regard to VAT. Furthermore, the Commission notes that the sale contract for the Toremar business clearly states that the purchaser, i.e. Moby, has to bear all costs related to the sale (i.e. registration fees, notarial costs, land registry etc.), without reference to any exemption enjoyed by Moby on these costs. As regards the exemption from corporate income tax, the Commission considers that such tax would only apply to the proceeds of a sale. In this case, however, Moby purchased Toremar from the Region of Tuscany which means that this transaction constituted an expense for Moby and as a result no corporate income tax could be due. Therefore, this measure does not apply to Moby. The Commission, in view of the above, concludes that neither Toremar nor Moby have benefited from these fiscal exemptions.

| (280) | For these reasons, none of the aforementioned tax exemptions constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(280)

For these reasons, none of the aforementioned tax exemptions constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

6.1.3.3.   Possibility of using FAS resources to meet liquidity needs

| (281) | In the 2011 and 2012 Decisions, the Commission mentioned the possibility for the (former) Tirrenia Group companies to use FAS resources in order to meet current liquidity needs. However, in the course of the formal investigation procedure, Italy clarified that the FAS resources were not meant as an additional compensation for Toremar or Moby (or any other of the companies of the former Tirrenia Group or their respective acquirers). Instead, these resources were made available to supplement the budget appropriations for the payment of the public service compensations to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, in case they proved insufficient. Indeed, Article 1, paragraph 5-ter, of the 2010 Law enabled the regions to use the FAS resources to fund (part of) the regular public service compensation and thereby ensure continuity of the maritime public services. In other words, this measure merely concerns an allocation of resources in the Italian budget for payment of the public service compensations. |
| --- | --- |

(281)

In the 2011 and 2012 Decisions, the Commission mentioned the possibility for the (former) Tirrenia Group companies to use FAS resources in order to meet current liquidity needs. However, in the course of the formal investigation procedure, Italy clarified that the FAS resources were not meant as an additional compensation for Toremar or Moby (or any other of the companies of the former Tirrenia Group or their respective acquirers). Instead, these resources were made available to supplement the budget appropriations for the payment of the public service compensations to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, in case they proved insufficient. Indeed, Article 1, paragraph 5-ter, of the 2010 Law enabled the regions to use the FAS resources to fund (part of) the regular public service compensation and thereby ensure continuity of the maritime public services. In other words, this measure merely concerns an allocation of resources in the Italian budget for payment of the public service compensations.

-ter

| (282) | In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the FAS resources are only a funding source to allow the State to pay the public service compensations (granted on the basis of the prolonged initial Convention) and do not constitute a measure which Toremar can benefit from in addition to these public service compensations. Therefore, the possible use of FAS resources does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(282)

In light of the above, the Commission concludes that the FAS resources are only a funding source to allow the State to pay the public service compensations (granted on the basis of the prolonged initial Convention) and do not constitute a measure which Toremar can benefit from in addition to these public service compensations. Therefore, the possible use of FAS resources does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

6.1.4.   Conclusion on the existence of aid

Conclusion on the existence of aid

| (283) | Based on the assessment above, the Commission finds that:






  — | the compensation to Toremar for the operation of maritime routes in the period 1 January 2009 – 1 January 2012 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(283)

Based on the assessment above, the Commission finds that:

—

the compensation to Toremar for the operation of maritime routes in the period 1 January 2009 – 1 January 2012 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU;

| — | the award of the new public service contract for the period 2 January 2012 – 31 December 2023, bundled with the Toremar business and the berthing priority to Moby/Toremar, complies with the four Altmark conditions and therefore does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

the award of the new public service contract for the period 2 January 2012 – 31 December 2023, bundled with the Toremar business and the berthing priority to Moby/Toremar, complies with the four Altmark conditions and therefore does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU;

Altmark

| — | Toremar’s funds to upgrade ships have not been used for liquidity purposes and thus does not constitute State aid to Toremar within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU; |
| --- | --- |

—

Toremar’s funds to upgrade ships have not been used for liquidity purposes and thus does not constitute State aid to Toremar within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU;

| — | The fiscal exemptions related to the privatisation process of Toremar and the possibility to use FAS resources to meet liquidity needs as laid down by the 2010 Law, do not constitute State aid to Toremar within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

—

The fiscal exemptions related to the privatisation process of Toremar and the possibility to use FAS resources to meet liquidity needs as laid down by the 2010 Law, do not constitute State aid to Toremar within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

6.2.   Lawfulness of aid

Lawfulness of aid

| (284) | The aid measure referred to in this Decision has been put into effect before any formal approval by the Commission. Therefore, insofar as the aid measure was not exempted from notification under the 2005 SGEI Decision or the 2011 SGEI Decision, it was granted by Italy in violation of Article 108(3) TFEU (86). |
| --- | --- |

(284)

The aid measure referred to in this Decision has been put into effect before any formal approval by the Commission. Therefore, insofar as the aid measure was not exempted from notification under the 2005 SGEI Decision or the 2011 SGEI Decision, it was granted by Italy in violation of Article 108(3) TFEU (86).

86

6.3.   Compatibility of aid

Compatibility of aid

| (285) | The compatibility of the State aid measure identified above must be assessed in the light of Article 106(2) TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(285)

The compatibility of the State aid measure identified above must be assessed in the light of Article 106(2) TFEU.

6.3.1.   The prolongation of the initial Convention between Toremar and Italy

The prolongation of the initial Convention between Toremar and Italy

6.3.1.1.   Applicable rules

| (286) | The extension of the initial Convention after the end of 2008 has been carried out by subsequent legal acts, as follows:






  (a) | Decree Law No 207 of 30 December 2008, converted into Law No 14 of 27 February 2009, laid down the extension of the initial Conventions from 1 January 2009 until 31 December 2009; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(286)

The extension of the initial Convention after the end of 2008 has been carried out by subsequent legal acts, as follows:

(a)

Decree Law No 207 of 30 December 2008, converted into Law No 14 of 27 February 2009, laid down the extension of the initial Conventions from 1 January 2009 until 31 December 2009;

| (b) | Decree Law No 135 of 25 September 2009, converted into the 2009 Law, laid down, inter alia, the extension of the initial Conventions from 1 January 2010 until 30 September 2010; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Decree Law No 135 of 25 September 2009, converted into the 2009 Law, laid down, inter alia, the extension of the initial Conventions from 1 January 2010 until 30 September 2010;

| (c) | Decree-Law No 125 of 5 August 2010, converted into the 2010 Law provided for a further extension of the initial Conventions from 1 October 2010 until the end of the privatisation processes of Tirrenia and Siremar. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Decree-Law No 125 of 5 August 2010, converted into the 2010 Law provided for a further extension of the initial Conventions from 1 October 2010 until the end of the privatisation processes of Tirrenia and Siremar.

| (287) | Against this background, the Commission notes that the granting of the public service compensation under the prolongation of the initial Convention, pre-dates the entry into force of the 2011 SGEI Decision and 2011 SGEI Framework. However, the 2011 SGEI package – in Article 10 of the 2011 SGEI Decision and paragraph 69 of the 2011 SGEI Framework – contains rules that provide for its application also to aid granted before the entry into force of the 2011 SGEI package on 31 January 2012. In particular, the 2011 SGEI Decision provides in its Article 10(b):


  ‘any aid put into effect before the entry into force of this Decision [i.e., before 31 January 2012] that was not compatible with the internal market nor exempted from the notification requirement in accordance with Decision 2005/842/EC but fulfils the conditions laid down in this Decision shall be compatible with the internal market and exempted from the requirement of prior notification.’ |
| --- | --- |

(287)

Against this background, the Commission notes that the granting of the public service compensation under the prolongation of the initial Convention, pre-dates the entry into force of the 2011 SGEI Decision and 2011 SGEI Framework. However, the 2011 SGEI package – in Article 10 of the 2011 SGEI Decision and paragraph 69 of the 2011 SGEI Framework – contains rules that provide for its application also to aid granted before the entry into force of the 2011 SGEI package on 31 January 2012. In particular, the 2011 SGEI Decision provides in its Article 10(b):

‘any aid put into effect before the entry into force of this Decision [i.e., before 31 January 2012] that was not compatible with the internal market nor exempted from the notification requirement in accordance with Decision 2005/842/EC but fulfils the conditions laid down in this Decision shall be compatible with the internal market and exempted from the requirement of prior notification.’

‘any aid put into effect before the entry into force of this Decision [i.e., before 31 January 2012] that was not compatible with the internal market nor exempted from the notification requirement in accordance with Decision 2005/842/EC but fulfils the conditions laid down in this Decision shall be compatible with the internal market and exempted from the requirement of prior notification.’

| (288) | As regards the 2011 SGEI Framework, paragraphs 68 and 69 of that Framework specify that the Commission will apply the principles set out in that Framework to all notified aid projects, whether the notification took place before or after the start of application of that Framework on 31 January 2012, as well as to all unlawful aid on which it takes a decision after 31 January 2012, even if that aid was granted before 31 January 2012. In the latter case, the provisions of paragraphs 14, 19, 20, 24, 39 and 60 of the 2011 SGEI Framework are not applicable. |
| --- | --- |

(288)

As regards the 2011 SGEI Framework, paragraphs 68 and 69 of that Framework specify that the Commission will apply the principles set out in that Framework to all notified aid projects, whether the notification took place before or after the start of application of that Framework on 31 January 2012, as well as to all unlawful aid on which it takes a decision after 31 January 2012, even if that aid was granted before 31 January 2012. In the latter case, the provisions of paragraphs 14, 19, 20, 24, 39 and 60 of the 2011 SGEI Framework are not applicable.

| (289) | As a result, the rules on the application of the 2011 SGEI Decision and the 2011 SGEI Framework as described above mean that the public service compensation granted to Toremar during the prolongation period can be assessed pursuant to the 2011 SGEI package. If the relevant conditions of either the 2011 SGEI Decision or the 2011 SGEI Framework are complied with, this aid measure is compatible with the internal market for the entire period from 1 January 2009 until 1 January 2012 (87). |
| --- | --- |

(289)

As a result, the rules on the application of the 2011 SGEI Decision and the 2011 SGEI Framework as described above mean that the public service compensation granted to Toremar during the prolongation period can be assessed pursuant to the 2011 SGEI package. If the relevant conditions of either the 2011 SGEI Decision or the 2011 SGEI Framework are complied with, this aid measure is compatible with the internal market for the entire period from 1 January 2009 until 1 January 2012 (87).

87

| (290) | The Commission notes that both the 2005 SGEI Decision, which entered into force on 19 December 2005, and the 2011 SGEI Decision are only applicable to State aid in the form of public service compensation for maritime links to islands on which average annual traffic during the 2 financial years preceding that in which the SGEI was assigned does not exceed 300 000 passengers. However, Italy provided the average data for all five routes together, and not separately per route, to show that in the years 2010 and 2011 the number of passengers on all those routes operated by Toremar under the initial Convention, as prolonged, did not exceed the threshold of 300 000 passengers per year. Therefore, the Commission can neither assess the compatibility of the public service compensation paid to Toremar under the extension of the initial Convention until 1 January 2012 on the basis of the 2005 SGEI Decision nor on the basis of the 2011 SGEI Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(290)

The Commission notes that both the 2005 SGEI Decision, which entered into force on 19 December 2005, and the 2011 SGEI Decision are only applicable to State aid in the form of public service compensation for maritime links to islands on which average annual traffic during the 2 financial years preceding that in which the SGEI was assigned does not exceed 300 000 passengers. However, Italy provided the average data for all five routes together, and not separately per route, to show that in the years 2010 and 2011 the number of passengers on all those routes operated by Toremar under the initial Convention, as prolonged, did not exceed the threshold of 300 000 passengers per year. Therefore, the Commission can neither assess the compatibility of the public service compensation paid to Toremar under the extension of the initial Convention until 1 January 2012 on the basis of the 2005 SGEI Decision nor on the basis of the 2011 SGEI Decision.

| (291) | Consequently, the compatibility of the public service compensation granted to Toremar as of 2009 and until the completion of the privatisation process would normally fall within the scope of application of the 2011 SGEI Framework. |
| --- | --- |

(291)

Consequently, the compatibility of the public service compensation granted to Toremar as of 2009 and until the completion of the privatisation process would normally fall within the scope of application of the 2011 SGEI Framework.

| (292) | The Commission will assess whether the public service compensation granted to Toremar during the prolongation period complies with the conditions of the 2011 SGEI Framework, with the exception of the conditions in its paragraphs 9, 14, 19, 20, 24, 39 and 60. |
| --- | --- |

(292)

The Commission will assess whether the public service compensation granted to Toremar during the prolongation period complies with the conditions of the 2011 SGEI Framework, with the exception of the conditions in its paragraphs 9, 14, 19, 20, 24, 39 and 60.

6.3.1.2.   Genuine service of general economic interest as referred to in Article 106 TFEU

| (293) | According to paragraph 12 of the 2011 SGEI Framework, ‘[t]he aid must be granted for a genuine and correctly defined service of general economic interest as referred to in Article 106(2) of the Treaty’. Paragraph 13 clarifies that ‘Member States cannot attach specific public service obligations to services that are already provided or can be provided satisfactorily and under conditions, such as price, objective quality characteristics, continuity and access to the service, consistent with the public interest, as defined by the State, by undertakings operating under normal market conditions. As for the question of whether a service can be provided by the market, the Commission’s assessment is limited to checking whether the Member State’s definition is vitiated by a manifest error, unless provisions of Union law provide a stricter standard’. Finally, paragraph 56 of the 2011 SGEI Framework, refers to the ‘Member State’s wide margin of discretion’ regarding the nature of services that could be classified as being services of general economic interest. |
| --- | --- |

(293)

According to paragraph 12 of the 2011 SGEI Framework, ‘[t]he aid must be granted for a genuine and correctly defined service of general economic interest as referred to in Article 106(2) of the Treaty’. Paragraph 13 clarifies that ‘Member States cannot attach specific public service obligations to services that are already provided or can be provided satisfactorily and under conditions, such as price, objective quality characteristics, continuity and access to the service, consistent with the public interest, as defined by the State, by undertakings operating under normal market conditions. As for the question of whether a service can be provided by the market, the Commission’s assessment is limited to checking whether the Member State’s definition is vitiated by a manifest error, unless provisions of Union law provide a stricter standard’. Finally, paragraph 56 of the 2011 SGEI Framework, refers to the ‘Member State’s wide margin of discretion’ regarding the nature of services that could be classified as being services of general economic interest.

| (294) | The assessment of whether the SGEI are genuine must also be performed in light of the SGEI Communication (see recitals (186) and (200)), the Maritime Cabotage Regulation (see recitals (188) to (190)) and the case-law (see recitals (192) to (193)). Therefore, the Commission must assess for the prolongation period:






  (a) | Whether there was user demand; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(294)

The assessment of whether the SGEI are genuine must also be performed in light of the SGEI Communication (see recitals (186) and (200)), the Maritime Cabotage Regulation (see recitals (188) to (190)) and the case-law (see recitals (192) to (193)). Therefore, the Commission must assess for the prolongation period:

(a)

Whether there was user demand;

user demand

| (b) | Whether that demand was not capable of being satisfied by the market operators in the absence of an obligation imposed by the public authorities (existence of a market failure); |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Whether that demand was not capable of being satisfied by the market operators in the absence of an obligation imposed by the public authorities (existence of a market failure);

existence of a market failure

| (c) | That simply having recourse to public service obligations was insufficient to remedy that shortage (least harmful approach). |
| --- | --- |

(c)

That simply having recourse to public service obligations was insufficient to remedy that shortage (least harmful approach).

least harmful approach

| (295) | The Commission points out that the public service routes operated by Toremar during the prolongation period are the same as those entrusted to Moby/Toremar under the new public service contract, with the exception, as regards the sailings, that the number of routes during the prolongation period were five (see recital (36)), whereas the new public service contract has added one connection to the island of Giannutri (Line A5). In addition, the Commission has already described and assessed the competitive situation on those routes during the extension period. Against this background, the following assessment will rely on and refer to the relevant parts of the assessment made for the new public service contract above (see Section 6.1.2.1). |
| --- | --- |

(295)

The Commission points out that the public service routes operated by Toremar during the prolongation period are the same as those entrusted to Moby/Toremar under the new public service contract, with the exception, as regards the sailings, that the number of routes during the prolongation period were five (see recital (36)), whereas the new public service contract has added one connection to the island of Giannutri (Line A5). In addition, the Commission has already described and assessed the competitive situation on those routes during the extension period. Against this background, the following assessment will rely on and refer to the relevant parts of the assessment made for the new public service contract above (see Section 6.1.2.1).

Line A5

| (296) | Against this background, the Commission first recalls (see recital (123)) that Italy has imposed the public service obligations laid down in the initial Convention mainly to (i) ensure the territorial continuity between the mainland and the islands and to (ii) contribute to the economic development of the islands concerned, through regular and reliable maritime transport services. The Commission already concluded (see recital (195)) that these are indeed legitimate public interest objectives. |
| --- | --- |

(296)

Against this background, the Commission first recalls (see recital (123)) that Italy has imposed the public service obligations laid down in the initial Convention mainly to (i) ensure the territorial continuity between the mainland and the islands and to (ii) contribute to the economic development of the islands concerned, through regular and reliable maritime transport services. The Commission already concluded (see recital (195)) that these are indeed legitimate public interest objectives.

| (297) | To illustrate the genuine demand from users for the maritime services concerned, Italy provided (see Tables 9 and 10), detailed statistics which show that in 2009, the first year of the extension, Toremar transported 1 622 876 passengers and 347 935 vehicles on the five mixed service routes combined during the respective time periods covered by the public service obligations. These figures were lower in 2010 (1 462 570 passengers and 317 488 vehicles) and 2011 (1 437 613 passengers and 294 433 vehicles).












  Year | Line A1 | Line A2 | Line A2 fast | Line A3 | Line A4 | Total No of passengers |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2009 | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | 1 622 876 |
| 2010 | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | 1 462 570 |
| 2011 | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | 1 437 613 |

(297)

To illustrate the genuine demand from users for the maritime services concerned, Italy provided (see Tables 9 and 10), detailed statistics which show that in 2009, the first year of the extension, Toremar transported 1 622 876 passengers and 347 935 vehicles on the five mixed service routes combined during the respective time periods covered by the public service obligations. These figures were lower in 2010 (1 462 570 passengers and 317 488 vehicles) and 2011 (1 437 613 passengers and 294 433 vehicles).

Year

Year

Line A1

Line A1

Line A2

Line A2

Line A2 fast

Line A2 fast

Line A3

Line A3

Line A4

Line A4

Total No of passengers

Total No of passengers

2009

2009

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

1 622 876

2010

2010

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

1 462 570

2011

2011

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

1 437 613

Table 9 – Passengers’ statistics for the years 2009-2011

Table 9 – Passengers’ statistics for the years 2009-2011

| Year | Line A1 | Line A2 | Line A2 fast | Line A3 | Line A4 | Total No of passengers |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2009 | [...] | [...] | | [...] | [...] | 347 935 |
| 2010 | [...] | [...] | | [...] | [...] | 317 488 |
| 2011 | [...] | [...] | | [...] | [...] | 294 433 |

Year

Year

Line A1

Line A1

Line A2

Line A2

Line A2 fast

Line A2 fast

Line A3

Line A3

Line A4

Line A4

Total No of passengers

Total No of passengers

2009

2009

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

347 935

2010

2010

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

317 488

2011

2011

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

294 433

Table 10 – Vehicles’ statistics for the years 2009-2011

Table 10 – Vehicles’ statistics for the years 2009-2011

| (298) | Overall, the numbers show that the user demand for the ferry services on each of the routes concerned was significant and fairly stable, and the analysis for the years 2009-2011 did not provide any indications that it would have disappeared. The Commission has already demonstrated that there was significant user demand for the maritime services for the period from 2012 onwards (see recital (198)). |
| --- | --- |

(298)

Overall, the numbers show that the user demand for the ferry services on each of the routes concerned was significant and fairly stable, and the analysis for the years 2009-2011 did not provide any indications that it would have disappeared. The Commission has already demonstrated that there was significant user demand for the maritime services for the period from 2012 onwards (see recital (198)).

| (299) | It can therefore be concluded that these services addressed a genuine user demand and thus satisfied real public needs. |
| --- | --- |

(299)

It can therefore be concluded that these services addressed a genuine user demand and thus satisfied real public needs.

| (300) | As explained under recital (200), the Commission must also examine whether the service would have been inadequate if its provision were left to the market forces alone in the light of the public service obligations imposed by the Member State by virtue of the extension of the initial Convention. Paragraph 48 of the SGEI Communication notes in this respect that ‘the Commission’s assessment is limited to checking whether the Member State has made a manifest error’. |
| --- | --- |

(300)

As explained under recital (200), the Commission must also examine whether the service would have been inadequate if its provision were left to the market forces alone in the light of the public service obligations imposed by the Member State by virtue of the extension of the initial Convention. Paragraph 48 of the SGEI Communication notes in this respect that ‘the Commission’s assessment is limited to checking whether the Member State has made a manifest error’.

| (301) | The Commission notes that during the period from 1 January 2009 until 1 January 2012, on some routes that had to be operated by Toremar under the extension of the initial Convention, other operators offered ferry services albeit not necessarily throughout the year and with the same frequency. The Commission has already assessed in recitals (201) to (207) for each of the routes concerned whether the services provided by other operators were equivalent to those that Moby/Toremar had to provide under the new public service contract. The Commission recalls that this assessment was based on the competitive situation on those routes between 1 January 2009 and 1 January 2012. Since the services that Moby/Toremar has to operate are almost identical in terms of routes served, frequencies and technical requirements to those that Toremar had to perform during the prolongation period, the Commission’s conclusion (see recital (207)) that market forces alone were insufficient to meet the public service needs is also valid for Toremar during the entire prolongation period. Indeed, on a number of routes Toremar was the only operator while on the other routes the services provided by other operators were not equivalent in terms of continuity, regularity, capacity and quality and therefore did not satisfy in full the public service needs imposed on Toremar by virtue of the initial Convention (as prolonged). |
| --- | --- |

(301)

The Commission notes that during the period from 1 January 2009 until 1 January 2012, on some routes that had to be operated by Toremar under the extension of the initial Convention, other operators offered ferry services albeit not necessarily throughout the year and with the same frequency. The Commission has already assessed in recitals (201) to (207) for each of the routes concerned whether the services provided by other operators were equivalent to those that Moby/Toremar had to provide under the new public service contract. The Commission recalls that this assessment was based on the competitive situation on those routes between 1 January 2009 and 1 January 2012. Since the services that Moby/Toremar has to operate are almost identical in terms of routes served, frequencies and technical requirements to those that Toremar had to perform during the prolongation period, the Commission’s conclusion (see recital (207)) that market forces alone were insufficient to meet the public service needs is also valid for Toremar during the entire prolongation period. Indeed, on a number of routes Toremar was the only operator while on the other routes the services provided by other operators were not equivalent in terms of continuity, regularity, capacity and quality and therefore did not satisfy in full the public service needs imposed on Toremar by virtue of the initial Convention (as prolonged).

| (302) | Finally, in light of the planned privatisation and in order to ensure the continuity of the public services that were operated under the initial Convention, Italy decided to extend this Convention unaltered and subject to the change in compensation methodology applicable from 2010 onwards). The Commission accepts that user demand (as described in recitals (297) to (299)) could not have been met by imposing public service obligations applicable to all operators serving the routes at hand. In particular, on several routes Toremar was the only operator (see e.g. recital (202)) and where this was not the case, the offer provided by the other operators did not meet (all) the requirements of regularity, continuity and quality. Furthermore, the operation of most (if not all) routes, especially in the low season, is loss-making so that without public service compensation they would likely not be operated at all. In addition, the Commission accepts that in view of the process to privatise Toremar, prolonging the existing public service contract was the only way to guarantee the continuity of the public services until completion of that privatisation. |
| --- | --- |

(302)

Finally, in light of the planned privatisation and in order to ensure the continuity of the public services that were operated under the initial Convention, Italy decided to extend this Convention unaltered and subject to the change in compensation methodology applicable from 2010 onwards). The Commission accepts that user demand (as described in recitals (297) to (299)) could not have been met by imposing public service obligations applicable to all operators serving the routes at hand. In particular, on several routes Toremar was the only operator (see e.g. recital (202)) and where this was not the case, the offer provided by the other operators did not meet (all) the requirements of regularity, continuity and quality. Furthermore, the operation of most (if not all) routes, especially in the low season, is loss-making so that without public service compensation they would likely not be operated at all. In addition, the Commission accepts that in view of the process to privatise Toremar, prolonging the existing public service contract was the only way to guarantee the continuity of the public services until completion of that privatisation.

| (303) | Therefore, the Commission concludes that Italy has not made a manifest error when defining the services entrusted to Toremar as SGEI. The doubts expressed by the Commission in the 2011 and 2012 Decisions are hence dispelled. |
| --- | --- |

(303)

Therefore, the Commission concludes that Italy has not made a manifest error when defining the services entrusted to Toremar as SGEI. The doubts expressed by the Commission in the 2011 and 2012 Decisions are hence dispelled.

6.3.1.3.   Need for an entrustment act specifying the public service obligations and the methods of calculating compensation

| (304) | As indicated in the Section 2.3 of the 2011 SGEI Framework, the concept of service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 106 TFEU means that the undertaking in question has been entrusted with the operation of the service of general economic interest by way of one or more official acts. |
| --- | --- |

(304)

As indicated in the Section 2.3 of the 2011 SGEI Framework, the concept of service of general economic interest within the meaning of Article 106 TFEU means that the undertaking in question has been entrusted with the operation of the service of general economic interest by way of one or more official acts.

| (305) | These acts must specify, in particular:






  — | The precise nature of the public service obligation and its duration; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(305)

These acts must specify, in particular:

—

The precise nature of the public service obligation and its duration;

| — | The undertaking and territory concerned; |
| --- | --- |

—

The undertaking and territory concerned;

| — | The nature of the exclusive rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

The nature of the exclusive rights;

| — | The parameters for calculating, controlling and reviewing the compensation; |
| --- | --- |

—

The parameters for calculating, controlling and reviewing the compensation;

| — | The arrangements for avoiding and repaying any overcompensation. |
| --- | --- |

—

The arrangements for avoiding and repaying any overcompensation.

| (306) | In its 2011 and 2012 Decisions, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the entrustment act provided for a comprehensive description of the nature of Toremar’s public service obligations during the prolongation period. Furthermore, the Commission emphasised that no 5-year plans had been adopted for the periods 2000–2004 and 2005–2008 as laid down by the initial Convention. Nevertheless, the Commission also recalled that different elements of the entrustment may be placed in several acts without putting into question the appropriateness of the definition of the obligations. During the extension period, Toremar’s entrustment act included the initial Convention (as amended and extended over time), the 5-year plans covering the periods 1990–1994 and 1995–1999, a series of ad hoc decisions by Italy, the CIPE Directive and the 2009 Law. |
| --- | --- |

(306)

In its 2011 and 2012 Decisions, the Commission expressed doubts as to whether the entrustment act provided for a comprehensive description of the nature of Toremar’s public service obligations during the prolongation period. Furthermore, the Commission emphasised that no 5-year plans had been adopted for the periods 2000–2004 and 2005–2008 as laid down by the initial Convention. Nevertheless, the Commission also recalled that different elements of the entrustment may be placed in several acts without putting into question the appropriateness of the definition of the obligations. During the extension period, Toremar’s entrustment act included the initial Convention (as amended and extended over time), the 5-year plans covering the periods 1990–1994 and 1995–1999, a series of ad hoc decisions by Italy, the CIPE Directive and the 2009 Law.

ad hoc

| (307) | Against this background, the Commission first notes that the initial Convention (as amended over time), which forms the core of Toremar’s entrustment act, remained fully applicable until the completion of the privatisation on the basis of a series of Decree Laws (see recital (286)). These legal acts specify that Toremar was entrusted with public service obligations until the completion of its privatisation. |
| --- | --- |

(307)

Against this background, the Commission first notes that the initial Convention (as amended over time), which forms the core of Toremar’s entrustment act, remained fully applicable until the completion of the privatisation on the basis of a series of Decree Laws (see recital (286)). These legal acts specify that Toremar was entrusted with public service obligations until the completion of its privatisation.

| (308) | According to the initial Convention, the 5-year plans specify the routes and the ports to be served, the type and capacity of vessels to be used for the maritime connections in question, the frequency of the service and the fares to be paid, including subsidised fares, particularly for residents of island regions. While the plans for the periods 2000-2004 and 2005-2008 were not formally adopted, the plan for the period 1995-1999 (endorsed by Ministerial Decree of 14 May 1996) continued to apply without any changes as regards the scope of the public service obligations. Therefore, the provisions of that plan continued to apply in full during the period from 1 January 2009 until 2 January 2012. Before 2009, the original fare scheme provided for in the initial Convention was amended by a number of subsequent acts. However, during the entire prolongation period, no inter-ministerial decrees were issued to further amend the fares to be charged by the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar. On this basis, the Commission concludes that the public service obligations that Toremar had to comply with during the prolongation period were defined in a sufficiently clear way. |
| --- | --- |

(308)

According to the initial Convention, the 5-year plans specify the routes and the ports to be served, the type and capacity of vessels to be used for the maritime connections in question, the frequency of the service and the fares to be paid, including subsidised fares, particularly for residents of island regions. While the plans for the periods 2000-2004 and 2005-2008 were not formally adopted, the plan for the period 1995-1999 (endorsed by Ministerial Decree of 14 May 1996) continued to apply without any changes as regards the scope of the public service obligations. Therefore, the provisions of that plan continued to apply in full during the period from 1 January 2009 until 2 January 2012. Before 2009, the original fare scheme provided for in the initial Convention was amended by a number of subsequent acts. However, during the entire prolongation period, no inter-ministerial decrees were issued to further amend the fares to be charged by the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar. On this basis, the Commission concludes that the public service obligations that Toremar had to comply with during the prolongation period were defined in a sufficiently clear way.

| (309) | The Commission already noted in recitals 239 and 240 of the 2011 Decision that the parameters necessary for the calculation of the amount of compensation have been established in advance and are clearly described. In particular, for the year 2009 the initial Convention (see recitals (42) and (44)) contains an exhaustive and precise list of the cost elements to be taken into account as well as the methodology of calculation of the return on invested capital for the operator. For the years 2010 and 2011, the relevant methodology is set out in the CIPE Directive (see recitals (41) to (55)). More specifically, the CIPE Directive details the cost elements taken into account and the return on invested capital. Finally, the 2009 Law includes the maximum compensation amount of EUR 13 005 441 that applies from 2010 onwards. Furthermore, the initial Convention laid down that the compensation would be paid out in instalments and ensured that the compensation was based on the actual costs and revenues incurred for the delivery of the public service. In this way, overcompensation could be detected and easily avoided. Where applicable, the State could then recover the overcompensation from Toremar. |
| --- | --- |

(309)

The Commission already noted in recitals 239 and 240 of the 2011 Decision that the parameters necessary for the calculation of the amount of compensation have been established in advance and are clearly described. In particular, for the year 2009 the initial Convention (see recitals (42) and (44)) contains an exhaustive and precise list of the cost elements to be taken into account as well as the methodology of calculation of the return on invested capital for the operator. For the years 2010 and 2011, the relevant methodology is set out in the CIPE Directive (see recitals (41) to (55)). More specifically, the CIPE Directive details the cost elements taken into account and the return on invested capital. Finally, the 2009 Law includes the maximum compensation amount of EUR 13 005 441 that applies from 2010 onwards. Furthermore, the initial Convention laid down that the compensation would be paid out in instalments and ensured that the compensation was based on the actual costs and revenues incurred for the delivery of the public service. In this way, overcompensation could be detected and easily avoided. Where applicable, the State could then recover the overcompensation from Toremar.

| (310) | On this basis, the Commission considers that for the period of prolongation of the initial Convention the entrustment acts laid down a clear definition of the public service obligations, the duration, the undertaking and territory concerned, the parameters for calculating, controlling and reviewing the compensation and the arrangements for avoiding and repaying any overcompensation, as required under the 2011 SGEI Framework. |
| --- | --- |

(310)

On this basis, the Commission considers that for the period of prolongation of the initial Convention the entrustment acts laid down a clear definition of the public service obligations, the duration, the undertaking and territory concerned, the parameters for calculating, controlling and reviewing the compensation and the arrangements for avoiding and repaying any overcompensation, as required under the 2011 SGEI Framework.

6.3.1.4.   Duration of the period of entrustment

| (311) | As indicated in paragraph 17 of the 2011 SGEI Framework, ‘the duration of the period of entrustment should be justified by reference to objective criteria such as the need to amortise non-transferable fixed assets. In principle, the duration of the period of entrustment should not exceed the period required for the depreciation of the most significant assets required to provide the SGEI.’ |
| --- | --- |

(311)

As indicated in paragraph 17 of the 2011 SGEI Framework, ‘the duration of the period of entrustment should be justified by reference to objective criteria such as the need to amortise non-transferable fixed assets. In principle, the duration of the period of entrustment should not exceed the period required for the depreciation of the most significant assets required to provide the SGEI.’

| (312) | Italy indicated that the duration of the extension has been set in reference to the period required for the depreciation of the assets employed in the provision of the SGEI. In particular, the total duration of the initial Convention as prolonged amounts to just over 22 years. Vessels are the most significant assets required to provide the public service. The depreciation period for vessels used for ferry services is usually long and can exceed 25 years. |
| --- | --- |

(312)

Italy indicated that the duration of the extension has been set in reference to the period required for the depreciation of the assets employed in the provision of the SGEI. In particular, the total duration of the initial Convention as prolonged amounts to just over 22 years. Vessels are the most significant assets required to provide the public service. The depreciation period for vessels used for ferry services is usually long and can exceed 25 years.

| (313) | Italy has provided the Commission with the depreciation value of Toremar’s vessels for the period 2009-2011. The Commission notes that, at the time of the prolongation of the initial Convention, five out of eight vessels had already been fully depreciated, whereas the remaining three vessels, not yet depreciated, had an average age of 21,5 years. |
| --- | --- |

(313)

Italy has provided the Commission with the depreciation value of Toremar’s vessels for the period 2009-2011. The Commission notes that, at the time of the prolongation of the initial Convention, five out of eight vessels had already been fully depreciated, whereas the remaining three vessels, not yet depreciated, had an average age of 21,5 years.

| (314) | Although, the depreciation period has lapsed for most of the vessels used by Toremar during the extension of the initial Convention, the Commission notes that extending the period for 3 years was necessary to ensure the continuity of the public service until the completion of the privatisation process. Taking into account, additionally, the average age of the remaining vessels whose value had not yet been fully depreciated and the average length of the depreciation of vessels used for ferry services, the Commission concludes that the duration of the entrustment act is sufficiently justified and that paragraph 17 of the SGEI Framework is complied with. |
| --- | --- |

(314)

Although, the depreciation period has lapsed for most of the vessels used by Toremar during the extension of the initial Convention, the Commission notes that extending the period for 3 years was necessary to ensure the continuity of the public service until the completion of the privatisation process. Taking into account, additionally, the average age of the remaining vessels whose value had not yet been fully depreciated and the average length of the depreciation of vessels used for ferry services, the Commission concludes that the duration of the entrustment act is sufficiently justified and that paragraph 17 of the SGEI Framework is complied with.

6.3.1.5.   Compliance with Directive 2006/111/EC

| (315) | According to paragraph 18 of the 2011 SGEI Framework, ‘aid will be considered compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) of the Treaty only where the undertaking complies, where applicable, with Directive 2006/111/EC’ of the Commission on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (88). |
| --- | --- |

(315)

According to paragraph 18 of the 2011 SGEI Framework, ‘aid will be considered compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) of the Treaty only where the undertaking complies, where applicable, with Directive 2006/111/EC’ of the Commission on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (88).

88

| (316) | Furthermore, paragraph 44 of the 2011 SGEI Framework requires that: ‘Where an undertaking carries out activities falling both inside and outside the scope of the SGEI, the internal accounts must show separately the costs and revenues associated with the SGEI and those of the other services in line with the principles set out in paragraph 31.’ |
| --- | --- |

(316)

Furthermore, paragraph 44 of the 2011 SGEI Framework requires that: ‘Where an undertaking carries out activities falling both inside and outside the scope of the SGEI, the internal accounts must show separately the costs and revenues associated with the SGEI and those of the other services in line with the principles set out in paragraph 31.’

| (317) | Italy has confirmed that Toremar has only been active in providing public services under the initial Convention. |
| --- | --- |

(317)

Italy has confirmed that Toremar has only been active in providing public services under the initial Convention.

| (318) | Therefore, the Commission considers that paragraph 18 of the SGEI Framework is not applicable. |
| --- | --- |

(318)

Therefore, the Commission considers that paragraph 18 of the SGEI Framework is not applicable.

6.3.1.6.   Amount of compensation

| (319) | Paragraph 21 of the 2011 SGEI Framework states that ‘[...] the amount of the compensation must not exceed what is necessary to cover the cost of discharging the public service obligations, including a reasonable profit’. |
| --- | --- |

(319)

Paragraph 21 of the 2011 SGEI Framework states that ‘[...] the amount of the compensation must not exceed what is necessary to cover the cost of discharging the public service obligations, including a reasonable profit’.

| (320) | In the case at hand, since the compensation constitutes illegal aid granted before its entry into force, paragraph 69 of the 2011 SGEI Framework specifically provides that, for the purpose of the State aid assessment, the use of the net avoided cost methodology is not required. Instead, alternative methods for calculating the net cost necessary to discharge the public service obligations, such as the methodology based on cost allocation can be used. Under the latter methodology, the net cost would be calculated as the difference between the costs and the revenues for a designated provider of fulfilling the public service obligations, as specified and estimated in the entrustment act. Paragraphs 28 to 38 of the 2011 SGEI Framework set out in more detail how this methodology should be applied. |
| --- | --- |

(320)

In the case at hand, since the compensation constitutes illegal aid granted before its entry into force, paragraph 69 of the 2011 SGEI Framework specifically provides that, for the purpose of the State aid assessment, the use of the net avoided cost methodology is not required. Instead, alternative methods for calculating the net cost necessary to discharge the public service obligations, such as the methodology based on cost allocation can be used. Under the latter methodology, the net cost would be calculated as the difference between the costs and the revenues for a designated provider of fulfilling the public service obligations, as specified and estimated in the entrustment act. Paragraphs 28 to 38 of the 2011 SGEI Framework set out in more detail how this methodology should be applied.

| (321) | In its 2011 and 2012 Decisions, the Commission could not conclude whether the amount of compensation as from 2009 was proportionate, as it still had doubts regarding the qualification of some of the public services entrusted to Toremar as genuine SGEI. These doubts have been addressed in Section 6.3.1.2 and the Commission considers hence that the compensation granted to Toremar for 2009 is proportionate and compatible with Article 106 TFEU. Italy has provided the calculation of the compensation amount for 2009 (i.e. EUR 13 572 035) which was determined on the basis of the methodology laid down in the initial Convention and corresponded to the accumulated net loss on the services operated under the public service regime, to which a variable amount corresponding to the return on invested capital was added (i.e. EUR 301 000). |
| --- | --- |

(321)

In its 2011 and 2012 Decisions, the Commission could not conclude whether the amount of compensation as from 2009 was proportionate, as it still had doubts regarding the qualification of some of the public services entrusted to Toremar as genuine SGEI. These doubts have been addressed in Section 6.3.1.2 and the Commission considers hence that the compensation granted to Toremar for 2009 is proportionate and compatible with Article 106 TFEU. Italy has provided the calculation of the compensation amount for 2009 (i.e. EUR 13 572 035) which was determined on the basis of the methodology laid down in the initial Convention and corresponded to the accumulated net loss on the services operated under the public service regime, to which a variable amount corresponding to the return on invested capital was added (i.e. EUR 301 000).

| (322) | The Commission also expressed doubts regarding the risk premium of 6,5 %, which applied from 2010 onwards. In particular, the Commission questioned whether this premium reflects an appropriate level of risk, taking into account that prima facie Toremar did not seem to assume the risks normally borne in the operation of such services. |
| --- | --- |

(322)

The Commission also expressed doubts regarding the risk premium of 6,5 %, which applied from 2010 onwards. In particular, the Commission questioned whether this premium reflects an appropriate level of risk, taking into account that prima facie Toremar did not seem to assume the risks normally borne in the operation of such services.

prima facie

| (323) | The risk premium of 6,5 % would have been applied to determine the return on capital using the WACC formula. However, as already explained in recital (133), Italy has clarified that, because the tender amount of compensation was capped by the 2009 Law, it was decided to simplify the calculation by applying the 6,9 % as a flat rate return on capital for the years 2010 and 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(323)

The risk premium of 6,5 % would have been applied to determine the return on capital using the WACC formula. However, as already explained in recital (133), Italy has clarified that, because the tender amount of compensation was capped by the 2009 Law, it was decided to simplify the calculation by applying the 6,9 % as a flat rate return on capital for the years 2010 and 2011.

| (324) | In this context, on the basis of the route-by-route accounts submitted by Italy and as aggregated in Table 11, the Commission could verify that for 2010 and 2011 together, the public service compensation was about EUR 2 200 lower than the net cost of the service including the 6,9 % flat rate return on capital:









  Toremar public service remit | 2010 | 2011 | Grand total |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Total revenues | 21 241 542 € | 20 097 049 € | 41 338 591 € |
| - Total costs | 35 410 421 € | 35 218 639 € | 70 629 060 € |
| - Amortisations | 1 064 158 € | 985 207 € | 2 049 365 € |
| = Net cost of public service | -15 233 037 € | -16 106 797 € | -31 339 834 € |
| + Return on capital (6,9 %) | - 359 417 € | - 313 826 € | - 673 243 € |
| = Eligible for compensation | -15 592 454 € | -16 420 623 € | -32 013 077 € |
| + Actual compensation | 16 005 441 € | 16 005 441 € | 32 010 882 € |
| = Over/under compensation | 412 987 € | - 415 182 € | -2 195 € |

(324)

In this context, on the basis of the route-by-route accounts submitted by Italy and as aggregated in Table 11, the Commission could verify that for 2010 and 2011 together, the public service compensation was about EUR 2 200 lower than the net cost of the service including the 6,9 % flat rate return on capital:

Toremar public service remit

Toremar public service remit

2010

2010

2011

2011

Grand total

Grand total

Total revenues

Total revenues

21 241 542 €

20 097 049 €

41 338 591 €

- Total costs

- Total costs

35 410 421 €

35 218 639 €

70 629 060 €

- Amortisations

- Amortisations

1 064 158 €

985 207 €

2 049 365 €

= Net cost of public service

= Net cost of public service

-15 233 037 €

-16 106 797 €

-31 339 834 €

- Return on capital (6,9 %)

- Return on capital (6,9 %)

- 359 417 €

- 313 826 €

- 673 243 €

= Eligible for compensation

= Eligible for compensation

-15 592 454 €

-16 420 623 €

-32 013 077 €

- Actual compensation

- Actual compensation

16 005 441 €

16 005 441 €

32 010 882 €

= Over/under compensation

= Over/under compensation

412 987 €

- 415 182 €

-2 195 €

Table 11 – Net cost of the public service operated by Toremar for the period 2010-2011

Table 11 – Net cost of the public service operated by Toremar for the period 2010-2011

| (325) | Paragraph 49 of the 2011 SGEI Framework requires Member States to ensure that the compensation granted for operating the SGEI does not result in undertakings receiving overcompensation (as defined in paragraph 47 of that Framework). Among others, Member States must provide evidence upon request from the Commission. Furthermore, they must carry out regular checks, or ensure that such checks are carried out, at the end of the period of entrustment and, in any event, at intervals of not more than 3 years. |
| --- | --- |

(325)

Paragraph 49 of the 2011 SGEI Framework requires Member States to ensure that the compensation granted for operating the SGEI does not result in undertakings receiving overcompensation (as defined in paragraph 47 of that Framework). Among others, Member States must provide evidence upon request from the Commission. Furthermore, they must carry out regular checks, or ensure that such checks are carried out, at the end of the period of entrustment and, in any event, at intervals of not more than 3 years.

| (326) | The Commission has already assessed under Altmark 3 that the 6,5 % flat rate return on capital that Moby/Toremar could expect from an ex ante perspective was in line with the risks it ran when operating the public services under the public service contract (see recitals (224) to (229)). In addition, the Commission reiterates that Italy has used a flat rate return on capital (which was set at 6,9 % for the years 2010-2011) for calculation simplification purposes. In fact, in the 2011 Decision, the Commission assumed that the rate of return on invested capital for 2010 was set at 9,95 % before taxes, but Italy explained that this was an estimated value for the purpose of the then forthcoming open tender procedures following the privatisation of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar (see recital (132)). |
| --- | --- |

(326)

The Commission has already assessed under Altmark 3 that the 6,5 % flat rate return on capital that Moby/Toremar could expect from an ex ante perspective was in line with the risks it ran when operating the public services under the public service contract (see recitals (224) to (229)). In addition, the Commission reiterates that Italy has used a flat rate return on capital (which was set at 6,9 % for the years 2010-2011) for calculation simplification purposes. In fact, in the 2011 Decision, the Commission assumed that the rate of return on invested capital for 2010 was set at 9,95 % before taxes, but Italy explained that this was an estimated value for the purpose of the then forthcoming open tender procedures following the privatisation of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar (see recital (132)).

Altmark

ex ante

| (327) | The Commission notes that the submitted CIPE Directive takes into account certain market values applicable in the maritime cabotage sector. It prescribes the eligible costs for the purposes of public service obligations, as well as the calculation principles concerning the rate of return on capital on the basis of the information, conditions and risks relevant for this particular sector. |
| --- | --- |

(327)

The Commission notes that the submitted CIPE Directive takes into account certain market values applicable in the maritime cabotage sector. It prescribes the eligible costs for the purposes of public service obligations, as well as the calculation principles concerning the rate of return on capital on the basis of the information, conditions and risks relevant for this particular sector.

| (328) | Further, the Commission notes that for the years 2010 and 2011, the Region of Tuscany has made use of its reserves to cover Toremar’s additional public service cost that could not be covered by the central State budget, as a result of a reduction of the number of passengers because of the economic and financial crisis and an increase of the fuel costs in that same period (see recital (40)). Toremar was therefore exposed to the commercial risk of a substantial loss of income without having the certainty that this loss would be covered by the Region of Tuscany. Indeed, the latter would only release the reserves after verifying in detail the actual costs and revenues incurred for the 2010-2011 period. In view of this, the Commission finds that a 6,9 % return on capital is in line with the risks involved. |
| --- | --- |

(328)

Further, the Commission notes that for the years 2010 and 2011, the Region of Tuscany has made use of its reserves to cover Toremar’s additional public service cost that could not be covered by the central State budget, as a result of a reduction of the number of passengers because of the economic and financial crisis and an increase of the fuel costs in that same period (see recital (40)). Toremar was therefore exposed to the commercial risk of a substantial loss of income without having the certainty that this loss would be covered by the Region of Tuscany. Indeed, the latter would only release the reserves after verifying in detail the actual costs and revenues incurred for the 2010-2011 period. In view of this, the Commission finds that a 6,9 % return on capital is in line with the risks involved.

| (329) | In addition, as already explained in recital (227) in the context of assessing the new public service contract under Altmark 3, the Commission has found that in 2011 (as well as in 2010) the median return on capital generated by a benchmark group of selected ferry operators that offered maritime connections within Italy or between Italy and other Member States has been higher than 6,5 %, at instances in excess of 8 %. Therefore, a 6,9 % return on capital is considered to be in line with the returns on capital observed for the benchmarking group. |
| --- | --- |

(329)

In addition, as already explained in recital (227) in the context of assessing the new public service contract under Altmark 3, the Commission has found that in 2011 (as well as in 2010) the median return on capital generated by a benchmark group of selected ferry operators that offered maritime connections within Italy or between Italy and other Member States has been higher than 6,5 %, at instances in excess of 8 %. Therefore, a 6,9 % return on capital is considered to be in line with the returns on capital observed for the benchmarking group.

Altmark

| (330) | In view of the above, the Commission considers that the submitted 6,9 % return on capital remains at a reasonable level. |
| --- | --- |

(330)

In view of the above, the Commission considers that the submitted 6,9 % return on capital remains at a reasonable level.

| (331) | Italy has lastly provided the necessary evidence showing that all regular checks were carried out to ensure that the amount of the compensation did not exceed the net cost of the service, In addition, the Commission recalls that the compensation is paid out in instalments (see recital (41)) and that the final pay-out is made on the basis of the actual costs and revenues of the year. This ensures that the amount of compensation does not exceed the net costs of the service. |
| --- | --- |

(331)

Italy has lastly provided the necessary evidence showing that all regular checks were carried out to ensure that the amount of the compensation did not exceed the net cost of the service, In addition, the Commission recalls that the compensation is paid out in instalments (see recital (41)) and that the final pay-out is made on the basis of the actual costs and revenues of the year. This ensures that the amount of compensation does not exceed the net costs of the service.

| (332) | In view of the above, the Commission concludes that the amount of compensation granted to Toremar during the prolongation of the initial Convention has not led to any overcompensation and the applicable requirements of Section 2.8 of the SGEI Framework are complied with. |
| --- | --- |

(332)

In view of the above, the Commission concludes that the amount of compensation granted to Toremar during the prolongation of the initial Convention has not led to any overcompensation and the applicable requirements of Section 2.8 of the SGEI Framework are complied with.

6.3.1.7.   The berthing priority

| (333) | Article 19-ter, paragraph 21, of the 2009 Law clearly specifies that the berthing priority was necessary to guarantee the territorial continuity with the islands and in light of the public service obligations of the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar. Indeed, if there were no priority berthing for companies entrusted with public service obligations, these may have to wait their turn before docking and thereby incur delays, which would defeat the purpose of ensuring reliable and convenient connectivity to the consumers. A regular timetable is indeed necessary to satisfy mobility needs of the islands’ population and to contribute to the economic development of the islands concerned. Furthermore, since the departure times for the public service routes are fixed by the Convention the berthing priority is necessary to ensure that ports allocate the berths and berthing times in such a way to enable the public service operator to respect its public service obligations. |
| --- | --- |

(333)

Article 19-ter, paragraph 21, of the 2009 Law clearly specifies that the berthing priority was necessary to guarantee the territorial continuity with the islands and in light of the public service obligations of the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar. Indeed, if there were no priority berthing for companies entrusted with public service obligations, these may have to wait their turn before docking and thereby incur delays, which would defeat the purpose of ensuring reliable and convenient connectivity to the consumers. A regular timetable is indeed necessary to satisfy mobility needs of the islands’ population and to contribute to the economic development of the islands concerned. Furthermore, since the departure times for the public service routes are fixed by the Convention the berthing priority is necessary to ensure that ports allocate the berths and berthing times in such a way to enable the public service operator to respect its public service obligations.

-ter,

| (334) | Against this background, the Commission considers that this measure was awarded to enable Toremar to perform its public service obligations, which constitute a genuine SGEI (see Section 6.3.1.2). Furthermore, Italy has confirmed that the berthing priority is only applicable to services provided under the public service regime. |
| --- | --- |

(334)

Against this background, the Commission considers that this measure was awarded to enable Toremar to perform its public service obligations, which constitute a genuine SGEI (see Section 6.3.1.2). Furthermore, Italy has confirmed that the berthing priority is only applicable to services provided under the public service regime.

| (335) | The Commission has already assessed in detail the compatibility of the SGEI and the related compensation for Toremar during the extension of the initial Convention (see Section 6.3.1). The Commission hence considers that its compatibility assessment of the berthing priority can be limited to establishing whether or not this measure could result in overcompensation. |
| --- | --- |

(335)

The Commission has already assessed in detail the compatibility of the SGEI and the related compensation for Toremar during the extension of the initial Convention (see Section 6.3.1). The Commission hence considers that its compatibility assessment of the berthing priority can be limited to establishing whether or not this measure could result in overcompensation.

| (336) | The Commission acknowledges the arguments put forward by Italy that any possible monetary advantage from the berthing priority would be limited (see recital (137)). As a result, also the risk of overcompensation stemming from the measure would be limited. In addition, to the extent that this measure would reduce the operating costs or increase the revenues of the public service operator, these effects would be fully reflected in the operator’s internal accounts. Therefore, the overcompensation checks that have been applied to Toremar as described in Section 6.3.1.6 are also fit to detect any possible overcompensation resulting from the berthing priority. |
| --- | --- |

(336)

The Commission acknowledges the arguments put forward by Italy that any possible monetary advantage from the berthing priority would be limited (see recital (137)). As a result, also the risk of overcompensation stemming from the measure would be limited. In addition, to the extent that this measure would reduce the operating costs or increase the revenues of the public service operator, these effects would be fully reflected in the operator’s internal accounts. Therefore, the overcompensation checks that have been applied to Toremar as described in Section 6.3.1.6 are also fit to detect any possible overcompensation resulting from the berthing priority.

| (337) | The Commission therefore concludes that the berthing priority, which is inextricably linked with the public service performed by Toremar, is compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU and the 2011 SGEI Framework. |
| --- | --- |

(337)

The Commission therefore concludes that the berthing priority, which is inextricably linked with the public service performed by Toremar, is compatible with the internal market on the basis of Article 106(2) TFEU and the 2011 SGEI Framework.

6.3.1.8.   Conclusion

| (338) | Based on the assessment in recitals (286) to (337), the Commission concludes that the compensation granted to Toremar for the provision of the maritime services subject to the prolongation of the initial Convention in the period from 1 January 2010 to 1 January 2012 and the berthing priority complies with the applicable conditions of the 2011 SGEI Framework and are therefore compatible with the internal market under Article 106 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(338)

Based on the assessment in recitals (286) to (337), the Commission concludes that the compensation granted to Toremar for the provision of the maritime services subject to the prolongation of the initial Convention in the period from 1 January 2010 to 1 January 2012 and the berthing priority complies with the applicable conditions of the 2011 SGEI Framework and are therefore compatible with the internal market under Article 106 TFEU.

6.3.2.   Conclusion on compatibility of aid

Conclusion on compatibility of aid

| (339) | On the basis of the assessment above, the Commission finds that the compensation granted to Toremar and the berthing priority for the operation of maritime routes in the period 1 January 2010 – 1 January 2012 are compatible with the internal market under Article 106 TFEU and the 2011 SGEI Framework. |
| --- | --- |

(339)

On the basis of the assessment above, the Commission finds that the compensation granted to Toremar and the berthing priority for the operation of maritime routes in the period 1 January 2010 – 1 January 2012 are compatible with the internal market under Article 106 TFEU and the 2011 SGEI Framework.

7.   CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

| (340) | The Commission finds that Italy has unlawfully implemented the aid measures under assessment in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU. On the basis of the foregoing assessment, the Commission has decided that the public service compensation granted to Toremar under the prolongation of the initial Convention is compatible with the internal market under Article 106 TFEU. Furthermore, since the berthing priority is inextricably linked with the performance of the SGEI by Toremar, this measure is also compatible with the internal market under Article 106 TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(340)

The Commission finds that Italy has unlawfully implemented the aid measures under assessment in breach of Article 108(3) TFEU. On the basis of the foregoing assessment, the Commission has decided that the public service compensation granted to Toremar under the prolongation of the initial Convention is compatible with the internal market under Article 106 TFEU. Furthermore, since the berthing priority is inextricably linked with the performance of the SGEI by Toremar, this measure is also compatible with the internal market under Article 106 TFEU.

| (341) | Further, the Commission finds that the following measures do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU:






  (1) | the compensation granted to Toremar for the provision of maritime services under the new service contract for the period 2 January 2012 – 31 December 2023, bundled with the Toremar business and the berthing priority to Moby/Toremar, because it complies with the four Altmark criteria; |
| --- | --- | --- |

(341)

Further, the Commission finds that the following measures do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU:

(1)

the compensation granted to Toremar for the provision of maritime services under the new service contract for the period 2 January 2012 – 31 December 2023, bundled with the Toremar business and the berthing priority to Moby/Toremar, because it complies with the four Altmark criteria;

Altmark

| (2) | Toremar’s use of funds to upgrade ships, because they have not been used for liquidity purposes; and |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Toremar’s use of funds to upgrade ships, because they have not been used for liquidity purposes; and

| (3) | The fiscal exemptions related to the privatisation process of Toremar and the possibility to use FAS resources in order to meet liquidity needs as laid down by the 2010 Law, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The fiscal exemptions related to the privatisation process of Toremar and the possibility to use FAS resources in order to meet liquidity needs as laid down by the 2010 Law,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The compensation to Toremar and the berthing priority for the provision of maritime services under the prolongation of the initial Convention in the period 1 January 2009 – 1 January 2012 constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. Italy has implemented the aid to Toremar in violation of Article 108(3) TFEU. This aid is compatible with the internal market.

Article 2

The award of the new public service contract for the period 2 January 2012 – 31 December 2023, bundled with the Toremar business and the berthing priority to Moby/Toremar does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

Article 3

The funds Toremar received to upgrade its ships were not used for liquidity purposes and thus do not constitute State aid to Toremar within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

Article 4

The fiscal exemptions related to the privatisation process of Toremar and the possibility to use resources of the Fondo Aree Sottoutilizzate to meet liquidity needs as laid down by the 2010 Law, do not constitute State aid to Toremar within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

Article 5

This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.

Done at Brussels, 17 June 2021.

For the Commission

Margrethe VESTAGER

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ C 28, 1.2.2012, p. 18 and OJ C 84, 22.3.2013, p. 58.

1

(2)  The former Tirrenia group consisted of the companies Tirrenia di Navigazione S.p.A., Adriatica S.p.A., Caremar – Campania Regionale Marittima S.p.A., Saremar – Sardegna Regionale Marittima S.p.A., Siremar – Sicilia Regionale Marittima S.p.A., and Toremar – Toscana Regionale Marittima S.p.A.

2

(3)  State aid – Italian Republic – State aid SA.32014 (2011/C) (ex 2011/NN), SA.32015 (2011/C) (ex 2011/NN), SA.32016 (2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) – State aid to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group – Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 28, 1.2.2012, p. 18).

3

(4)  State aid – Italian Republic – State aid SA.32014 (2011/C), SA.32015 (2011/C), SA.32016 (2011/C) – State aid to the companies of the former Tirrenia Group and their acquirers – Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU (OJ C 84, 22.3.2013, p. 58).

4

(5)  Commission Decision (EU) 2018/261 of 22 January 2014 on the measures SA.32014 (2011/C), SA.32015 (2011/C), SA.32016 (2011/C) implemented by the Region of Sardinia in favour of Saremar (OJ L 49, 22.2.2018, p. 22).

5

(6)  See Judgment of 6 April 2017 in Case T-219/14 Regione autonoma della Sardegna (Italy) v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2017:266.

6

Regione autonoma della Sardegna (Italy) v Commission

(7)  Fintecna (Finanziaria per i Settori Industriale e dei Servizi S.p.A.) is wholly owned by the Italian Ministry of the Economy and Finance and is specialised in managing shareholding and privatisation processes, as well as dealing with projects to rationalise and restructure companies facing industrial, financial or organisational difficulties.

7

(8)  See Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (OJ L 364, 12.12.1992) (‘the Maritime Cabotage Regulation’).

8

(9)  Commission Decision 2001/851/EC of 21 June 2001 on the State aid awarded to the Tirrenia di Navigazione shipping company by Italy (OJ L 318, 4.12.2001, p. 9).

9

(10)  Commission Decision 2005/163/EC of 16 March 2004 on the State aid paid by Italy to the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (OJ L 53, 26.2.2005, p. 29).

10

(11)  Joined Cases T-265/04, T-292/04 and T-504/04 Tirrenia di Navigazione v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2009:48.

11

Tirrenia di Navigazione v Commission

(12)  Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1411 of 2 March 2020 on the State aid No C 64/99 (ex NN 68/99) implemented by Italy for the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group) (OJ L 332, 12.10.2020, p. 1).

12

(13)  Communication from the Commission: European Framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (OJ C 8, 11.1.2012, p. 15).

13

(14)  Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1412 of 2 March 2020 on the the measures SA.32014, SA.32015, SA.32016 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Italy for Tirrenia di Navigazione and its acquirer Compagnia Italiana di Navigazione (OJ L 332, 12.10.2020, p. 45).

14

(15)  This transfer was formalised on 1 June 2011.

15

(16)  Article 19-ter, paragraph 10 of the 2009 Law.

16

ter

(17)  Out of which EUR 19 839 226 from Campania and EUR 10 030 606 from Lazio.

17

(18)  This includes the deferred payment by CIN of part of the purchase price for its acquisition of the Tirrenia business branch and several alleged additional aid measures in the context of the privatisation of the Siremar business branch (e.g. counter-guarantee and capital increase by the State for CdI, the entity that initially acquired the Siremar business branch).

18

(19)  In particular, the Bonus Sardo – Vacanza project, which forms part of Measure 7, was not assessed in the 2014 Decision and will also not be assessed in this Decision.

19

(20)  After 25 November 2010, by decision of the Interdepartmental Conference on the establishment of the annual subsidy set up under Article 11 of Law No 856/1986 between the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport, the Ministry of Economy and Finance, and the Ministry of Economic Development (the ‘Interdepartmental Conference’), any amount of overcompensation is deducted from future advance subsidy payments.

20

(21)  Comitato Interministeriale per la Programmazione Economica.

21

(22)  Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana (‘GURI’) No 50 of 28 February 2008.

22

(23)  As pursuant to Article 1, letter 999 of Law No 296 of 27 December 2006 and Article 1, letter e) of Decree Law 430/1997.

23

(24)  The desired rate of return for an equity investor given the risk profile of the company and associated cash flows.

24

(25)  Bolletino Ufficiale della Regione Toscana (BURT) No 2, 13 January 2010.

25

(26)  GURI, No 4, 13 January 2010.

26

(27)  OJ No S/9/010860/2010.

27

(28)  Corriere della Sera, Il Sole 24Ore, La Repubblica and La Nazione.

28

(29)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114).

29

(30)  Given the time needed for the tender procedure, the Fidi report worked on the assumption that the actual transfer of the shares could not take place before the end of 2010. As a result, the net book value of the assets as set on 30 June 2010 would need to be modified to take account of the market value of the assets at the time of the actual transfer. The market value of the assets was carried out by another independent expert evaluator. That evaluation did not relate to the calculation of the sale price of Toremar’s shares, but to the calculation of the value of Toremar’s assets.

30

(31)  According to Italy, the 2009 Law (see recital (26)), provided in its Article 4 for a commitment by the Italian Ministry of Finance to ensure that, during the privatisation process, provision was made for ‘commitments on the part of the buyer of Tirrenia SpA and Siremar SpA to settle any debts to Toremar SpA within 60 days of the transfer’. When Tirrenia went into special administration (see in this regard Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1412 of 2 March 2020 in cases SA.32014, SA.32015, SA.32016 (2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Italy for Tirrenia di Navigazione and its acquirer Compagnia Italiana di Navigazione, the Region of Tuscany, in order to avoid the negative impact on privatisation process of Toremar, included this clause in the sale contract making the payment of the part of the price corresponding to the claim, conditional upon payment of the claim by Tirrenia. This clause was made known to all the participants in the tender procedure.

31

(32)  On the basis of the latest information received by Italy, this claim has not been recovered to date. It has been admitted to the list of unsecured claims by the Civil Court of Rome, as part of the extraordinary administration procedure.

32

(33)  The contract for the award of the maritime cabotage services linking the islands of the Tuscan Archipelago has been concluded between the Region of Tuscany on the one hand and both Moby and Toremar on the other. Consequently, the decision will make reference to both companies (as ‘Moby/Toremar’), throughout the sections relating to the new public service contract.

33

(34)  Article 26(2) states: ‘A positive or negative deviation in the economic and financial balance can be caused by:

34

| (a) | Management inefficiencies; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Management inefficiencies;

| (b) | Erroneous communication by the Company of the services actually produced for determining the annual price; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Erroneous communication by the Company of the services actually produced for determining the annual price;

| (c) | Exceptionally unfavourable market conditions not dependent on the Company, which result in the worsening of the operating conditions and as a consequence in higher operating costs or lower tariff revenues, such as to result in a negative change of operating profit of more than 10 %. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Exceptionally unfavourable market conditions not dependent on the Company, which result in the worsening of the operating conditions and as a consequence in higher operating costs or lower tariff revenues, such as to result in a negative change of operating profit of more than 10 %.

| (d) | Financial modifications; |
| --- | --- |

(d)

Financial modifications;

| (e) | Amendments of laws or regulations that establish new conditions for the service provided for in the contract; |
| --- | --- |

(e)

Amendments of laws or regulations that establish new conditions for the service provided for in the contract;

| (f) | New investments required by the Region to be carried out with public resources provided for by Article 20; |
| --- | --- |

(f)

New investments required by the Region to be carried out with public resources provided for by Article 20;

| (g) | Modification of the tariff system pursuant to Article 13; |
| --- | --- |

(g)

Modification of the tariff system pursuant to Article 13;

| (h) | Exceptionally favourable market conditions which result in an increase of the operating profit higher than the 10 %; |
| --- | --- |

(h)

Exceptionally favourable market conditions which result in an increase of the operating profit higher than the 10 %;

| (i) | Increases in the unit cost of personnel for compliance with the CCNL [National Collective Labour Agreement] and with the Company’s bargaining power for supplementary pensions’. (Commission’s unofficial translation). |
| --- | --- |

(i)

Increases in the unit cost of personnel for compliance with the CCNL [National Collective Labour Agreement] and with the Company’s bargaining power for supplementary pensions’. (Commission’s unofficial translation).

(35)  As laid down by Article 19, paragraph 13a, of Decree Law 78/2009, converted into Law 102/2009 (‘Law 102/2009’), and by paragraph 19 of Article 19-ter of the 2009 Law.

35

,

-ter

(36)  These safety standards were then detailed in Council Directive 98/18/EC of 17 March 1998, transposed by Legislative Decree No 45 of 4 February 2000, of Directive 2003/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 April 2003, transposed by Legislative Decree No 52 of 8 March 2005 and of Directive 2003/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, transposed by Legislative Decree No 65 of 14 March 2005.

36

(37)  All the funds (i.e. EUR 7 000 000) provisioned by paragraph 19 of Article 19-ter of the 2009 Law and EUR 16 750 000 from the funds provisioned by Law 102/2009.

37

ter

(38)  The Fund for Under-utilised Areas (Fondo Aree Sottoutilizzate) is a national fund that supports the implementation of Italian Regional policy. Its resources are mainly earmarked for regions identified as such by Italy.

38

Fondo Aree Sottoutilizzate

(39)  
  Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana, No 137 of 16 June 2009.

39

Gazzetta Ufficiale della Repubblica Italiana

(40)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage). The Commission notes that the Maritime Cabotage Regulation does not require Member States to privatise their maritime transport companies but only to liberalise this specific market.

40

(41)  The letter of formal notice was adopted on 28 January 2010 but only notified to Italy the next day.

41

(42)  See Judgment of 24 July 2003 in Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans, ECLI:EU:C:2003:415.

42

Altmark Trans

(43)  Commission Decision of 28 November 2005 on the application of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (OJ L 312, 29.11.2005, p. 67).

43

(44)  Community framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation (OJ C 297, 29.11.2005, p. 4).

44

(45)  Commission Decision of 20 December 2011 on the application of Article 106(2) TFEU to State aid in the form of public service compensation granted to certain undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest (OJ L 7, 11.1.2012, p. 3).

45

(46)  Communication from the Commission: European Framework for State aid in the form of public service compensation.

46

(47)  The invitation to submit a tender provides that the participants show that they executed, in the period between 30 November 2006 and 30 November 2009, a volume of maritime services of not less than 450 000 nautical miles and that they reported a turnover for maritime transport services, in the last 3 financial years, of no less than EUR 150 million, out of which at least EUR 75 million from the operation of maritime passenger services.

47

(48)  Italy refers in this regard to the Commission’s (DG for Energy and Transport) letter D(2009) 75213 of 21 December 2009 (see recital (96)).

48

(49)  According to Italy, the tender amount of compensation constitutes a limit exclusively for the purpose of assessing the tenders and does not set any limit for the actual compensation paid during the contract.

49

(50)  See further analysis in Section 6.3.1.

50

(51)  The parties refer to the following cases to justify this argument: Case C-390/98 Banks, ECLI:EU:C:2001:456; Joined Cases C-74/00P and C-75/00P Falck, ECLI:EU:C:2002:524; and Case C-277/00 Germany v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2004:238.

51

Banks

Falck,

Germany v Commission

(52)  See Judgment of 24 July 2003 in Case C-280/00 Altmark Trans, ECLI:EU:C:2003:415.

52

Altmark Trans

(53)  Communication from the Commission on the application of the European Union State aid rules to compensation granted for the provision of services of general economic interest (OJ C 8, 11.1.2012, p. 4).

53

(54)  Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1412 of 2 March 2020 on the measures SA.32014, SA.32015, SA.32016 (2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Italy for Tirrenia di Navigazione and its acquirer Compagnia Italiana di Navigazione, recital 265.

54

(55)  See, in particular, Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:1980:209, paragraph 11; Case C-53/00 Ferring, ECLI:EU:C:2001:627, paragraph 21; Case C-372/97 Italy v Commission, ECLI:EU:C:2004:234, paragraph 44.

55

Philip Morris v Commission

Ferring

Italy v Commission

(56)  Case T-214/95 Het Vlaamse Gewest v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1998:77.

56

Het Vlaamse Gewest v Commission

(57)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4055/86 of 22 December 1986 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport between Member States and between Member States and third countries (OJ L 378, 31.12.1986, p. 1).

57

(58)  Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1411 of 2 March 2020 on State aid No C 64/99 (ex NN 68/99) implemented by Italy for the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group).

58

(59)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589 of 13 July 2015 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 9).

59

(60)  Case C-590/14 P DEI and Commission v Alouminion tis Ellados, ECLI:EU:C:2016:797, paragraph 45.

60

DEI and Commission v Alouminion tis Ellados

(61)  Joined Cases T-127/99, T-129/99 and T-148/99 Territorio Histórico de Álava – Diputación Foral de Álava and others v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2002:59, paragraph 175.

61

Territorio Histórico de Álava – Diputación Foral de Álava and others v Commission

(62)  Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1411 of 2 March 2020 on State aid No C 64/99 (ex NN 68/99) implemented by Italy for the Adriatica, Caremar, Siremar, Saremar and Toremar shipping companies (Tirrenia Group).

62

(63)  Case T 289/03 BUPA and Others v Commission [2008] ECR II 81, paragraph 96. See also Opinion of Advocate General Tizzano in case C 53/00 Ferring, ECR I 9069 and Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C 126/01, GEMO, [2003] ECR I 13769.

63

BUPA and Others v Commission

Ferring

GEMO

(64)  Commission Communication C(2004) 43 – Community Guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (OJ C 13, 17.1.2004, p. 3).

64

(65)  See Case C-205/99 Asociación Profesional de Empresas Navieras de Líneas Regulares (Analir) and Others and Administración General del Estado, ECLI:EU:C:2001:107.

65

Asociación Profesional de Empresas Navieras de Líneas Regulares (Analir) and Others and Administración General del Estado

(66)  Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions updating and rectifying the Communication on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3577/92 applying the principle of freedom to provide services to maritime transport within Member States (maritime cabotage), Brussels, COM(2014) 232 final, 22.4.2014.

66

(67)  See Case T-454/13 SNCM v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2017:134, paragraphs 130 and 134.

67

SNCM v Commission

(68)  The ships used on line A2 fast and line A5 cannot transport vehicles.

68

(69)  See Case C-205/99 Analir and others, ECLI:EU:C:2001:107, paragraph 71.

69

Analir and others

(70)  The tender documentation has provided for subcontracting possibilities. Italy has supplied the Commission with the specific amounts – being the net cost for the service – paid annually to Moby/Toremar by the Region of Tuscany for the provision of the public service on the Porto S. Stefano – Giannutri route. Toremar pays Maregiglio a lump-sum on the basis of a subcontract. The latter transaction, which involves a private contract, is outside the scope of this Decision.

70

(71)  Letter of 3 April 2012, ref. AOOGRT-0096174/O.80.

71

(72)  In particular, it concerns Minoan Lines Shipping, La Méridionale, Moby, Grandi Navi Veloci, Libertylines, Grimaldi Group, Corsica Ferries, SNAV, and Caronte Tourist. Other companies of the former Tirrenia Group (e.g. Caremar, Laziomar) have been excluded from the benchmark group.

72

(73)  Directive 2004/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 coordinating the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors (OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1).

73

(74)  Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114).

74

(75)  Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 65).

75

(76)  Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 94, 28.3.2014, p. 243).

76

(77)  Under Article 21 of Directive 2004/18/EC.

77

(78)  Article 1(4) of Directive 2004/18/EC reads: ‘
  “Service concession” is a contract of the same type as a public service contract except for the fact that the consideration for the provision of services consists either solely in the right to exploit the service or in this right together with payment.’

78

(79)  Commission Notice on the notion of State aid as referred to in Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (OJ C 262, 19.7.2016, p. 1).

79

(80)  In the Notion of Aid Communication, the Commission observes that the Union Courts often refer, in the context of State aid to an ‘open’ tender procedure. The use of the word ‘open’, however does not refer to a specific procedure under the Public Procurement Directives. Therefore, the Commission considers that the word ‘competitive’ appears more appropriate. In this Communication, the Commission also notes that this is not intended to deviate from the substantive conditions set out in the case law.

80

(81)  Furthermore, as explained above (see recital (234)) Article 36(1) of Directive 2004/18/EC did not apply to this tender. Therefore, Italy had actually no obligation to provide in the call selection criteria.

81

(82)  The invitation letter among others includes information regarding the credit of EUR 9 772 572 claimed from Tirrenia (see recitals (69) to (71)).

82

(83)  Case C-205/99 Asociación Profesional de Empresas Navieras de Líneas Regulares (Analir) and Others and Administración General del Estado, ECLI:EU:C:2001:107, paragraph 37.

83

Asociación Profesional de Empresas Navieras de Líneas Regulares (Analir) and Others and Administración General del Estado

(84)  See also paragraph 96 of the Notion of Aid Communication.

84

(85)  The first set of transfers was assessed in the Commission Decision (EU) 2020/1412 of 2 March 2020 on the measures SA.32014, SA.32015, SA.32016 (2011/C) (ex 2011/NN) implemented by Italy for Tirrenia di Navigazione and its acquirer Compagnia Italiana di Navigazione.

85

(86)  Italy has only notified (see recital (2)) the public service compensation granted under the prolongation of the initial Convention. Furthermore, Italy argues that the public service compensation granted to Toremar under the prolongation of the initial Convention is compatible and exempt from notification under the 2011 SGEI Decision. The Commission will assess whether this was indeed the case in Section 6.3.1.

86

(87)  For completeness, the Commission notes that the transitional provision contained in Article 10(a) of the 2011 SGEI Decision, according to which any aid scheme put into effect before the entry into force of this Decision (i.e. before 31 January 2012) that was compatible with the internal market and exempted from the notification requirement in accordance with the 2005 SGEI Decision shall continue to be compatible with the internal market and exempted from the notification requirement for a further period of 2 years (i.e. until 30 January 2014 included). This means that aid which was granted under such a scheme in the period between the entry into force of the 2005 SGEI Decision on 19 December 2005 and the entry into force of the 2011 SGEI Decision on 31 January 2012 will be considered compatible with the internal market but only from the date on which it was granted until 30 January 2014 included. In any event, for aid granted in the time from 31 January 2012 onwards, the transitional provision of Article 10(a) of the 2011 SGEI Decision is not applicable and the compatibility assessment has to be made pursuant to the 2011 SGEI Decision.

87

(88)  Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings as well as on financial transparency within certain undertakings (OJ L 318, 17.11.2006, p. 17).

88

---

| 2.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 64/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 64/60

---

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2022/349

of 28 February 2022

amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States

(notified under document C(2022) 1342)

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’) (1), and in particular Article 259(1), point (c), thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is an infectious viral disease in birds and may have a severe impact on the profitability of poultry farming causing disturbance to trade within the Union and exports to third countries. HPAI viruses can infect migratory birds, which can then spread these viruses over long distances during their autumn and spring migrations. Therefore, the presence of HPAI viruses in wild birds poses a continuous threat for the direct and indirect introduction of these viruses into holdings where poultry or captive birds are kept. In the event of an outbreak of HPAI, there is a risk that the disease agent may spread to other holdings where poultry or captive birds are kept. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) is an infectious viral disease in birds and may have a severe impact on the profitability of poultry farming causing disturbance to trade within the Union and exports to third countries. HPAI viruses can infect migratory birds, which can then spread these viruses over long distances during their autumn and spring migrations. Therefore, the presence of HPAI viruses in wild birds poses a continuous threat for the direct and indirect introduction of these viruses into holdings where poultry or captive birds are kept. In the event of an outbreak of HPAI, there is a risk that the disease agent may spread to other holdings where poultry or captive birds are kept.

| (2) | Regulation (EU) 2016/429 establishes a new legislative framework for the prevention and control of diseases that are transmissible to animals or humans. HPAI falls within the definition of a listed disease in that Regulation, and it is subject to the disease prevention and control rules laid down therein. In addition, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (2) supplements Regulation (EU) 2016/429 as regards the rules for the prevention and control of certain listed diseases, including disease control measures for HPAI. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Regulation (EU) 2016/429 establishes a new legislative framework for the prevention and control of diseases that are transmissible to animals or humans. HPAI falls within the definition of a listed disease in that Regulation, and it is subject to the disease prevention and control rules laid down therein. In addition, Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 (2) supplements Regulation (EU) 2016/429 as regards the rules for the prevention and control of certain listed diseases, including disease control measures for HPAI.

| (3) | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 (3) has been adopted within the framework of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 and it lays down disease control measures in relation to outbreaks of HPAI. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 (3) has been adopted within the framework of Regulation (EU) 2016/429 and it lays down disease control measures in relation to outbreaks of HPAI.

| (4) | More particularly, Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 provides that the protection and surveillance zones established by the Member States following outbreaks of HPAI, in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, are to comprise at least the areas listed as protection and surveillance zones in the Annex to that Implementing Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

More particularly, Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 provides that the protection and surveillance zones established by the Member States following outbreaks of HPAI, in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, are to comprise at least the areas listed as protection and surveillance zones in the Annex to that Implementing Decision.

| (5) | The Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 was recently amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/257 (4) following outbreaks of HPAI in poultry or captive birds in Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania and the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland that needed to be reflected in that Annex. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

The Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 was recently amended by Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/257 (4) following outbreaks of HPAI in poultry or captive birds in Czechia, Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania and the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland that needed to be reflected in that Annex.

| (6) | Since the date of adoption of Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/257, Czechia, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal, have notified the Commission of further outbreaks of HPAI of subtype H5N1 in establishments where poultry or captive birds were kept, located within or outside the areas listed in the Annex to that Implementing Decision. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Since the date of adoption of Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/257, Czechia, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal, have notified the Commission of further outbreaks of HPAI of subtype H5N1 in establishments where poultry or captive birds were kept, located within or outside the areas listed in the Annex to that Implementing Decision.

| (7) | The competent authorities of Czechia, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal, have taken the necessary disease control measures required in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, including the establishment of protection and surveillance zones around those outbreaks. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

The competent authorities of Czechia, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal, have taken the necessary disease control measures required in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, including the establishment of protection and surveillance zones around those outbreaks.

| (8) | The Commission has examined the disease control measures taken by Czechia, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal in collaboration with those Member States and it is satisfied that the boundaries of the protection and surveillance zones in Czechia, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal established by the competent authorities of those Member States are at a sufficient distance from the establishments where the recent outbreaks of HPAI have been confirmed. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The Commission has examined the disease control measures taken by Czechia, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal in collaboration with those Member States and it is satisfied that the boundaries of the protection and surveillance zones in Czechia, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal established by the competent authorities of those Member States are at a sufficient distance from the establishments where the recent outbreaks of HPAI have been confirmed.

| (9) | In order to prevent any unnecessary disturbance to trade within the Union and to avoid unjustified barriers to trade being imposed by third countries, it is necessary to rapidly describe at Union level, in collaboration with Czechia, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal, the protection and surveillance zones established by those Member States in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

In order to prevent any unnecessary disturbance to trade within the Union and to avoid unjustified barriers to trade being imposed by third countries, it is necessary to rapidly describe at Union level, in collaboration with Czechia, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal, the protection and surveillance zones established by those Member States in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687.

| (10) | Therefore, the areas listed for Czechia, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 should be amended. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Therefore, the areas listed for Czechia, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal in the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 should be amended.

| (11) | Accordingly, the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 should be amended to update regionalisation at Union level to take account of the protection and surveillance zones duly established by Czechia, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, and the duration of the measures applicable therein. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Accordingly, the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 should be amended to update regionalisation at Union level to take account of the protection and surveillance zones duly established by Czechia, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Portugal in accordance with Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687, and the duration of the measures applicable therein.

| (12) | Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (13) | Given the urgency of the epidemiological situation in the Union as regards the spread of HPAI, it is important that the amendments to be made to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 by this Decision take effect as soon as possible. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Given the urgency of the epidemiological situation in the Union as regards the spread of HPAI, it is important that the amendments to be made to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 by this Decision take effect as soon as possible.

| (14) | The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, |
| --- | --- |

(14)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 is replaced by the text set out in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 28 February 2022.

For the Commission

Stella KYRIAKIDES

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 84, 31.3.2016, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 of 17 December 2019 supplementing Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and the Council, as regards rules for the prevention and control of certain listed diseases (OJ L 174, 3.6.2020, p. 64).

2

(3)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 of 16 April 2021 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States (OJ L 134, 20.4.2021, p. 166).

3

(4)  Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2022/257 of 21 February 2022 amending the Annex to Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/641 concerning emergency measures in relation to outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza in certain Member States (OJ L 42, 23.2.2022, p. 9).

4

---

ANNEX

‘ANNEX

Part A

Protection zones in the concerned Member States* as referred to in Articles 1 and 2:

Member State: Czechia

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| Central Bohemian Region |
| Doubek (631035), Doubravčice (631205), Hradešín (736287), Kozojedy u Kostelce nad Černými Lesy (671886), Masojedy (631213), Mrzky (767166), Přišimasy (736295), Škvorec (762733), Štíhlice (631221). | 3.3.2022 |
| Plzeň Region |
| Dolní Lukavice (629685); Krasavce (629707); Lišice u Dolní Lukavice (629715); Snopoušovy (629723); Horní Lukavice (629693); Předenice (704091); Robčice u Štěnovic (775657). | 10.3.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Central Bohemian Region

Doubek (631035), Doubravčice (631205), Hradešín (736287), Kozojedy u Kostelce nad Černými Lesy (671886), Masojedy (631213), Mrzky (767166), Přišimasy (736295), Škvorec (762733), Štíhlice (631221).

3.3.2022

Plzeň Region

Dolní Lukavice (629685); Krasavce (629707); Lišice u Dolní Lukavice (629715); Snopoušovy (629723); Horní Lukavice (629693); Předenice (704091); Robčice u Štěnovic (775657).

10.3.2022

Member State: Denmark

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| The parts of Holbæk, Sorø and Ringsted municipalities that are contained within a circle of radius 3 kilometres, centred on GPS coordinates N 55,5166; E 11,6902 | 7.3.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

The parts of Holbæk, Sorø and Ringsted municipalities that are contained within a circle of radius 3 kilometres, centred on GPS coordinates N 55,5166; E 11,6902

7.3.2022

Member State: Germany

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN |
| Landkreis Rostock







  — | Gemeinde Satow mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Gorow, Klein Bölkow, Heiligenhagen, Anna Luisenhof, Clausdorf, Reinshagen und Hanstorf |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN

Landkreis Rostock

—

Gemeinde Satow mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Gorow, Klein Bölkow, Heiligenhagen, Anna Luisenhof, Clausdorf, Reinshagen und Hanstorf

| — | Gemeinde Stäbelow mit dem Ortsteil Bliesekow |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Stäbelow mit dem Ortsteil Bliesekow

From 5.2.2022 until 26.2.2022

NIEDERSACHSEN

Landkreis Cloppenburg

In der Gemeinde Garrel an der Kreuzung Fasanenweg/ Beverbrucher Damm dem Beverbrucher Damm in südlicher Richtung bis zum Kreisverkehr folgend, der Großenkneter Straße westlich bis Vehne folgend, dem Wasserverlauf in südlicher Richtung bis Tweeler Straße, dieser in nordwestlicher Richtung bis zum dritten Verbindungsweg zur Kellerhöher Straße (Dachsweg) folgend, diesem in westlicher Richtung bis Kellerhöher Straße folgend und dieser in südlicher Richtung bis Schlichtenmoor/ Fuchsweg folgend, diesem in westlicher Richtung bis Schlichtenmoor folgend, diesem nördlich bis Allensteiner Straße/ Roslaes Höhe folgend, dieser erst in westlicher und dann in nördlicher Richtung bis Breslauer Straße folgend, dieser in westlicher Richtung bis Bunzlauer Straße folgend, dieser nördlich bis zur Danziger Straße folgend, dort in westlicher Richtung dem Verbindungsweg zur Görlitzer Straße folgend, dieser in westlicher Richtung bis Tannenkampstraße folgend, dieser in nördlicher Richtung bis Beverbrucher Straße folgend, dieser in westlicher Richtung bis Cloppenburger Straße folgend, dieser in nördlicher Richtung bis An der Höhe folgend, dieser in westlicher Richtung bis Bahnhofstraße folgend, dieser in nördlicher Richtung bis Raiffeisenstraße folgend, dieser in westlicher Richtung bis Adolf-Kolping-Straße folgend, dieser nördlich bis Petersfelder Straße folgend, dieser und im Weiteren Thüler Straße in westlicher Richtung bis Bergaue folgend, dem Wasserverlauf in nördlicher Richtung bis zur Gemeindegrenze Gemeinde Garrel/ Gemeinde Bösel folgend, dieser in östlicher Richtung bis Lindenweg/ Grüner Weg folgend, diesem in nördlicher Richtung bis zum Verbindungsgraben zum Birkenmoor folgend, dem Wasserverlauf bis Birkenmoor folgend, diesem in nördlicher Richtung bis (Am) Birkenmoor folgend, diesem in östlicher Richtung bis Baumstraße folgend, dieser in südlicher Richtung bis Eichkamp folgend, diesem in östlicher Richtung bis Am Streek folgend, diesem in nördlicher Richtung bis Moorstraße folgend, dieser in erst nordöstlicher und dann in nördlicher Richtung bis zum Waldstück und dort dem Wasserverlauf in südlicher Richtung bis zur Gemeindegrenze Gemeinde Garrel/ Gemeinde Bösel folgend, dieser in nordöstlicher Richtung bis zum ersten Verbindungsgraben zur Barkentange folgend, diesem in südlicher Richtung bis zur Barkentange folgend, dieser und dem anschließenden Feldweg parallel zum Nikolausdorf Wasserzug zunächst in nordöstlicher und im weiteren Verlauf in südöstlicher Richtung, nach dem Wald ausschließlich dem der Barkentange anschließenden Feldweg in südöstlicher Richtung bis zur Oldenburger Straße folgend, dieser in nordöstlicher Richtung bis zur Kreisgrenze Landkreis Cloppenburg/ Landkreis Oldenburg folgend, dieser in südlicher Richtung bis Krumme Riede folgend, diesem Wasserverlauf in südlicher Richtung bis zum Fasanenweg folgend, entlang diesem in westlicher Richtung bis zum Ausgangspunkt.

13.3.2022

Landkreis Emsland

Im Süden beginnend Ostenwalder Straße westlich Dorfanger – Verbindungsweg Dorfanger-Holzweg – Holzweg – Verbindungsweg Holzweg – Ostenwalder Straße – Gut Horst – Radweg Raddesee Sögel – Marientaler Straße – Spahner Straße – Verbindungsweg – Friesenweg – Spahner Weg – Zum Windberg – Verbindungsweg – Werpeloher Grenzgraben – Schnüggenweg – Nordkampstraße – Hauptstraße/L 51 – Sögeler Straße – Verbindungsweg – Börger-Spahner Grenzgraben – Bachlauf Ohe nördlich – Haßmoorschloot – Tichelpläcke – Werlter Straße – Loruper Straße – Harrenstätter Straße – Unfriedstraße – Schlosser Straße – Hammerstraße – Bahnhofstraße – Hobelstraße – Bernhard-Krone-Straße – Kasernenstraße – Hauptstraße – Sögeler Straße – Ostenwalder Straße

5.3.2022

Member State: Spain

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,5990325, lat 37,4095017. | 4.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Valladolid of the comarcas of Olmedo and Cuellar contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,5334409, lat 41,3517177 | 11.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6616736, lat 37,3749029 | 11.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7299643, lat 37,4175677 | 14.03.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Valverde del Camino (Andevalo Oriental) and Cartaya (Costa Occidental), contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,7880779, lat 37,3735092 | 11.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6673369, lat 37,3714944 | 26.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna (campiña/Sierra sur), contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,9146003, lat 37,2439955 | 5.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7312900, lat 37,3890270 | 16.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna (campiña/Sierra sur), contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,9364384, lat 37,2511113 | 19.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7708966, lat 37,4234866 | 31.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Valladolid of the comarcas of Olmedo and Cuéllar contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,5320177, lat 41,3459358 | 21.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,694225, lat 37,4235978 | 2.5.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long, -5,7322995 lat 37,4194919 | 6.5.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of La Palma del Condado contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6742835, lat 37,3738911 | 4.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarcas of La Palma del Condado and Almonte contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6877604, lat 37,3635289 | 4.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,0032525, lat 37,2584618 | 6.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,920941, lat 37,2274386 | 6.4.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,5990325, lat 37,4095017.

4.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Valladolid of the comarcas of Olmedo and Cuellar contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,5334409, lat 41,3517177

11.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6616736, lat 37,3749029

11.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7299643, lat 37,4175677

14.03.2022

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Valverde del Camino (Andevalo Oriental) and Cartaya (Costa Occidental), contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,7880779, lat 37,3735092

11.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6673369, lat 37,3714944

26.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna (campiña/Sierra sur), contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,9146003, lat 37,2439955

5.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7312900, lat 37,3890270

16.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna (campiña/Sierra sur), contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,9364384, lat 37,2511113

19.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7708966, lat 37,4234866

31.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Valladolid of the comarcas of Olmedo and Cuéllar contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,5320177, lat 41,3459358

21.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,694225, lat 37,4235978

2.5.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long, -5,7322995 lat 37,4194919

6.5.2022

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of La Palma del Condado contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6742835, lat 37,3738911

4.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarcas of La Palma del Condado and Almonte contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6877604, lat 37,3635289

4.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,0032525, lat 37,2584618

6.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,920941, lat 37,2274386

6.4.2022

Member State: France

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Gers (32) |
| ARBLADE-LE-BAS
  ARBLADE-LE-HAUT
  BARCELONNE-DU-GERS
  BERNEDE
  BOURROUILLAN
  BOUZON-GELLENAVE
  BRETAGNE-D'ARMAGNAC
  CAHUZAC-SUR-ADOUR
  CAMPAGNE-D'ARMAGNAC
  CASTELNAU D'AUZAN LABARRERE
  CASTILLON-DEBATS
  CAUMONT
  CAUPENNE-D’ARMAGNAC
  CAZENEUVE
  CORNEILLAN
  DEMU
  EAUZE
  FUSTEROUAU
  GEE-RIVIERE
  GOUX
  IZOTGES
  LAGRAULET-DU-GERS
  LANNE-SOUBIRAN
  LANNUX
  LAUJUZAN
  LE HOUGA
  LELIN-LAPUJOLLE
  LUPPE-VIOLLES
  MAGNAN
  MANCIET
  MAULEON-D'ARMAGNAC
  MAULICHERES
  MONCLAR
  MONTREAL
  NOGARO
  POUYDRAGUIN
  PRENERON
  PROJAN
  REANS
  RISCLE
  SAINT-GERME
  SAINT-GRIEDE
  SAINT-MARTIN-D'ARMAGNAC
  SAINT-MONT
  SAINTE-CHRISTIE-D'ARMAGNAC
  SALLES-D'ARMAGNAC
  SARRAGACHIES
  SEGOS
  SORBETS
  TARSAC
  TASQUE
  TERMES-D'ARMAGNAC
  URGOSSE
  VERGOIGNAN
  VERLUS
  VIC-FEZENSAC | 28.2.2022 |
| Département: Indre (36) and Loir-et-Cher (41) |
| VILLENTROIS-FAVEROLLES-EN-BERRY
  ouest de la D22 | 14.3.2022 |
| Département: Indre-et-Loire (37) |
| BEAUMONT-VILLAGE
  GENILLE (à l'est de la route entre les Hauts-Millets et les Merrières, et à l'est de la route entre Marsin et les Bruyères)
  ORBIGNY (à l'ouest de la route D81 et de la route D11) | 11.3.2022 |
| NOUANS-LES-FONTAINES | 14.3.2022 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Landes (40) |
| Aire-sur-l'Adour
  Amou
  Arboucave
  Argelos
  Arsague
  Arthez-d'Armagnac
  Aubagnan
  Audignon
  Aurice
  Bahus-Soubiran
  Baigts
  Banos
  Bas-Mauco
  Bassercles
  Bastennes
  Bats
  Benquet
  Bergouey
  Beylongue
  Beyries
  Bonnegarde
  Bordères-et-Lamensans
  Bougue
  Bourdalat
  Brassempouy
  Buanes
  Carcarès-Sainte-Croix
  Carcen-Ponson
  Cassen
  Castaignos-Souslens
  Castandet
  Castelnau-Chalosse
  Castelnau-Tursan
  Castelner
  Castel-Sarrazin
  Cauna
  Caupenne
  Cazalis
  Cazères-sur-l'Adour
  Classun
  Clèdes
  Clermont
  Coudures
  Doazit
  Donzacq
  Duhort-Bachen
  Dumes
  Estibeaux
  Eugénie-les-Bains
  Eyres-Moncube
  Fargues
  Le Frêche
  Gamarde-les-Bains
  Garrey
  Gaujacq
  Geaune
  Gibret
  Goos
  Gousse
  Grenade-sur-l'Adour
  Habas
  Hagetmau
  Hauriet
  Haut-Mauco
  Hontanx
  Horsarrieu
  Labastide-Chalosse
  Labastide-d'Armagnac
  Labatut
  Lacajunte
  Lacrabe
  Laglorieuse
  Lahosse
  Lamothe
  Larbey
  Larrivière-Saint-Savin
  Latrille
  Laurède
  Lauret
  Louer
  Lourquen
  Lussagnet
  Mant
  Marpaps
  Mauries
  Maurrin
  Maylis
  Meilhan
  Mimbaste
  Miramont-Sensacq
  Misson
  Momuy
  Monget
  Monségur
  Montaut
  Montfort-en-Chalosse
  Montgaillard
  Montsoué
  Morganx
  Mouscardès
  Mugron
  Nassiet
  Nerbis
  Nousse
  Onard
  Ossages
  Ozourt
  Payros-Cazautets
  Pécorade
  Perquie
  Peyre
  Philondenx
  Pimbo
  Pomarez
  Poudenx
  Pouillon
  Poyanne
  Poyartin
  Préchacq-les-Bains
  Pujo-le-Plan
  Puyol-Cazalet
  Renung
  Saint-Agnet
  Saint-Aubin
  Sainte-Colombe
  Saint-Cricq-Chalosse
  Saint-Cricq-Villeneuve
  Saint-Gein
  Saint-Geours-d'Auribat
  Saint-Jean-de-Lier
  Saint-Loubouer
  Saint-Maurice-sur-Adour
  Saint-Sever
  Saint-Yaguen
  Samadet
  Sarraziet
  Sarron
  Saubusse
  Serres-Gaston
  Serreslous-et-Arribans
  Sorbets
  Sort-en-Chalosse
  Souprosse
  Tilh
  Toulouzette
  Urgons
  Vicq-d'Auribat
  Vielle-Tursan
  Vielle-Soubiran
  Le Vignau
  Villeneuve-de-Marsan | 1.3.2022 |
| Hastingues
  Oeyregave | 28.2.2022 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Lot-et-Garonne (47) |
| SAINTE-MAURE-DE-PEYRAC
  SAINT-PE-SAINT-SIMON | 28.2.2022 |
| Département: Mayenne (53) |
| BOUCHAMPS-LES-CRAON
  RENAZE
  SAINT-MARTIN-DU-LIMET
  SAINT-SATURNIN-DU-LIMET | 9.3.2022 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Pyrénées-Atlantiques (64) |
| BIDACHE
  CAME
  GUICHE
  SAMES | 28.2.2022 |
| ABITAIN
  AICIRITS-CAMOU-SUHAST
  AINHARP
  ANDREIN
  ANOS
  ARAUJUZON
  ARAUX
  ARBOUET-SUSSAUTE
  AREN
  ARGELOS
  ARGET
  ARHANSUS
  AROUE-ITHOROTS-OLHAIBY
  ARROS-DE-NAY
  ARROSES
  ASTIS
  ATHOS-ASPIS
  AUDAUX
  AUGA
  AURIAC
  AUTEVIELLE-SAINT-MARTIN-BIDEREN
  BAIGTS-DE-BEARN
  BALIRACQ-MAUMUSSON
  BARINQUE
  BARRAUTE-CAMU
  BASTANES
  BAUDREIX
  BENEJACQ
  BERNADETS
  BETRACQ
  BONNUT
  BOUEILH-BOUEILHO-LASQUE
  BOURDETTES
  BUGNEIN
  BURGARONNE
  CABIDOS
  CARRERE
  CARRESSE-CASSABER
  CASTAGNEDE
  CASTEIDE-CANDAU
  CASTETNAU-CAMBLONG
  CASTETPUGON
  CHARRE
  CHARRITTE-DE-BAS
  CLARACQ
  COARRAZE
  COSLEDAA-LUBE-BOAST
  CROUSEILLES
  DIUSSE
  DOGNEN
  DOMEZAIN-BERRAUTE
  DOUMY
  ESCOS
  ESPIUTE
  ETCHARRY
  GABASTON
  GABAT
  GARINDEIN
  GARLIN
  GERONCE
  GESTAS
  GEUS-D'OLORON
  GUINARTHE-PARENTIES
  GURS
  HAUT-DE-BOSDARROS
  HIGUERES-SOUYE
  ILHARRE
  JASSES
  LAAS
  LABASTIDE-VILLEFRANCHE
  LABATMALE
  LABEYRIE
  LAGOR
  LALONQUETTE
  LANNECAUBE
  LARRIBAR-SORHAPURU
  LASCLAVERIES
  LAY-LAMIDOU
  LEDEUIX
  LEME
  LICHOS
  LOHITZUN-OYHERCQ
  LUCQ-DE-BEARN
  MALAUSSANNE
  MERITEIN
  MIOSSENS-LANUSSE
  MIREPEIX
  MONCLA
  MONTAGUT
  MONTFORT
  MORLANNE
  MOUHOUS
  MOUMOUR
  MUSCULDY
  NABAS
  NARP
  NAVAILLES-ANGOS
  NAVARRENX
  NAY
  OGENNE-CAMPTORT
  ORAAS
  ORDIARP
  ORIN
  ORION
  ORRIULE
  ORTHEZ
  OSSENX
  OSSERAIN-RIVAREYTE
  PAGOLLE
  PARDIES-PIETAT
  PIETS-PLASENCE-MOUSTROU
  POEY-D'OLORON
  PONTACQ
  PORTET
  POURSIUGUES-BOUCOUE
  PRECHACQ-JOSBAIG
  PRECHACQ-NAVARRENX
  RAMOUS
  RIBARROUY
  RIUPEYROUS
  RIVEHAUTE
  SAINT-ABIT
  SAINT-ARMOU
  SAINT-BOES
  SAINT-CASTIN
  SAINT-GIRONS-EN-BEARN
  SAINT-GLADIE-ARRIVE-MUNEIN
  SAINT-GOIN
  SAINT-JAMMES
  SAINT-LAURENT-BRETAGNE
  SAINT-MEDARD
  SAINT-VINCENT
  SALIES-DE-BEARN
  SALLESPISSE
  SAUCEDE
  SAULT-DE-NAVAILLES
  SAUVELADE
  SAUVETERRE-DE-BEARN
  SEBY
  SEVIGNACQ
  SUS
  SUSMIOU
  TABAILLE-USQUAIN
  TARON-SADIRAC-VIELLENAVE
  THEZE
  UHART-MIXE
  VERDETS
  VIELLENAVE-DE-NAVARRENX
  VIELLESEGURE
  VIVEN | 10.3.2022 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Hautes-Pyrénées (65) |
| ANDREST
  AZEREIX
  BARLEST
  BARTRES
  CASTELNAU-RIVIERE-BASSE
  GAYAN
  HAGEDET
  HERES
  LAGARDE
  LAMARQUE-PONTACQ
  LOUBAJAC
  MADIRAN
  OSSUN
  OURSBELILLE
  POUEYFERRE
  PUJO
  SAINT-LANNE
  SAINT-LEZER
  SIARROUY
  SOUBLECAUSE
  TALAZAC
  TARASTEIX
  VILLENAVE-PRES-BEARN | 28.2.2022 |
| ANTIN
  AUBAREDE
  BOUILH-PEREUILH
  CABANAC
  CASTELVIEILH
  CHELLE-DEBAT
  COLLONGUES
  COUSSAN
  GOUDON
  HOURC
  LAMARQUE-RUSTAING
  LOUIT
  LUBRET-SAINT-LUC
  LUBY-BETMONT
  MARQUERIE
  MARSEILLAN
  MUN
  OSMETS
  PEYRIGUERE
  POUYASTRUC
  SERE-RUSTAING
  THUY
  TROULEY-LABARTHE | 10.3.2022 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Seine-Maritime (76) |
| LA BELLIERE
  BOSC-EDELINE
  LA FERTE-SAINT-SAMSON
  FORGES-LES-EAUX
  LONGMESNIL
  MAUQUENCHY
  MESANGUEVILLE
  POMMEREUX
  RONCHEROLLES-EN-BRAY
  ROUVRAY-CATILLON
  SAINT-MICHEL-D'HALESCOURT
  SAUMONT-LA-POTERIE
  SIGY-EN-BRAY
  LE THIL-RIBERPRE | 1.3.2022 |
| BERTHEAUVILLE
  BEUZEVILLE-LA-GUERARD
  BOSVILLE
  CANY-BARVILLE
  GRAINVILLE-LA-TEINTURIERE
  LE HANOUARD
  OHERVILLE
  OURVILLE-EN-CAUX | 25.2.2022 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Vendée (85) |
| APREMONT (Est D21 - Nord rivière La Vie)
  MACHE
  SAINT-CHRISTOPHE-DU-LIGNERON (est D754)
  SAINT-PAUL-MONT-PENIT
  LA CHAPELLE PALLUAU Ouest D978
  FALLERON
  GRAND’LANDES Ouest D81 et D50 | 16.3.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Gers (32)

ARBLADE-LE-BAS

ARBLADE-LE-HAUT

BARCELONNE-DU-GERS

BERNEDE

BOURROUILLAN

BOUZON-GELLENAVE

BRETAGNE-D'ARMAGNAC

CAHUZAC-SUR-ADOUR

CAMPAGNE-D'ARMAGNAC

CASTELNAU D'AUZAN LABARRERE

CASTILLON-DEBATS

CAUMONT

CAUPENNE-D’ARMAGNAC

CAZENEUVE

CORNEILLAN

DEMU

EAUZE

FUSTEROUAU

GEE-RIVIERE

GOUX

IZOTGES

LAGRAULET-DU-GERS

LANNE-SOUBIRAN

LANNUX

LAUJUZAN

LE HOUGA

LELIN-LAPUJOLLE

LUPPE-VIOLLES

MAGNAN

MANCIET

MAULEON-D'ARMAGNAC

MAULICHERES

MONCLAR

MONTREAL

NOGARO

POUYDRAGUIN

PRENERON

PROJAN

REANS

RISCLE

SAINT-GERME

SAINT-GRIEDE

SAINT-MARTIN-D'ARMAGNAC

SAINT-MONT

SAINTE-CHRISTIE-D'ARMAGNAC

SALLES-D'ARMAGNAC

SARRAGACHIES

SEGOS

SORBETS

TARSAC

TASQUE

TERMES-D'ARMAGNAC

URGOSSE

VERGOIGNAN

VERLUS

VIC-FEZENSAC

28.2.2022

Département: Indre (36) and Loir-et-Cher (41)

VILLENTROIS-FAVEROLLES-EN-BERRY

ouest de la D22

14.3.2022

Département: Indre-et-Loire (37)

BEAUMONT-VILLAGE

GENILLE (à l'est de la route entre les Hauts-Millets et les Merrières, et à l'est de la route entre Marsin et les Bruyères)

ORBIGNY (à l'ouest de la route D81 et de la route D11)

11.3.2022

NOUANS-LES-FONTAINES

14.3.2022

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Landes (40)

Aire-sur-l'Adour

Amou

Arboucave

Argelos

Arsague

Arthez-d'Armagnac

Aubagnan

Audignon

Aurice

Bahus-Soubiran

Baigts

Banos

Bas-Mauco

Bassercles

Bastennes

Bats

Benquet

Bergouey

Beylongue

Beyries

Bonnegarde

Bordères-et-Lamensans

Bougue

Bourdalat

Brassempouy

Buanes

Carcarès-Sainte-Croix

Carcen-Ponson

Cassen

Castaignos-Souslens

Castandet

Castelnau-Chalosse

Castelnau-Tursan

Castelner

Castel-Sarrazin

Cauna

Caupenne

Cazalis

Cazères-sur-l'Adour

Classun

Clèdes

Clermont

Coudures

Doazit

Donzacq

Duhort-Bachen

Dumes

Estibeaux

Eugénie-les-Bains

Eyres-Moncube

Fargues

Le Frêche

Gamarde-les-Bains

Garrey

Gaujacq

Geaune

Gibret

Goos

Gousse

Grenade-sur-l'Adour

Habas

Hagetmau

Hauriet

Haut-Mauco

Hontanx

Horsarrieu

Labastide-Chalosse

Labastide-d'Armagnac

Labatut

Lacajunte

Lacrabe

Laglorieuse

Lahosse

Lamothe

Larbey

Larrivière-Saint-Savin

Latrille

Laurède

Lauret

Louer

Lourquen

Lussagnet

Mant

Marpaps

Mauries

Maurrin

Maylis

Meilhan

Mimbaste

Miramont-Sensacq

Misson

Momuy

Monget

Monségur

Montaut

Montfort-en-Chalosse

Montgaillard

Montsoué

Morganx

Mouscardès

Mugron

Nassiet

Nerbis

Nousse

Onard

Ossages

Ozourt

Payros-Cazautets

Pécorade

Perquie

Peyre

Philondenx

Pimbo

Pomarez

Poudenx

Pouillon

Poyanne

Poyartin

Préchacq-les-Bains

Pujo-le-Plan

Puyol-Cazalet

Renung

Saint-Agnet

Saint-Aubin

Sainte-Colombe

Saint-Cricq-Chalosse

Saint-Cricq-Villeneuve

Saint-Gein

Saint-Geours-d'Auribat

Saint-Jean-de-Lier

Saint-Loubouer

Saint-Maurice-sur-Adour

Saint-Sever

Saint-Yaguen

Samadet

Sarraziet

Sarron

Saubusse

Serres-Gaston

Serreslous-et-Arribans

Sorbets

Sort-en-Chalosse

Souprosse

Tilh

Toulouzette

Urgons

Vicq-d'Auribat

Vielle-Tursan

Vielle-Soubiran

Le Vignau

Villeneuve-de-Marsan

1.3.2022

Hastingues

Oeyregave

28.2.2022

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Lot-et-Garonne (47)

SAINTE-MAURE-DE-PEYRAC

SAINT-PE-SAINT-SIMON

28.2.2022

Département: Mayenne (53)

BOUCHAMPS-LES-CRAON

RENAZE

SAINT-MARTIN-DU-LIMET

SAINT-SATURNIN-DU-LIMET

9.3.2022

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Pyrénées-Atlantiques (64)

BIDACHE

CAME

GUICHE

SAMES

28.2.2022

ABITAIN

AICIRITS-CAMOU-SUHAST

AINHARP

ANDREIN

ANOS

ARAUJUZON

ARAUX

ARBOUET-SUSSAUTE

AREN

ARGELOS

ARGET

ARHANSUS

AROUE-ITHOROTS-OLHAIBY

ARROS-DE-NAY

ARROSES

ASTIS

ATHOS-ASPIS

AUDAUX

AUGA

AURIAC

AUTEVIELLE-SAINT-MARTIN-BIDEREN

BAIGTS-DE-BEARN

BALIRACQ-MAUMUSSON

BARINQUE

BARRAUTE-CAMU

BASTANES

BAUDREIX

BENEJACQ

BERNADETS

BETRACQ

BONNUT

BOUEILH-BOUEILHO-LASQUE

BOURDETTES

BUGNEIN

BURGARONNE

CABIDOS

CARRERE

CARRESSE-CASSABER

CASTAGNEDE

CASTEIDE-CANDAU

CASTETNAU-CAMBLONG

CASTETPUGON

CHARRE

CHARRITTE-DE-BAS

CLARACQ

COARRAZE

COSLEDAA-LUBE-BOAST

CROUSEILLES

DIUSSE

DOGNEN

DOMEZAIN-BERRAUTE

DOUMY

ESCOS

ESPIUTE

ETCHARRY

GABASTON

GABAT

GARINDEIN

GARLIN

GERONCE

GESTAS

GEUS-D'OLORON

GUINARTHE-PARENTIES

GURS

HAUT-DE-BOSDARROS

HIGUERES-SOUYE

ILHARRE

JASSES

LAAS

LABASTIDE-VILLEFRANCHE

LABATMALE

LABEYRIE

LAGOR

LALONQUETTE

LANNECAUBE

LARRIBAR-SORHAPURU

LASCLAVERIES

LAY-LAMIDOU

LEDEUIX

LEME

LICHOS

LOHITZUN-OYHERCQ

LUCQ-DE-BEARN

MALAUSSANNE

MERITEIN

MIOSSENS-LANUSSE

MIREPEIX

MONCLA

MONTAGUT

MONTFORT

MORLANNE

MOUHOUS

MOUMOUR

MUSCULDY

NABAS

NARP

NAVAILLES-ANGOS

NAVARRENX

NAY

OGENNE-CAMPTORT

ORAAS

ORDIARP

ORIN

ORION

ORRIULE

ORTHEZ

OSSENX

OSSERAIN-RIVAREYTE

PAGOLLE

PARDIES-PIETAT

PIETS-PLASENCE-MOUSTROU

POEY-D'OLORON

PONTACQ

PORTET

POURSIUGUES-BOUCOUE

PRECHACQ-JOSBAIG

PRECHACQ-NAVARRENX

RAMOUS

RIBARROUY

RIUPEYROUS

RIVEHAUTE

SAINT-ABIT

SAINT-ARMOU

SAINT-BOES

SAINT-CASTIN

SAINT-GIRONS-EN-BEARN

SAINT-GLADIE-ARRIVE-MUNEIN

SAINT-GOIN

SAINT-JAMMES

SAINT-LAURENT-BRETAGNE

SAINT-MEDARD

SAINT-VINCENT

SALIES-DE-BEARN

SALLESPISSE

SAUCEDE

SAULT-DE-NAVAILLES

SAUVELADE

SAUVETERRE-DE-BEARN

SEBY

SEVIGNACQ

SUS

SUSMIOU

TABAILLE-USQUAIN

TARON-SADIRAC-VIELLENAVE

THEZE

UHART-MIXE

VERDETS

VIELLENAVE-DE-NAVARRENX

VIELLESEGURE

VIVEN

10.3.2022

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Hautes-Pyrénées (65)

ANDREST

AZEREIX

BARLEST

BARTRES

CASTELNAU-RIVIERE-BASSE

GAYAN

HAGEDET

HERES

LAGARDE

LAMARQUE-PONTACQ

LOUBAJAC

MADIRAN

OSSUN

OURSBELILLE

POUEYFERRE

PUJO

SAINT-LANNE

SAINT-LEZER

SIARROUY

SOUBLECAUSE

TALAZAC

TARASTEIX

VILLENAVE-PRES-BEARN

28.2.2022

ANTIN

AUBAREDE

BOUILH-PEREUILH

CABANAC

CASTELVIEILH

CHELLE-DEBAT

COLLONGUES

COUSSAN

GOUDON

HOURC

LAMARQUE-RUSTAING

LOUIT

LUBRET-SAINT-LUC

LUBY-BETMONT

MARQUERIE

MARSEILLAN

MUN

OSMETS

PEYRIGUERE

POUYASTRUC

SERE-RUSTAING

THUY

TROULEY-LABARTHE

10.3.2022

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Seine-Maritime (76)

LA BELLIERE

BOSC-EDELINE

LA FERTE-SAINT-SAMSON

FORGES-LES-EAUX

LONGMESNIL

MAUQUENCHY

MESANGUEVILLE

POMMEREUX

RONCHEROLLES-EN-BRAY

ROUVRAY-CATILLON

SAINT-MICHEL-D'HALESCOURT

SAUMONT-LA-POTERIE

SIGY-EN-BRAY

LE THIL-RIBERPRE

1.3.2022

BERTHEAUVILLE

BEUZEVILLE-LA-GUERARD

BOSVILLE

CANY-BARVILLE

GRAINVILLE-LA-TEINTURIERE

LE HANOUARD

OHERVILLE

OURVILLE-EN-CAUX

25.2.2022

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Vendée (85)

APREMONT (Est D21 - Nord rivière La Vie)

MACHE

SAINT-CHRISTOPHE-DU-LIGNERON (est D754)

SAINT-PAUL-MONT-PENIT

LA CHAPELLE PALLUAU Ouest D978

FALLERON

GRAND’LANDES Ouest D81 et D50

16.3.2022

Member State: Italy

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| The area of Lombardia and Emilia Romagna Regions within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreaks ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00016 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.089934 E9.380432) | 5.3.2022 |
| The area of Lombardia and Emilia Romagna Regions within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreaks ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00019 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.087314 E9.396439) | 10.3.2022 |
| The area of Toscana Region within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreaks ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00018 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N44.043697 E11.153191) | 12.3.2022 |
| The area of Toscana Region within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreaks ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00017 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N43.928892 E11.062317) | 16.3.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

The area of Lombardia and Emilia Romagna Regions within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreaks ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00016 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.089934 E9.380432)

5.3.2022

The area of Lombardia and Emilia Romagna Regions within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreaks ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00019 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.087314 E9.396439)

10.3.2022

The area of Toscana Region within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreaks ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00018 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N44.043697 E11.153191)

12.3.2022

The area of Toscana Region within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreaks ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00017 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N43.928892 E11.062317)

16.3.2022

Member State: the Netherlands

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| Municipality Harderwijk, province Gelderland |
| Those parts of the municipalities Harderwijk and Nunspeet (province Gelderland) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5,67004, lat 52,34306 | 26.2.2022 |
| Those parts of the municipalities Harderwijk and Nunspeet (province Gelderland) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5.66425, lat 52.34671 | 28.2.2022 |
| Municipality Lochem, province Gelderland |
| Those parts of the municipalities Lochem and Zutphen (province Gelderland) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 6.24741, lat 52.15942 | 1.3.2022 |
| Municipality Putten, province Gelderland |
| Those parts of the municipalities Ermelo, Putten en Zeewolde contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5.55815 lat 52.28283 | 10.3.2022 |
| Municipality Woltersum, province Groningen |
| Those parts of the municipalities Groningen en Midden Groningen contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 6.72565 lat 53.26682 | 8.3.2022 |
| Municipality Uithuizen, province Groningen |
| Those parts of the municipality Het Hoge Land contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 6.69457 lat 53.42069 | 13.3.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Municipality Harderwijk, province Gelderland

Those parts of the municipalities Harderwijk and Nunspeet (province Gelderland) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5,67004, lat 52,34306

26.2.2022

Those parts of the municipalities Harderwijk and Nunspeet (province Gelderland) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5.66425, lat 52.34671

28.2.2022

Municipality Lochem, province Gelderland

Those parts of the municipalities Lochem and Zutphen (province Gelderland) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 6.24741, lat 52.15942

1.3.2022

Municipality Putten, province Gelderland

Those parts of the municipalities Ermelo, Putten en Zeewolde contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5.55815 lat 52.28283

10.3.2022

Municipality Woltersum, province Groningen

Those parts of the municipalities Groningen en Midden Groningen contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 6.72565 lat 53.26682

8.3.2022

Municipality Uithuizen, province Groningen

Those parts of the municipality Het Hoge Land contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 6.69457 lat 53.42069

13.3.2022

Member State: Poland

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| Województwo kujawsko - pomorskie |
| 1) | w powiecie sępoleńskim:







  a) | w gminie Kamień Krajeński miejscowości: Kamień Krajeński, Duża Cerkwica, Mała Cerkwica, Radzim, Obkas, Orzełek; |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Województwo kujawsko - pomorskie

1)

w powiecie sępoleńskim:

a)

w gminie Kamień Krajeński miejscowości: Kamień Krajeński, Duża Cerkwica, Mała Cerkwica, Radzim, Obkas, Orzełek;

| 2) | w powiecie tucholskim:







  a) | w gminie Kęsowo miejscowości: Drożdżenica |
| --- | --- | --- |

2)

w powiecie tucholskim:

a)

w gminie Kęsowo miejscowości: Drożdżenica

28.2.2022

| 1) | w powiecie inowrocławskim:






  a) | w gminie Inowrocław miejscowości: Turzany, Marcinkowo, Olszewice, Komaszyce, Balczewo, Pławinek, Balin, Jacewo, Słońsko, Dziennice; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie inowrocławskim:

a)

w gminie Inowrocław miejscowości: Turzany, Marcinkowo, Olszewice, Komaszyce, Balczewo, Pławinek, Balin, Jacewo, Słońsko, Dziennice;

| b) | w gminie Dąbrowa Biskupia miejscowości: Parchanie, Rejna |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Dąbrowa Biskupia miejscowości: Parchanie, Rejna

| c) | w gminie Gniewkowo, miejscowość: Gąski |
| --- | --- |

c)

w gminie Gniewkowo, miejscowość: Gąski

1.3.2022

Województwo pomorskie

| 1) | w powiecie człuchowskim







  a) | w gminie Debrzno miejscowości: Buchowo, Grzymisław, Kamień, Strzeczona, Strzeczonka, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie człuchowskim

a)

w gminie Debrzno miejscowości: Buchowo, Grzymisław, Kamień, Strzeczona, Strzeczonka,

| b) | w gminie Człuchów miejscowość Barkówko |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Człuchów miejscowość Barkówko

6.3.2022

Województwo łódzkie

| 1) | w powiecie sieradzkim:






  a) | w gminie Goszczanów miejscowości: Chlewo, Wilkszyce, Wójcinek, Waliszewice, Świnice Kaliskie, Sulmówek, Stojanów, Chwalęcice, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie sieradzkim:

a)

w gminie Goszczanów miejscowości: Chlewo, Wilkszyce, Wójcinek, Waliszewice, Świnice Kaliskie, Sulmówek, Stojanów, Chwalęcice,

| b) | w gminie Warta miejscowość: Zielęcin, |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Warta miejscowość: Zielęcin,

| c) | w gminie Błaszki miejscowości: Korzenica, Morawki, Paulinowo |
| --- | --- |

c)

w gminie Błaszki miejscowości: Korzenica, Morawki, Paulinowo

7.3.2022

Województwo małopolskie

| 1) | w powiecie krakowskim ziemskim:






  a) | w gminie Wielka Wieś miejscowości: Wierzchowie, Bębło – południowa część miejscowości ograniczona od strony północnej ulicami: Na Dolinkę, Lasek, Południową i Turkusową, Będkowice – wschodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony zachodniej ulicami: Długą, Browar i Kawiory, Biały Kościół – południowo-zachodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony północno-wschodniej ulicą Krakowską, Wielka Wieś- zachodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony wschodniej ulicami: Krakowską, Słoneczną, Centralną i Polną; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie krakowskim ziemskim:

a)

w gminie Wielka Wieś miejscowości: Wierzchowie, Bębło – południowa część miejscowości ograniczona od strony północnej ulicami: Na Dolinkę, Lasek, Południową i Turkusową, Będkowice – wschodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony zachodniej ulicami: Długą, Browar i Kawiory, Biały Kościół – południowo-zachodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony północno-wschodniej ulicą Krakowską, Wielka Wieś- zachodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony wschodniej ulicami: Krakowską, Słoneczną, Centralną i Polną;

| b) | w gminie Zabierzów miejscowości: Bolechowice, Karniowice, Ujazd, Więckowice, Zelków, Kobylany – centralna część miejscowości ograniczona od strony zachodniej ulicą Jurajską, a od strony południowej ulicą Akacjową |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Zabierzów miejscowości: Bolechowice, Karniowice, Ujazd, Więckowice, Zelków, Kobylany – centralna część miejscowości ograniczona od strony zachodniej ulicą Jurajską, a od strony południowej ulicą Akacjową

16.3.2021

Województwo wielkopolskie

| 1) | w powiecie kaliskim,






  a) | w gminie Koźminek, miejscowości: Dębsko, Emilianów, Krzyżówki, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie kaliskim,

a)

w gminie Koźminek, miejscowości: Dębsko, Emilianów, Krzyżówki,

| b) | w gminie Lisków miejscowości: Koźlątków, Lisków-Rzgów, Wygoda, Zakrzyn, Zakrzyn-Kolonia, Żychów |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Lisków miejscowości: Koźlątków, Lisków-Rzgów, Wygoda, Zakrzyn, Zakrzyn-Kolonia, Żychów

10.3.2022

| 1) | w powiecie ostrowskim:







  a) | w gminie Sieroszewice miejscowości: Strzyżew, Sieroszewice, Parczew; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie ostrowskim:

a)

w gminie Sieroszewice miejscowości: Strzyżew, Sieroszewice, Parczew;

| b) | w gminie Przygodzice miejscowość: Bogufałów; |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Przygodzice miejscowość: Bogufałów;

| 2) | w powiecie ostrzeszowskim, w gminie Mikstat miejscowości: Biskupice Zabaryczne, Kotłów. |
| --- | --- |

2)

w powiecie ostrzeszowskim, w gminie Mikstat miejscowości: Biskupice Zabaryczne, Kotłów.

15.3.2022

Member State: Portugal

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.140842N, 9.296611W | 25.3.2022 |
| The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.140375N, 9.305293W | 25.3.2022 |
| The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.138111N, 9.306278W | 25.3.2022 |
| The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.128166N, 9.286183W | 25.3.2022 |
| The part of Mértola municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 37.610000N, 7.620000W | 13.3.2022 |
| The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.131874N, 9.285700W | 25.3.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.140842N, 9.296611W

25.3.2022

The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.140375N, 9.305293W

25.3.2022

The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.138111N, 9.306278W

25.3.2022

The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.128166N, 9.286183W

25.3.2022

The part of Mértola municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 37.610000N, 7.620000W

13.3.2022

The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.131874N, 9.285700W

25.3.2022

Member State: Romania

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| County : Ialomița |
| Following localities:
  Țăndărei | 4.3.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

County : Ialomița

Following localities:

Țăndărei

4.3.2022

United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| Those parts of County Fermanagh contained within a circle of a radius of three kilometres, centred on GPS coordinates N 54.3301 and E -7.6926 | 1.3.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 39 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Those parts of County Fermanagh contained within a circle of a radius of three kilometres, centred on GPS coordinates N 54.3301 and E -7.6926

1.3.2022

Part B

Surveillance zones in the concerned Member States* as referred to in Articles 1 and 3:

Member State: Bulgaria

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| Haskovo Region, Haskovo municipality |
| Aleksandrovo, Nova Nadezhda, Uzundzhovo | 4.3.2022 |
| Haskovo Region, Dimitrovgrad municipality |
| Brod, Chernogorovo | From 24.2.2022 until 4.3.2022 |
| Dimitrovgrad, Zlatopole, Dolno Belevo, Voden, Krepost, Rajnovo, Golyamo Asenovo, Malko Asenovo, Radievo, Bryast | 4.3.2022 |
| Region: Dobrich |
| Dobrichka municipality: Vodnyanci, Hitovo, Alcek, Pchelnik, Zhitnitsa, Tyanevo, Polkovnik Ivanovo, Karapelit, Enevo, Geshanovo
  Tervel municipality: Tervel, Kochmar, Popgruevo, Bozhan, Mali izvor | 27.2.2022 |
| Dobrichka municipality: Feldfebel Denkovo, Dryanovets | From 18.2.2022 until 27.2.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Haskovo Region, Haskovo municipality

Aleksandrovo, Nova Nadezhda, Uzundzhovo

4.3.2022

Haskovo Region, Dimitrovgrad municipality

Brod, Chernogorovo

From 24.2.2022 until 4.3.2022

Dimitrovgrad, Zlatopole, Dolno Belevo, Voden, Krepost, Rajnovo, Golyamo Asenovo, Malko Asenovo, Radievo, Bryast

4.3.2022

Region: Dobrich

Dobrichka municipality: Vodnyanci, Hitovo, Alcek, Pchelnik, Zhitnitsa, Tyanevo, Polkovnik Ivanovo, Karapelit, Enevo, Geshanovo

Tervel municipality: Tervel, Kochmar, Popgruevo, Bozhan, Mali izvor

27.2.2022

Dobrichka municipality: Feldfebel Denkovo, Dryanovets

From 18.2.2022 until 27.2.2022

Member State: Czechia

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| Central Bohemian Region |
| Babice (600601), Brník (710148), Březí u Říčan (613886), Břežany II (614955), Bylany u Českého Brodu (653985), Černé Voděrady (620084), Černíky (620220), Český Brod (622737), Dobré Pole u Vitic (782785), Dobročovice (627313), Horoušany (644803), Chotýš (782807), Jevany (659312), Jirny (660922), Klokočná (666467), Konojedy (708097), Kostelec nad Černými lesy (670162), Krupá u Kostelce nad Černými Lesy (675229), Křenice u Prahy (675814), Kšely (782815), Květnice (747751), Liblice u Českého Brodu (622826), Limuzy (767158), Louňovice (687359), Mukařov u Říčan (700321), Myšlín (697559), Nová Ves II (741434), Pacov u Říčan (717207), Prusice (708127), Přehvozdí (771376), Přistoupim (736279), Rostoklaty (741442), Říčany u Prahy (745456), Říčany-Radošovice (745511), Sibřina (747769), Sluštice (750808), Srbín (752967), Strašín u Říčan (756237), Struhařov u Mnichovic (757080), Stupice (747785), Svatbín (675237), Světice u Říčan (760391), Svojetice (761176), Štolmíř (622818), Tehov u Říčan (765309), Tehovec (765317), Tismice (767174), Tlustovousy (771414), Třebohostice u Škvorce (762741), Tuchoraz (771384), Tuklaty (771422), Úvaly u Prahy (775738), Vitice (782831), Vrátkov (767182), Všestary u Říčan (787396), Vyšehořovice (788503), Vyžlovka (789046), Zlatá (793019), Zvánovice (793795), Žernovka (700339). | 12.3.2022 |
| Doubek (631035), Doubravčice (631205), Hradešín (736287), Kozojedy u Kostelce nad Černými Lesy (671886), Masojedy (631213), Mrzky (767166), Přišimasy (736295), Škvorec (762733), Štíhlice (631221). | From 4.3.2022 until 12.3.2022 |
| Plzeň Region: |
| Borovy (607941); Čižice (624039); Černotín u Dnešic (626775); Dnešice (626783); Dobřany (627615); Šlovice u Plzně (762831); Vodní Újezd (627623); Dolce (644820); Drahkov (631582); Horšice (644838); Újezd u Horšic (644854); Chlum u Blovic (651516); Chlumčany u Přeštic (651737); Chouzovy (654949); Chválenice (654957); Želčany (654965); Chocenický Újezd (652016); Kbelnice u Letin (680583); Letiny (680605); Losiná u Plzně (686841); Dlouhá Louka u Lužan (689173); Lužany u Přeštic (689181); Zelené (689203); Nebílovy (704075); Netunice (704083); Nezbavětice (763136); Nezdice nad Úhlavou (607959); Nová Ves u Plzně (705551); Oplot (626805); Černice (620106); Lhota u Dobřan (680940); Litice u Plzně (722740); Radobyčice (620122); Přestavlky u Dnešic (626813); Přeštice (735256); Skočice u Přeštic (748323); Žerovice (796638); Kucíny (735931); Příchovice u Přeštic (735949); Zálesí u Příchovic (735965); Radkovice u Příchovic (735957); Háje u Vodokrt (784371); Knihy (784389); Libákovice (745081); Osek u Vodokrt (784397); Plevňov (745090); Řenče (745103); Vodokrty (784401); Seč u Blovic (746436); Horušany (751596); Soběkury (751600); Střížovice u Plzně (758124); Štěnovice (763349); Nebílovský Borek (624047); Štěnovický Borek (624055); Únětice u Blovic (774421); Útušice (775665); Vlčtejn (783919); Vstiš (786985). | 19.3.2022 |
| Dolní Lukavice (629685); Krasavce (629707); Lišice u Dolní Lukavice (629715); Snopoušovy (629723); Horní Lukavice (629693); Předenice (704091); Robčice u Štěnovic (775657). | From 11.3.2022 until 19.3.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Central Bohemian Region

Babice (600601), Brník (710148), Březí u Říčan (613886), Břežany II (614955), Bylany u Českého Brodu (653985), Černé Voděrady (620084), Černíky (620220), Český Brod (622737), Dobré Pole u Vitic (782785), Dobročovice (627313), Horoušany (644803), Chotýš (782807), Jevany (659312), Jirny (660922), Klokočná (666467), Konojedy (708097), Kostelec nad Černými lesy (670162), Krupá u Kostelce nad Černými Lesy (675229), Křenice u Prahy (675814), Kšely (782815), Květnice (747751), Liblice u Českého Brodu (622826), Limuzy (767158), Louňovice (687359), Mukařov u Říčan (700321), Myšlín (697559), Nová Ves II (741434), Pacov u Říčan (717207), Prusice (708127), Přehvozdí (771376), Přistoupim (736279), Rostoklaty (741442), Říčany u Prahy (745456), Říčany-Radošovice (745511), Sibřina (747769), Sluštice (750808), Srbín (752967), Strašín u Říčan (756237), Struhařov u Mnichovic (757080), Stupice (747785), Svatbín (675237), Světice u Říčan (760391), Svojetice (761176), Štolmíř (622818), Tehov u Říčan (765309), Tehovec (765317), Tismice (767174), Tlustovousy (771414), Třebohostice u Škvorce (762741), Tuchoraz (771384), Tuklaty (771422), Úvaly u Prahy (775738), Vitice (782831), Vrátkov (767182), Všestary u Říčan (787396), Vyšehořovice (788503), Vyžlovka (789046), Zlatá (793019), Zvánovice (793795), Žernovka (700339).

12.3.2022

Doubek (631035), Doubravčice (631205), Hradešín (736287), Kozojedy u Kostelce nad Černými Lesy (671886), Masojedy (631213), Mrzky (767166), Přišimasy (736295), Škvorec (762733), Štíhlice (631221).

From 4.3.2022 until 12.3.2022

Plzeň Region:

Borovy (607941); Čižice (624039); Černotín u Dnešic (626775); Dnešice (626783); Dobřany (627615); Šlovice u Plzně (762831); Vodní Újezd (627623); Dolce (644820); Drahkov (631582); Horšice (644838); Újezd u Horšic (644854); Chlum u Blovic (651516); Chlumčany u Přeštic (651737); Chouzovy (654949); Chválenice (654957); Želčany (654965); Chocenický Újezd (652016); Kbelnice u Letin (680583); Letiny (680605); Losiná u Plzně (686841); Dlouhá Louka u Lužan (689173); Lužany u Přeštic (689181); Zelené (689203); Nebílovy (704075); Netunice (704083); Nezbavětice (763136); Nezdice nad Úhlavou (607959); Nová Ves u Plzně (705551); Oplot (626805); Černice (620106); Lhota u Dobřan (680940); Litice u Plzně (722740); Radobyčice (620122); Přestavlky u Dnešic (626813); Přeštice (735256); Skočice u Přeštic (748323); Žerovice (796638); Kucíny (735931); Příchovice u Přeštic (735949); Zálesí u Příchovic (735965); Radkovice u Příchovic (735957); Háje u Vodokrt (784371); Knihy (784389); Libákovice (745081); Osek u Vodokrt (784397); Plevňov (745090); Řenče (745103); Vodokrty (784401); Seč u Blovic (746436); Horušany (751596); Soběkury (751600); Střížovice u Plzně (758124); Štěnovice (763349); Nebílovský Borek (624047); Štěnovický Borek (624055); Únětice u Blovic (774421); Útušice (775665); Vlčtejn (783919); Vstiš (786985).

19.3.2022

Dolní Lukavice (629685); Krasavce (629707); Lišice u Dolní Lukavice (629715); Snopoušovy (629723); Horní Lukavice (629693); Předenice (704091); Robčice u Štěnovic (775657).

From 11.3.2022 until 19.3.2022

Member State: Denmark

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| The parts of Holbæk, Sorø, and Ringsted municipalities beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of radius 10 kilometres, centred on GPS koordinates coordinates
  N 55,5166; E 11,6902 | 16.3.2022 |
| The parts of Holbæk, Sorø and Ringsted municipalities that are contained within a circle of radius 3 km, centered on GPS coordinates
  N 55,5166; E 11,6902 | From 7.3.2022 until 16.3.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

The parts of Holbæk, Sorø, and Ringsted municipalities beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of radius 10 kilometres, centred on GPS koordinates coordinates

N 55,5166; E 11,6902

16.3.2022

The parts of Holbæk, Sorø and Ringsted municipalities that are contained within a circle of radius 3 km, centered on GPS coordinates

N 55,5166; E 11,6902

From 7.3.2022 until 16.3.2022

Member State: Germany

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN |
| Landkreis Rostock







  — | Gemeinde Jürgenshagen mit dem Ortsteil Jürgenshagen |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

MECKLENBURG-VORPOMMERN

Landkreis Rostock

—

Gemeinde Jürgenshagen mit dem Ortsteil Jürgenshagen

| — | Gemeinde Klein Belitz mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Krugland, Groß Belitz, Boldenstorf und Neukirchen |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Klein Belitz mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Krugland, Groß Belitz, Boldenstorf und Neukirchen

| — | Stadt Bad Doberan mit den Ortsteilen und Ortschaften: Bad Doberan, Walkenhagen und Althof |
| --- | --- |

—

Stadt Bad Doberan mit den Ortsteilen und Ortschaften: Bad Doberan, Walkenhagen und Althof

| — | Gemeinde Admannshagen-Bargeshagen mit den Ortsteilen: Rabenhorst, Admannshagen und Bargeshagen |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Admannshagen-Bargeshagen mit den Ortsteilen: Rabenhorst, Admannshagen und Bargeshagen

| — | Gemeinde Bartenshagen-Parkentin mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Hütten, Neuhof, Parkentin, Bartenshagen und Bollbrücke |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Bartenshagen-Parkentin mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Hütten, Neuhof, Parkentin, Bartenshagen und Bollbrücke

| — | Gemeinde Hohenfelde mit den Ortsteilen: Hohenfelde, Neu Hohenfelde und Ivendorf |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Hohenfelde mit den Ortsteilen: Hohenfelde, Neu Hohenfelde und Ivendorf

| — | Gemeinde Reddelich mit dem Ortsteil Reddelich |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Reddelich mit dem Ortsteil Reddelich

| — | Gemeinde Retschow mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Glashagen, Stülow, Fulgenkoppel, Retschow - Waldsiedlung und Retschow |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Retschow mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Glashagen, Stülow, Fulgenkoppel, Retschow - Waldsiedlung und Retschow

| — | Gemeinde Satow mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Groß Bölkow, Bölkow, Bölkow-Ausbau, Püschow, Lüningshagen, Rederank, Konow, Hastorf, Miekenhagen, Hohen Luckow, Hohen Luckow-Ausbau, Satow, Radegast, Gerdshagen, Horst und Matersen |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Satow mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Groß Bölkow, Bölkow, Bölkow-Ausbau, Püschow, Lüningshagen, Rederank, Konow, Hastorf, Miekenhagen, Hohen Luckow, Hohen Luckow-Ausbau, Satow, Radegast, Gerdshagen, Horst und Matersen

| — | Gemeinde Benitz mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Brookhusen und Brookhusen-Ausbau |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Benitz mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Brookhusen und Brookhusen-Ausbau

| — | Gemeinde Bröbberow mit den Ortsteilen: Bröbberow, Groß Grenz und Klein Grenz |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Bröbberow mit den Ortsteilen: Bröbberow, Groß Grenz und Klein Grenz

| — | Gemeinde Schwaan mit dem OrtsteilDorf Tatschow |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Schwaan mit dem OrtsteilDorf Tatschow

| — | Stadt Kröpelin mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Schmadebeck, Brusow, Einhusen, Groß Siennen, Klein Siemen, und Altenhagen –Ausbau |
| --- | --- |

—

Stadt Kröpelin mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Schmadebeck, Brusow, Einhusen, Groß Siennen, Klein Siemen, und Altenhagen –Ausbau

| — | Amt Warnow-West: |
| --- | --- |

—

Amt Warnow-West:

| — | Gemeinde Kritzmow mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Kritzmow, Klein Stove, Klein Schwaß, Groß Schwaß und Wilsen-Ausbau |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Kritzmow mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Kritzmow, Klein Stove, Klein Schwaß, Groß Schwaß und Wilsen-Ausbau

| — | Gemeinde Lambrechtshagen mit den Ortsteilen: Lambrechtshagen, Sievershagen, Allershagen, Vorweden und Mönkweden |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Lambrechtshagen mit den Ortsteilen: Lambrechtshagen, Sievershagen, Allershagen, Vorweden und Mönkweden

| — | Gemeinde Papendorf mit den Ortsteilen: Groß Stove und Niendorf |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Papendorf mit den Ortsteilen: Groß Stove und Niendorf

| — | Gemeinde Pölchow mit den Ortsteilen: Pölchow und Wahrstorf |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Pölchow mit den Ortsteilen: Pölchow und Wahrstorf

| — | Gemeinde Stäbelow mit den Ortsteilen: Stäbelow, Wilsen und Parkentin-Ausbau |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Stäbelow mit den Ortsteilen: Stäbelow, Wilsen und Parkentin-Ausbau

| — | Gemeinde Ziesendorf mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Ziesendorf, Buchholz, Nienhusen, |
| --- | --- |

—

Gemeinde Ziesendorf mit den Ortsteilen und Orten: Ziesendorf, Buchholz, Nienhusen,

Fahrenholz und Buchholz Heide.

From 5.2.2022 until 7.3.2022

Hanse- und Universitätsstadt Rostock

betroffene Stadtteile: Reutershagen, Gartenstadt, Südstadt, Stadtweide, Biestow; begrenzt durch die Stadtgrenze im Süden und Westen sowie im Norden durch die Hamburger Straße bis zum Schutower Kreuz und im Osten durch den Barnstorfer Ring (B 103), Edelweißweg, Kuphalstraße, Asternweg, Am Waldessaum, Rennbahnallee, Tiergartenallee, Satower Straße, Südring und Nobelstraße

From 5.2.2022 until 7.3.2022

NIEDERSACHSEN

Landkreis Ammerland

Ausgangspunkt ist die Kreisgrenze beim Wasserzug am Wittenbergsdamm. Dem Wasserzug am Wittenbergsdamm folgend bis zur Hafenstraße. Der Hafenstraße in östlicher Richtung folgend übergehend in die Straße Langendamm übergehend in die Straße Am Düker. Der Straße Am Düker bis zur Kreisgrenze folgend. Entlang der Kreisgrenze zurück zum Ausgangspunkt Kreisgrenze beim Wasserzug am Wittenbergsdamm.

22.3.2022

Landkreis Celle

Das Gebiet erstreckt sich im Südwesten beginnend ab Schnittpunkt der Gemarkungsgrenze Wathlingen mit der Kreisgrenze der Gemarkungsgrenze nördlich folgend bis zur L 311. Dieser nördlich über die B 214, "Okamp", "Parkstraße", L 311, "Alter Postweg", "Appelweg", "Lageweg" bis zum Wienhäuser Mühlenkanal folgen. Auf diesem weiter in nördlicher Richtung bis zum Bockmarschweg und dann auf der L 311 bis zum "Alten Postweg" in Lachendorf folgen. Diesem bis zur Gemarkungsgrenze Ahnsbeck folgen und auf ihr weiter bis zur L 284. Von dort weiter westlich über die "Stettiner Straße", "Herbert-Bangemann-Straße", "Beedenbostler Straße", "Hühnerkamp", "Rhienende", "Beckstraße" bis zur Gemarkungsgrenze Bunkenburg. Dieser östlich folgen über die Gemarkungsgrenzen Hohnhorst, Wohlenrode, Grebshorn bis zur Kreisgrenze und auf dieser westlich weiter bis zum Ausgangspunkt.

26.2.2022

Landkreis Celle

Das Gebiet erstreckt sich im Südwesten beginnend ab Schnittpunkt K 51 mit der Kreisgrenze der K 51 folgend in nördlicher Richtung bis Abzweigung "Bahnhofstraße", dieser entlang bis zur K 52. Der K 52 nördlich 50 m folgen und dann rechts -zwischen Hausnummer 5 und 7- abbiegen in einen Feldweg und bis zur Einmündung K 50 folgen. Der K 50 und dann über "Maschweg", K 48, "Neuhaus" bis zur Kreisgrenze folgen. An dieser südlich entlang bis zum Ausgangspunkt.

From 18.2.2022 until 26.2.2022

Landkreis Cloppenburg

In der Gemeinde Lindern von der Kreisgrenze zum Landkreis Emsland der Marka und im Weiteren dem Auener Graben südlich folgend bis zum Grenzgraben Wachtung-Liener, dem Wasserverlauf südwestlich folgend bis zur Kreisgrenze und dieser nördlich folgend bis zum Ausgangspunkt.

14.3.2022

Landkreis Cloppenburg

In der Gemeinde Emstek von der Kreisgrenze zum Landkreis Oldenburg der Bundesstraße 213 westlich folgend bis Kellerhöher Straße, entlang dieser bis Bether Tannen, dieser in westliche Richtung bis Kanalweg folgend, entlang diesem in nördliche Richtung bis Heidegrund, entlang diesem bis Heideweg, diesem südlich folgend bis zum Verbindungsweg zum Roggenkamp, diesem und Roggenkamp westlich folgend bis Garreler Weg, diesem südlich folgend bis Käseweg und entlang diesem in nordwestliche Richtung bis zur Waldgrenze. Dieser südwestlich in direkter Linie zur Friesoyther Straße folgend, entlang dieser in nordwestliche Richtung bis zur Gemeindegrenze Cloppenburg/ Garrel, dieser westlich folgend und über die Gemeindegrenze Garrel/ Molbergen bis Varrelbuscher Straße, dieser westlich folgend bis Resthauser Graben, dem Wasserverlauf westlich folgend bis Hüttekamp und diesem nordöstlich und an der Gabelung westlich folgend bis Petersfelder Weg. Entlang diesem in nördliche Richtung bis Neumühlen, dieser entlang der Waldgrenze westlich folgend, die Ferienhaussiedlung nördlich passierend, bis Große Tredde, dieser südlich folgend bis Neumühler Weg, diesem westlich folgend bis Kleine Tredde und dieser westlich folgend bis Wöstenweg. Entlang diesem in nördliche Richtung und an der Gabelung weiter in nordöstliche und sodann parallel zum Wöstenschloot nördliche Richtung bis zur Gemeindegrenze Friesoythe/ Molbergen. Dieser in westliche Richtung folgend bis Dwergter Straße, entlang dieser in nördliche Richtung bis Bernhardsweg, entlang diesem bis Thülsfelder Straße, dieser westlich folgend bis Dorfstraße, dieser nördlich folgend und im weiteren Am Augustendorfer Weg bis Markhauser Weg, entlang diesem in westliche Richtung bis Igelriede, dem Wasserverlauf nördlich folgend und entlang dem Waldrand in westliche Richtung bis Morgenlandstraße, entlang dieser bis Markhauser Moorgraben, dem Wasserverlauf nördlich folgend, entlang der Waldgrenze und sodann dieser nordöstlich und nordwestlich folgend bis Vorderthüler Straße. Dieser nordöstlich durch den Wald folgend und im weiteren über Am Horstberg bis Bundesstraße 72, dieser nördlich folgend bis Ziegeldamm, entlang diesem bis Ziegelmoor, entlang dieser bis Friesoyther Straße, dieser östlich folgend bis Kündelstraße, dieser nördlich und an der Gabelung weiter östlich folgend bis Elsene Graben/ Böseler Kanal, dem Wasserverlauf nördlich folgend, den Steinbergsweg passierend, bis zur nordöstlich abgehenden Baumreihe, dieser folgend bis zum Steinbergsweg, diesem südöstlich folgend bis Overlaher Straße, entlang dieser in nordöstliche Richtung bis zum östlich abgehenden Wirtschaftsweg zum Overlaher Graben, diesem folgend zum Overlaher Graben, dem Wasserverlauf nördlich folgend bis Lager Schloot, dem Wasserverlauf östlich und sodann nördlich folgend bis zur Kreisgrenze zum Landkreis Ammerland, dieser östlich folgend und über die Kreisgrenze zum Landkreis Oldenburg bis zum Ausgangspunkt.

22.3.2022

Landkreis Cloppenburg

In der Gemeinde Garrel an der Kreuzung Fasanenweg/ Beverbrucher Damm dem Beverbrucher Damm in südlicher Richtung bis zum Kreisverkehr folgend, der Großenkneter Straße westlich bis Vehne folgend, dem Wasserverlauf in südlicher Richtung bis Tweeler Straße, dieser in nordwestlicher Richtung bis zum dritten Verbindungsweg zur Kellerhöher Straße (Dachsweg) folgend, diesem in westlicher Richtung bis Kellerhöher Straße folgend und dieser in südlicher Richtung bis Schlichtenmoor/ Fuchsweg folgend, diesem in westlicher Richtung bis Schlichtenmoor folgend, diesem nördlich bis Allensteiner Straße/ Roslaes Höhe folgend, dieser erst in westlicher und dann in nördlicher Richtung bis Breslauer Straße folgend, dieser in westlicher Richtung bis Bunzlauer Straße folgend, dieser nördlich bis zur Danziger Straße folgend, dort in westlicher Richtung dem Verbindungsweg zur Görlitzer Straße folgend, dieser in westlicher Richtung bis Tannenkampstraße folgend, dieser in nördlicher Richtung bis Beverbrucher Straße folgend, dieser in westlicher Richtung bis Cloppenburger Straße folgend, dieser in nördlicher Richtung bis An der Höhe folgend, dieser in westlicher Richtung bis Bahnhofstraße folgend, dieser in nördlicher Richtung bis Raiffeisenstraße folgend, dieser in westlicher Richtung bis Adolf-Kolping-Straße folgend, dieser nördlich bis Petersfelder Straße folgend, dieser und im Weiteren Thüler Straße in westlicher Richtung bis Bergaue folgend, dem Wasserverlauf in nördlicher Richtung bis zur Gemeindegrenze Gemeinde Garrel/ Gemeinde Bösel folgend, dieser in östlicher Richtung bis Lindenweg/ Grüner Weg folgend, diesem in nördlicher Richtung bis zum Verbindungsgraben zum Birkenmoor folgend, dem Wasserverlauf bis Birkenmoor folgend, diesem in nördlicher Richtung bis (Am) Birkenmoor folgend, diesem in östlicher Richtung bis Baumstraße folgend, dieser in südlicher Richtung bis Eichkamp folgend, diesem in östlicher Richtung bis Am Streek folgend, diesem in nördlicher Richtung bis Moorstraße folgend, dieser in erst nordöstlicher und dann in nördlicher Richtung bis zum Waldstück und dort dem Wasserverlauf in südlicher Richtung bis zur Gemeindegrenze Gemeinde Garrel/ Gemeinde Bösel folgend, dieser in nordöstlicher Richtung bis zum ersten Verbindungsgraben zur Barkentange folgend, diesem in südlicher Richtung bis zur Barkentange folgend, dieser und dem anschließenden Feldweg parallel zum Nikolausdorf Wasserzug zunächst in nordöstlicher und im weiteren Verlauf in südöstlicher Richtung, nach dem Wald ausschließlich dem der Barkentange anschließenden Feldweg in südöstlicher Richtung bis zur Oldenburger Straße folgend, dieser in nordöstlicher Richtung bis zur Kreisgrenze Landkreis Cloppenburg/ Landkreis Oldenburg folgend, dieser in südlicher Richtung bis Krumme Riede folgend, diesem Wasserverlauf in südlicher Richtung bis zum Fasanenweg folgend, entlang diesem in westlicher Richtung bis zum Ausgangspunkt.

From 14.3.2022 until 22.3.2022

Landkreis Emsland

Kreisgrenze Cloppenburg / Vinnen – Vinner Straße – Wachtumer Straße – Riehen – Up`n Sande – Vinner Straße – Cors Kamp – Lahner Straße – Am Alten Lager – Ahmsener Straße – Ostlähdener Straße – Hüvener Straße – Hüvener Mühle – Lähdener Straße – Alte Ch – Lahner Straße – Sögeler Straße – Raiffeisenstraße – Gartenstraße – Ahornstraße – Kienmoorweg – Verbindungsweg – Grenzgraben Eisten-Hüven – Nordradde – Berßener Straße – Staverner Straße – Am Egels – Verbindungsweg – Gut Sprakel – Verbindungsweg – L 53 – Wahner Straße – Gutshofstraße – Verbindungsweg - Sandandpoelgraben I – Püngel – Fleiereigraben II – Börger Graben – Börger Mittelgraben – Binnewegesmoor – Fasanenstraße – Börgerstraße – Höge – Verbindungsweg – Großer Schloot – Surwolder Straße – Neubörger Straße – Feldstraße – Verbindungsweg – Kreuzallee – Bergstraße – Tongru-benweg – Verbindungsweg – Im Timpen – Esterweger Straße – Surwolder Straße – Herrenweg – Lattensberg – Heidbrücker Straße – An den Zuschlägen – Oheweg – Ohe – Loruper Beeke – Hilkenbrooker Straße – Dosenweg – Gehlenberger Straße – Loruper Straße – Rittveengraben – Verbindungsweg – Kreisgrenze

14.3.2022

Landkreis Emsland

Im Süden beginnend Ostenwalder Straße westlich Dorfanger – Verbindungsweg Dorfanger-Holzweg – Holzweg – Verbindungsweg Holzweg – Ostenwalder Straße – Gut Horst – Radweg Raddesee Sögel – Marientaler Straße – Spahner Straße – Verbindungsweg – Friesenweg – Spahner Weg – Zum Windberg – Verbindungsweg – Werpeloher Grenzgraben – Schnüggenweg – Nordkampstraße – Hauptstraße/L 51 – Sögeler Straße – Verbindungsweg – Börger-Spahner Grenzgraben – Bachlauf Ohe nördlich – Haßmoorschloot – Tichelpläcke – Werlter Straße – Loruper Straße – Harrenstätter Straße – Unfriedstraße – Schlosser Straße – Hammerstraße – Bahnhofstraße – Hobelstraße – Bernhard-Krone-Straße – Kasernenstraße – Hauptstraße – Sögeler Straße – Ostenwalder Straße

From 6.3.2022 until 14.3.2022

Landkreis Gifhorn

Von der Kreisgrenze bei Ummern bis zur Wiehe und an der Wiehe entlang bis zur Straße Zum Schmarloh.

Über die Zum Schmarloh bis zur L 284. Links auf die L 284 durch Ummern bis auf die B4.

Über die B 4 bis zur Krümme und rechts auf den Krümmeweg. Über Krümmeweg, Im Achtertor bis über die Dorfstr. in Neubokel. Durch Neubokel auf die B 188. Rechts auf die B 188 bis Brenneckenbrück/Allerkanal.

Links am Allerkanal entlang bis zum Viehmoorgraben. Rechts auf den Viehmoorgraben bis zu den Bahngleisen. Rechts auf die Bahngleise in Richtung Leiferde bis zur L 320. Rechts auf die L 320 (Volkser Str.). Geradeaus über den Kreisel in Richtung Volkse.

Durch Volkse auf dem Rietzer Weg bis zur Kreisgrenze. An der Kreisgrenze entlang bis zur 214.

26.2.2022

Landkreis Gifhorn

Im Norden von der Kreisgrenze bis zur Moorstr. rechts auf die Moorstr, die L 283 querend bis zum Bäckerweg.

Rechts in den Bäckerweg bis zur Bahnhofstr. Über die Bahnhofstr. auf die L 283. Von der L 283 rechts auf den Meinerser Weg bis zur B 188.

Dann rechts auf die B 188. Dort geradeaus über den Kreisel hinweg. Nach dem Kreisel rechts auf die L 299. Von der L 299 links in Richtung Päse. Durch Päse hindurch in Richtung Höfen.

Von Höfen bis zur Kreisgrenze und dann an der Kreisgrenze entlang bis zur B 214.

From 18.2.2022 until 26.2.2022

Region Hannover

Ortsteile Uetze und Eltze der Gemeinde Uetze ohne das Gebiet westlich der Straße zwischen Krätze und Katensen.

26.2.2022

Landkreis Oldenburg

| — | Ausgangspunkt ist der Schnittpunkt Kreisgrenze Landkreis Oldenburg/ Landkreis Ammerland und die K 141 (Ammerländer Straße) am Küstenkanal in der Gemeinde Wardenburg |
| --- | --- |

—

Ausgangspunkt ist der Schnittpunkt Kreisgrenze Landkreis Oldenburg/ Landkreis Ammerland und die K 141 (Ammerländer Straße) am Küstenkanal in der Gemeinde Wardenburg

| — | Von dort der K 141 durch Achternmeer & Westerholt nach Oberlethe folgen |
| --- | --- |

—

Von dort der K 141 durch Achternmeer & Westerholt nach Oberlethe folgen

| — | In Oberlethe über Tungeler Damm – übergehend in Böseler Straße – bis Abbiegung Wassermühlenweg |
| --- | --- |

—

In Oberlethe über Tungeler Damm – übergehend in Böseler Straße – bis Abbiegung Wassermühlenweg

| — | Den Wassermühlenweg folgend über die Lethe auf Litteler Straße (L 847) |
| --- | --- |

—

Den Wassermühlenweg folgend über die Lethe auf Litteler Straße (L 847)

| — | L 847 Richtung Littel bis Einmündung Fladderstraße |
| --- | --- |

—

L 847 Richtung Littel bis Einmündung Fladderstraße

| — | Weiter über Fladderstraße / Grüner Weg / Oldenburger Straße (L 870) / Wikinger Straße (K 242) auf Autobahn A 29 - Anschlussstelle Wardenburg |
| --- | --- |

—

Weiter über Fladderstraße / Grüner Weg / Oldenburger Straße (L 870) / Wikinger Straße (K 242) auf Autobahn A 29 - Anschlussstelle Wardenburg

| — | Der A 29 Richtung Ahlhorn bis Lammerweg folgen |
| --- | --- |

—

Der A 29 Richtung Ahlhorn bis Lammerweg folgen

| — | Von Dort über Lammerweg / Am Schmeel / Petersburg / Voßbergweg / Zum Döhler Wehe bis Einmündung Straße Schmehl in Döhlen |
| --- | --- |

—

Von Dort über Lammerweg / Am Schmeel / Petersburg / Voßbergweg / Zum Döhler Wehe bis Einmündung Straße Schmehl in Döhlen

| — | Anschließend weiter über Schmehl / Krumlander Straße / Hasselbusch auf die Straße „Im Dorf“ (L 871) |
| --- | --- |

—

Anschließend weiter über Schmehl / Krumlander Straße / Hasselbusch auf die Straße „Im Dorf“ (L 871)

| — | Der L 871 Richtung Großenkneten folgend zur Bahntrasse |
| --- | --- |

—

Der L 871 Richtung Großenkneten folgend zur Bahntrasse

| — | Weiter der Bahntrasse Richtung Osnabrück bis Sager Esch/ Hauptstraße (L 871) in Großenkneten |
| --- | --- |

—

Weiter der Bahntrasse Richtung Osnabrück bis Sager Esch/ Hauptstraße (L 871) in Großenkneten

| — | Von dort der L 871 nach Sage; Sager Straße/ Oldenburger Straße (L 870) folgend bis Abbiegung Feldmühlenweg in Ahlhorn |
| --- | --- |

—

Von dort der L 871 nach Sage; Sager Straße/ Oldenburger Straße (L 870) folgend bis Abbiegung Feldmühlenweg in Ahlhorn

| — | Weiter über Feldmühlenweg / Lether Schulweg auf Cloppenburger Straße |
| --- | --- |

—

Weiter über Feldmühlenweg / Lether Schulweg auf Cloppenburger Straße

| — | Anschließend der Cloppenburger Straße westlich folgen zur Kreisgrenze Landkreis Oldenburg / Landkreis Cloppenburg |
| --- | --- |

—

Anschließend der Cloppenburger Straße westlich folgen zur Kreisgrenze Landkreis Oldenburg / Landkreis Cloppenburg

| — | Abschließend der Kreisgrenze Landkreis Oldenburg / Landkreis Cloppenburg im Uhrzeigersinn zum Ausgangspunkt am Küstenkanal in der Gemeinde Wardenburg |
| --- | --- |

—

Abschließend der Kreisgrenze Landkreis Oldenburg / Landkreis Cloppenburg im Uhrzeigersinn zum Ausgangspunkt am Küstenkanal in der Gemeinde Wardenburg

22.3.2022

Landkreis Peine

Betroffen sind die Ortschaften Eickenrode und Plockhorst in der Gemeinde Edemissen.

Ab der Kreisgrenze im Osten zum LK Gifhorn auf der B 214 bis zur Straße „Am Haferkamp“ folgen. Der Straße „Am Haferkamp“ bis zum Ortsrand Eickenrode folgen. Entlang des östlichen und südlichen Ortsrandes von Eickenrode bis zum Schnittpunkt mit der dort verlaufenden Hochspannungsleitung. Dieser bis zum nördlich gelegenen Kiesteich folgen. Westlich entlang des Kiesteichs bis zur Dorfstr. Westlich bis zum Ortsrand von Plockhorst folgen. Entlang des östlichen, südlichen und westlichen Ortsrandes von Plockhorst bis zur Kreisstr. 10. Dieser folgen bis zum Eltzer Plockhorster Grenzgraben. Entlang des Grabens nach Norden bis zur Kreuzung mit der Bahnlinie. Östlich entlang der Bahnlinie bis zur Höhe des Grundstücks des Klärwerks. An der östlichen Grundstücksgrenze des Klärwerks in Verlängerung etwa 100 m nördlich bis zur Kreisgrenze zur Region Hannover folgen.

26.2.2022

NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN

Ennepe-Rhur-Kreis

Die Überwachungszone beinhaltet die Gebiete des Ennepe-Ruhr-Kreises, die in einem 10 km-Radius um die GPS-Koordinaten lat="51.4987315490"; lon="7.4097860146" liegen und umfasst somit ein Areal, das sich von der nördlichen Kreisgrenze nach Süden über Bereiche der Städte Witten und Herdecke erstreckt.

2.3.2022

Kreis Recklinghausen

Beginnend an der Stadtgrenze Herne der Holthauser Straße in nördliche Richtung folgend bis zur Kreuzung Westring. Dem Westring nach Nordwesten folgend bis zur Victorstraße. Anschließend der Victorstraße nach Osten folgend bis zur Wartburgstraße. Der Wartburgstraße nach Norden folgend bis zur Langen Straße. Der Langen Straße nach Osten folgend bis zur Friedrichstraße. Der Friedrichstaße in östliche Richtung folgend und weiter auf Ickerner Straße in nordöstliche Richtung bis zur Unterführung der A2. Anschließend der A2 in Richtung Südosten folgend bis zur Stadtgrenze Dortmund. Der Stadtgrenze zu Dortmund in Richtung Süden folgend bis zur Stadtgrenze Bochum. Der Stadtgrenze Bochum in nordwestlicher Richtung folgend bis zur Stadtgrenze Herne. Anschließend der Stadtgrenze Herne nach Norden folgend bis zum Ausgangspunkt Höhe Holthauser Straße.

2.3.2022

Kreis Unna

Lünen-Brambauer Schnittpunkt Kreisgrenze / Zechenstraße Richtung Osten bis „Brechtener Straße“, Richtung Süden bis Hochspannungsleitung unterhalb der Straße „In den Hülsen“, Richtung Osten bis zur westlichen „Oetringhauser Straße“, Richtung Westen bis Schnittpunkt Kreisgrenze

2.3.2022

Markischer Kreis

Östlich der Ortschaft Radevormwald-Jägershaus in südlicher Richtung der Kreisgrenze folgend bis zum Erreichen der Straße von Jägershaus in südlicher Richtung. Diese ca. 600 m in östlicher Richtung entlang bis zur nächsten Kreuzung, dann rechts durch die Ortschaft Grafweg bis zum Erreichen des Baches Hartmecke. Diesem Bach in nördlicher, dann östlicher Richtung folgend bis zur Ortslage Hartmecke. In Höhe der Hausnummer Hartmecke 4 rechts abbiegend. Dem Straßenverlauf ca. 300m folgend, dann links die Ennepe querend. Nach der Brücke rechts abbiegend auf die Straße nach Brenscheid. Dem Straßenverlauf bis Lingensiepen folgend. An der folgenden T-Kreuzung nach rechts abbiegend bis zum Ende der Straße, dann nach links abbiegend auf die Löhbacher Straße. Dieser bis zum Ende folgend, dann rechts der Hagener Str. folgend, bis diese die B229 unterquert. Dann der Remscheider Str. (B229 - L528) in östlicher Richtung ca. 2 km folgend. Anschließend links nach Sticht abbiegend. Vor Erreichen der Ortslage rechts abbiegend Richtung Lammecke. Ab Höhe des Hauses Sticht 3 dem Bachverlauf des Haweckessiepen folgend bis zum Erreichen der Ortschaft Lammecke. Ab Erreichen der Hausnummer Lammecke 1 dem Straßenverlauf Richtung Süden ca. 100 m folgend, dann rechts abzweigend auf die Straße nach Romberg. Dieser in südlicher Richtung folgend, die L528 bei der Ortschaft Im Höfken querend und weiter in südlicher Richtung über Blechen bis zum Straßenende. Dann rechts abbiegend und die Kerspe überquerend. Nach der Brücke links der K3 folgend bis Kierspe-Padberg. Padbergstr und Straße Höferhof entlang, dann rechts abbiegend in die Straße nach Kiersperhagen bis B237.Dort rechts abbiegend und für etwa 450m dem Straßenverlauf folgend. Dann links abbiegend und der Straße Kiersperhagen bis Lingese folgend. Ab Lingese erst dem Hotteschlaer Bach und dann der Lingese in Fließrichtung bis zum Erreichen der Kreisgrenze nördlich von Wernscheid folgend. Dann westlich an der Kreisgrenze entlang bis zum Queren der Straße von Benninghausen Richtung Wernscheid.

6.3.2022

Oberbergischer Kreis

Die Grenze der Überwachungszone beginnt an der Kreisgrenze Oberbergischer Kreis/Rheinisch-Bergischer Kreis auf der L412 auf Höhe der Wuppertalsperre und verläuft von dort in nordöstlicher Richtung bis zur Kreuzstraße in der Ortschaft Bergerhof über die Froweinstraße, über die Lohengrinstraße, weiter über die Nibelungenstraße, über die Espertstraße, die Karl-Goerdeler-Straße, die Siepenstraße, über die Straße Am Krankenhaus weiter über den Höhweg Richtung B229. Die Grenze der Überwachungszone verläuft von dort aus weiter der B229 in östlicher Richtung folgend bis an die Abzweigung Poststraße. Von dort aus verläuft die Grenze Überwachungszone weiter über die Poststraße, die Blumenstraße, die Uelefe-Wuppertal-Straße überquerend, weiter über die Rosenstraße, die Mermbacher Straße auf die K9 nordöstlich in Richtung der Ortschaft Neuenhof. Weiter verläuft die Grenze der Überwachungszone über die K10 Richtung Neuenhof und weiter über die Ortschaft Neuenhaus, Neuenhaus einschließend, durch die Ortschaft Im Busch, weiter über die Ortschaften Finkensiepen und Oberschmittensiepen Richtung Köttershaus, Köttershaus einschließend bis zur Kreisgrenze Oberbergischer/Märkischer Kreis. Von dort verläuft die Grenze der Überwachungszone im Oberbergischen Kreis entlang der Kreisgrenze Oberbergischer/Märkischer Kreis in südlicher Richtung bis Marienheide, nördlich der Lingesetalsperre, auf der Straße zwischen der Ortschaft Benninghausen (Märkischer Kreis) und der Ortschaft Lambach (Oberbergischer Kreis). Von dort aus verläuft die Grenze der Überwachungszone auf der Straße Lambach über die Ortschaft Wernscheid bis zur L97/Talsperrenstraße. Weiter verläuft die Grenze der Überwachungszone der L97 westlich in Richtung Marienheide folgend, bis zum Abzweig Lindenweg und weiter dem Lindenweg in südöstlicher Richtung folgend über die Höfeler Landstraße/L97. Weiter verläuft die Grenze der Überwachungszone auf der L 97 und dann weiter über die Klosterstraße in westlicher Richtung über An den Leyen, die Griemeringhauser Straße, die Singernstraße und die Klosterstraße überquerend weiter über den Räuberweg, über die Brucher Straße südöstlich Richtung Brucherstausee über Eberg, bis zur B256/Gummersbacher Straße und weiter dieser folgend in westlicher Richtung, Richtung Marienheide Zentrum, über die Hauptstraße bis zur Abzweigung Reppinghauser Straße. Die Grenze der Überwachungszone verläuft weiter über die Reppinghauser Straße Richtung Späinghausen. Von dort aus verläuft die Grenze der Überwachungszone weiter über die Schöneborner Straße Richtung Schöneborn, Schöneborn ausschließend, weiter über die Straße Im Kämpchen bis zur Gimborner Straße und weiter der Gimborner Straße in südöstlicher Richtung Kotthausen folgend bis zur Abzweigung Zum Höltchen über Unter der Stube über An der Waar in südwestlicher Richtung über die Straße Hennenckenbruch bis zur Kreuzung Windhagener Straße/ Westtangente/B256. Von dort aus verläuft die Grenze der Überwachungszone weiter der L 306/Windhagener Straße südwestlich Richtung Herreshagen folgend, weiter durch Herreshagen über die L 306/Windhagener Straße bis Wegescheid. Weiter über die L306/Wervershoofer Straße in Richtung Niedergelbe. Die Grenze der Überwachungszone verläuft weiter über die L306/Gelpestraße über Nochen, Peisel bis zur Kreuzung Alte Landstraße in Elbach und dieser westlich Richtung Flaberg folgend über die Lindlarer Straße, über den Forstweg bis zur L306/Gelpestraße. Die Grenze der Überwachungszone verläuft weiter der L306 in südlicher Richtung folgend bis Neuremscheid von dort über die Straße Papiermühle, dem Weg Richtung Remshagener Straße bis zu dieser folgend. Weiter verläuft die Grenze der Überwachungszone der K19/Remshagener Straße nördlich folgend, Remshagen ausschießend, Richtung Lindlar Zentrum. Von der K9/Wolfsschlade verläuft die Grenze der Überwachungszone weiter über die K 21/Klauser Straße bis zur Abzweigung Dillensiefen. Von dort aus verläuft die Grenze der Überwachungszone weiter der Straße Dillensiefen folgend bis zur Abzweigung der Verbindungstraße, die auf die Borromäusstraße führt und dieser Verbindungsstraße folgend bis zur Borromäusstraße. Weiter verläuft die Grenze der Überwachungszone der Borromäusstraße in nordwestlicher Richtung folgend über die Bismarckstraße, die Eichenhofstraße bis zur Kreuzung Alten Linde. Weiter verläuft die Grenze der Überwachungszone der Straße Alten Linde folgend über Am Sülzer Berg bis zur L 284. Von dort aus verläuft die Grenze der Überwachungszone der L 284 folgend südwestlich Richtung Linde bis zur Straße Breidenbach. Weiter verläuft die Grenze der Überwachungszone der Straße Breidenbach in nördlicher Richtung folgend über Unterbreidenbach, Mittelbreidenbach und Oberbreidenbach und weiter über die Straße Richtung Spich über Spich bis zur Abzweigung der Straße Zur Ommer und weiter der Straße Zur Ommer folgend durch die Ortschaft Rölenommer über die Verbindungsstraße Richtung der K 31 bis zur Kreisgrenze Oberbergischer Kreis/ /Rheinischbergischer Kreis. Von dort aus verläuft die Grenze Überwachungszone im Oberbergischen Kreis der Kreisgrenze in nördlicher Richtung folgend bis zum Ausgangspunkt der Grenze der Überwachungszone.

6.3.2022

Oberbergischer Kreis

Die Grenze der Schutzzone startet an der Gemeindegrenze Wipperfürth/Hückeswagen auf Höhe des Landeplatzes Wipperfürth –Neye und verläuft von dort in nördlicher Richtung der Gemeindegrenze Wipperfürth/Hückeswagen folgend die Ortschaften Niederröttenscheid und Oberröttenscheid einschließend bis zur K 13 nordöstlich der Ortschaft Niederlangenberg. Von dort aus verläuft die Grenze der Schutzzone weiter der K13 folgend bis zur Abzweigung Richtung der Ortschaft Obernien. Die Grenze der Schutzzone verläuft weiter die K 13 verlassend in westlicher Richtung der Straße Richtung Obernien folgend. Westlich von Obernien verläuft die Grenze der Schutzzone weiter der Straße in nördlicher Richtung folgend Richtung K30 nördlich der Ortschaft Forste. Weiter verläuft die Grenze der Schutzzone auf der K30 in südlicher Richtung die Ortschaft Forste ausschließend bis zur Ortschaft Kreuzberg der K30 weiterfolgend bis zu der Ortschaft Wasserfuhr. Von Wasserfuhr aus verläuft die Grenze der Schutzzone aus weiter der Straße Richtung der Ortschaft Dörpinghausen folgend, durch Dörpinghausen Richtung der Ortschaft Dahl folgend in südwestlicher Richtung bis zur Ortschaft Ibach. Von dort aus verläuft die Grenze der Schutzzone der Straße in östlicher Richtung Richtung der Ortschaft Klaswipper der Gummersbacher Straße folgend, diese verlassend der Straße nach Dohrgaul in südlicher Richtung über Niederklüppelberg folgend. In der Ortschaft Dohrgaul verläuft die Grenze der Schutzzone der K18 westlich Richtung Agathaberg folgend bis zur Abzweigung der Straße Richtung der Ortschaft Hahnenberg. Von Hahnenberg verläuft die Grenze der Schutzzone weiter der Straße Richtung der Ortschaft Kahlscheuer folgend bis zur L 302. Der L302 folgend in südlicher Richtung bis zu der Abzweigung nördlich der Ortschaft Neeskotten. Von dort aus weiter Richtung Unterdierdorf der Straße Richtung Kremershof folgend, über Fähnrichstüttem bis zur L284 in Stüttem. Von dort aus verläuft die Grenze der Schutzzone weiter der L 284 in nördlicher Richtung folgend Richtung Grünewald bis zur Abzweigung der Straße nach Hermesberg. Dieser Straße folgend bis nach Thier. In Thier der Straße nördlich Richtung Fürden folgend bis zur L286. Dieser nördlich folgend bis zur Abzweigung Richtung Vorderschöneberg. Dieser Straße durch Vorderschöneberg folgend bis zur Abzweigung Richtung Klingsiepen. Dieser Straße bis südlich von Klingsiepen folgend, dann weiter der B506 in westlicher Richtung folgend bis zur Abzweigung Richtung Ritzenhaufe. Die Grenze der Schutzzone verläuft weiter durch die Ortschaft Ritzenhaufe weiter der Straße Richtung Kleppersfeld folgend, die Ortschaft Wüstemünte einschließend, bis auf die B237. Der B237 in nordwestlicher Richtung folgend bis zur Gemeindegrenze Wipperfürth/Hückeswagen von dort aus verläuft die Grenze der Schutzzone der Gemeindegrenze Wipperfürth/Hückeswagen folgend bis zum Ausgangspunkt des Schutzgebietes.

From 23.2.2022 until 6.3.2022

Rheinisch-Bergischer Kreis

Beginnend in der Stadt Wermelskirchen an der Kreisgrenze im Kreuzungspunkt der B51 mit der K22/Straße Buchholzen, der K22 in südlicher Richtung folgend bis sie auf die K12 stößt, dann der K12 Richtung Unterdurholzen folgend, in Unterdurholzen weiter mittig zwischen den Häusern Nr. 57 und 55 dem Straßenverlauf folgend über den in südlicher Richtung verlaufenden Feldweg bis zur Kreuzung mit der L101, dann in südwestlicher Richtung der L101 folgend bis zum Kreisverkehr in Habenichts, von dort weiter auf die L409 in südlicher Richtung über die Hauptstraße bis zur Mündung in die K14/Pilghauser Straße, von dort dem Straßenverlauf weiter folgend über den Ortsteil Hülsen Richtung Neuenhaus, dort der Straße Heidchen in südlicher Richtung folgend weiter über die Straße Mittelberg und die Straße Unterberg, in Unterberg dem Wanderweg Richtung „Große Dhünntalsperre“ in westlicher Richtung folgend bis zum Uferweg der „Großen Dhünntalsperre“, dann dem Uferweg am östlichen Ufer der „Großen Dhünntalsperre“ Richtung Süden weiterfolgend bis zur Staumauer zwischen „Vorsperre Große Dhünn“ und „Große Dhünntalsperre“, auf der Staumauer in das Gebiet der Gemeinde Kürten wechselnd, nach Verlassen der Staumauer dem Weg zunächst in östlicher dann in südlicher Richtung folgend bis zur Einmündung in die B506, dann der B506 in östlicher Richtung bis zur Einmündung in die Straße Morteln folgend und von dort weiter in südlicher Richtung bis zur Wermelskirchener Straße, auf dieser in südlicher Richtung folgend bis zur Wipperfürther Straße, auf dieser dann in westlicher Richtung bis zur K30/Olpener Straße, dieser südöstlich folgend bis zur Einmündung Höhenstraße, dieser in östlicher Richtung folgend bis zur Einmündung in die Straße Forsten/Schultheismühle, der Straße Schultheismühle in südlicher Richtung folgend bis zum Abzweig der Straße Unterbersten, dieser zunächst in südöstlicher Richtung dann in südwestlicher Richtung folgend bis zur Kreisgrenze des Oberbergischer Kreis, danach der Kreisgrenze folgend wieder in nördlicher Richtung bis zum Ausgangspunkt.

6.3.2022

Stadt Bochum

Im Norden: die Stadtgrenzen Castrop-Rauxel und Herne entlang;

Im Westen: ausgehend von der Herner Stadtgrenze zur Wiescherstraße, von dort aus Richtung Frauenlobstraße und weiter auf die Dietrich-Benking-Straße; dieser dann bis zum Castroper Hellweg folgend bis dieser dann in den Sheffield-Ring übergeht, von dort aus auf die Wittener Straße abbiegend über die Schattbachstraße und anschließend den Hustadtring;

Im Süden: vom Hustadtring weiter bis dieser zu der Straße „Vor den Teichen“ führt, dann um den Klärteich / Oelbach herum bis zur Wittener Stadtgrenze;

Im Osten: der weiteren Wittener Stadtgrenze folgend bis hin zur Dortmunder Stadtgrenze.

2.3.2022

Stadt Dortmund

Im Osten begrenzt durch den Schnittpunkt der Stadtgrenze, B236, Verlauf der B236 nach Süden bis Flautweg, Flautweg bis Altenderner Straße, Altenderner Straße bis Hostedder Straße, Hostedder Straße bis Flughafenstraße, Flughafenstraße bis Brackeler Straße, Brackeler Straße bis Oesterstraße, Oesterstraße bis Holzwickeder Straße, Holzwickeder Straße bis Kleine Schwerter Straße, Kleine Schwerter Straße bis Berghofer Straße, Berghofer Straße bis Stadtgrenze, Verlauf der Stadtgrenze bis Syburger Straße, Syburger Straße bis Westhofener Straße, Westhofener Straße bis A1 Richtung Süden.

Im Süden begrenzt durch den Schnittpunkt der A1 bis zur Bahnlinie, die Bahnlinie entlang in westliche Richtung bis zum Schnittpunkt des Nordufers des Hengsteysees, Verlauf Nordufer Hengsteysee bis Niederhof.

Im Westen begrenzt durch den Schnittpunkt des Nordufers des Hengsteysees und den Verlauf der Stadtgrenze Richtung Norden bis zum Groppenbach.

Im Norden weiterer Verlauf auf der Stadtgrenze ab dem Groppenbach bis zur B236.

2.3.2022

Stadt Dortmund

Im Osten begrenzt durch den Schnittpunkt der Franziusstraße und der Westfalenstraße Richtung Süden, Westfalenstraße bis Sunderweg, Sunderweg bis Unionsstraße, Unionsstraße bis Rheinische Straße bis Lindemannstraße, Lindemannstraße bis Rheinlanddamm, Rheinlanddamm bis L684, L684 bis Strobelallee, Strobelallee bis Turnweg, Turnweg bis Schwimmweg, Schwimmweg bis Bolmker Weg, Bolmker Weg bis Stockumer Straße, Stockumer Straße bis Am Hombruchsfeld, Am Hombruchsfeld bis Kuntzestraße, Kuntzestraße bis Eschenstraße, Eschenstraße bis Harkortstraße, Harkortstraße bis Kieferstraße.

Im Süden begrenzt durch den Schnittpunkt Kieferstraße Grotenbachstraße, Grotenbachstraße bis Hegemanns Heide, Hegemanns Heide bis Persebecker Straße, Persebecker Straße bis Menglinghauser Straße, Menglinghauser Straße bis Schnittpunkt A45 nach Westen.

Im Westen begrenzt durch den Verlauf der A45 in nördliche Richtung bis zur Baroper Straße, Baroper Straße bis Stockumer Bruch, Stockumer Bruch bis Stadtgrenze, Verlauf der Stadtgrenze nach Norden bis Schnittpunkt Dorneystraße, Dorneystraße bis Kleybredde, Kleybredde bis Kleyer Weg, Kleyer Weg bis Borussiastraße, Borussiastraße bis Kesselborn, Kesselborn bis Martener Straße, Martener Straße bis Schnittpunkt Stichstraße Martener Straße (ggü. Vorstenstraße), Stichstraße Martener Straße nach Norden bis zur Bahnlinie.

Im Norden begrenzt durch den Verlauf der Bahnlinie ab Stichstraße Martener Straße bis Rahmer Straße, Rahmer Straße nach Osten verlaufend bis Huckarder Straße, Huckarder Straße bis Franziusstraße.

From 19.2.2022 until 2.3.2022

Stadt Herne

Beginnend an der Stadtgrenze Bochum ab Höhe Müllhauser Straße über die Wiescherstraße in nordwestliche Richtung, weiter dem Hölkeskampring folgend in nördliche Richtung bis Kreuzung Sodinger Straße. Der Sodinger Straße nach Osten folgend bis zur Kreuzung Mont-Cenis-Straße. Der Mont-Cenis-Straße nach Osten folgend bis zur Börsinghauser Straße. Der Börsinghauser Straße in nördliche Richtung folgend, weiter auf der Bladenhorster nach Norden bis zur Bruchstraße. Der Bruchstraße in nördliche Richtung folgend bis zur Stadtgrenze Castrop-Rauxel. Der Stadtgrenze Castrop-Rauxel folgend in südliche Richtung bis zur Stadtgrenze Bochum. Der Stadtgrenze Bochum zunächst in westliche Richtung, sodann in südliche Richtung und anschließend in nordwestliche Richtung folgend bis zum Ausgangspunkt Höhe Müllhauser Straße.

2.3.2022

Stadt Remscheid

Die Anschlussüberwachungszone auf Remscheider Gebiet erstreckt sich westlich und nördlich der Kreisgrenze zum Oberbergischen Kreis, nördlich der Kreisgrenze zum Rheinisch-Bergischen Kreis, östlich der Straße Bergisch Born (B 51) und Borner Str. (B 51) sowie südlich der Straßen Dörpholz (L 412) und Dörperhöhe (L 412) bis zur Kräwinkler Brücke (L 412).

6.3.2022

Member State: Spain

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| Those parts in the province of Segovia of the comarcas of Cantalejo, Cuéllar and Sepúlveda contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -3,949732022, lat 41,308075870. | 1.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarcas of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado) y Entorno de Doñana (Almonte) beyond the area described in the protection zone and contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,5990325, lat 37,4095017. | 13.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,5990325, lat 37,4095017. | From 5.3.2022 until 13.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Valladolid of the comarcas of Olmedo, Valladolid, Santa Maria la Real de Nieva and Cuellar contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,5334409, lat 41,3517177 | 20.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Valladolid of the comarcas of Olmedo and Cuellar contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,5334409, lat 41,3517177 | From 12.03.2022 until 20.03.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado), Almonte (Entorno de Doñana), Valverde del Camino (Andevalo Oriental) and Cartaya (Costa Occidental), contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6616736, lat 37,3749029 | 20.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6616736, lat 37,3749029 | From 12.3.2022 until 20.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores), Cantillana (Vega de Sevilla) and Sevilla (Delegación Provincial), contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7299643, lat 37,4175677 | 23.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7299643, lat 37,4175677 | From 15.3.2022 until 23.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado), Almonte (Entorno de Doñana), Valverde del Camino (Andevalo Oriental) and Cartaya (Costa Occidental), contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,7880779, lat 37,3735092 | 20.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Valverde del Camino (Andevalo Oriental) and Cartaya (Costa Occidental), contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,7880779, lat 37,3735092 | From 12.3.2022 until 20.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado), Almonte (Entorno de Doñana), Valverde del Camino (Andevalo Oriental) and Cartaya (Costa Occidental), contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6673369, lat 37,3714944 | 4.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6673369, lat 37,3714944 | From 27.3.2022 until 4.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna (Campiña/Sierra sur) and the province of Malaga of the comarca of Antequera, contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,9146003, lat 37,2439955 | 14.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna (Campiña/Sierra sur), contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,9146003, lat 37,2439955 | From 6.4.2022 until 14.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores), Cantillana (Vega de Sevilla) and Sevilla (Delegación Provincial), contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7312900, lat 37,3890270 | 25.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7312900, lat 37,3890270 | From 17.3.2022 until 25.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna (campiña/Sierra sur), and the province of Malaga of the comarca of Antequera, contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,9364384, lat 37,2511113 | 28.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna (campiña/Sierra sur), contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,9364384, lat 37,2511113 | From 20.4.2022 until 28.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores), Cantillana (Vega de Sevilla) and Sevilla (Delegación Provincial), contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7708966, lat 37,4234866 | 9.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7708966, lat 37,4234866 | From 1.4.2022 until 9.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Valladolid of the comarcas of Olmedo, Valladolid, Santa Maria la Real de Nieva and Cuellar contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,5320177, lat 41,3459358 | 30.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Valladolid of the comarcas of Olmedo and Cuéllar contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,5320177, lat 41,3459358 | From 22.3.2022 until 30.3.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,694225, lat 37,4235978 | 11.5.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,694225, lat 37,4235978 | From 3.5.2022 until 11.5.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarcas of Carmona, Cantillana and Sevilla contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long-5,7322995 lat 37,4194919 | 15.5.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long, -5,7322995 lat 37,4194919 | From 7.5.2022 until 15.5.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarcas of La Palma del Condado, Almonte, Cartaya and Valverde del Camino contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6742835, lat 37,3738911 | 13.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of La Palma del Condado contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6742835, lat 37,3738911 | From 5.4.2022 until 13.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarcas of La Palma del Condado, Almonte, Cartaya and Valverde del Camino contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6877604, lat 37,3635289 | 13.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarcas of La Palma del Condado and Almonte contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6877604, lat 37,3635289 | From 5.4.2022 until 13.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarcas of Osuna and Écija contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,0032525, lat 37,2584618 | 15.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,0032525, lat 37,2584618 | From 7.4.2022 until 15.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna and in the province of Málaga of the comarca of Antequera contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,920941, lat 37,2274386 | 15.4.2022 |
| Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,920941, lat 37,2274386 | From 7.4.2022 until 15.4.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Those parts in the province of Segovia of the comarcas of Cantalejo, Cuéllar and Sepúlveda contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -3,949732022, lat 41,308075870.

1.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarcas of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado) y Entorno de Doñana (Almonte) beyond the area described in the protection zone and contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,5990325, lat 37,4095017.

13.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,5990325, lat 37,4095017.

From 5.3.2022 until 13.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Valladolid of the comarcas of Olmedo, Valladolid, Santa Maria la Real de Nieva and Cuellar contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,5334409, lat 41,3517177

20.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Valladolid of the comarcas of Olmedo and Cuellar contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,5334409, lat 41,3517177

From 12.03.2022 until 20.03.2022

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado), Almonte (Entorno de Doñana), Valverde del Camino (Andevalo Oriental) and Cartaya (Costa Occidental), contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6616736, lat 37,3749029

20.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6616736, lat 37,3749029

From 12.3.2022 until 20.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores), Cantillana (Vega de Sevilla) and Sevilla (Delegación Provincial), contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7299643, lat 37,4175677

23.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7299643, lat 37,4175677

From 15.3.2022 until 23.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado), Almonte (Entorno de Doñana), Valverde del Camino (Andevalo Oriental) and Cartaya (Costa Occidental), contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,7880779, lat 37,3735092

20.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Valverde del Camino (Andevalo Oriental) and Cartaya (Costa Occidental), contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,7880779, lat 37,3735092

From 12.3.2022 until 20.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado), Almonte (Entorno de Doñana), Valverde del Camino (Andevalo Oriental) and Cartaya (Costa Occidental), contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6673369, lat 37,3714944

4.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of Condado de Huelva (La Palma del Condado) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6673369, lat 37,3714944

From 27.3.2022 until 4.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna (Campiña/Sierra sur) and the province of Malaga of the comarca of Antequera, contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,9146003, lat 37,2439955

14.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna (Campiña/Sierra sur), contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,9146003, lat 37,2439955

From 6.4.2022 until 14.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores), Cantillana (Vega de Sevilla) and Sevilla (Delegación Provincial), contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7312900, lat 37,3890270

25.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7312900, lat 37,3890270

From 17.3.2022 until 25.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna (campiña/Sierra sur), and the province of Malaga of the comarca of Antequera, contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,9364384, lat 37,2511113

28.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna (campiña/Sierra sur), contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,9364384, lat 37,2511113

From 20.4.2022 until 28.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores), Cantillana (Vega de Sevilla) and Sevilla (Delegación Provincial), contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7708966, lat 37,4234866

9.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona (Los Arcores) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,7708966, lat 37,4234866

From 1.4.2022 until 9.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Valladolid of the comarcas of Olmedo, Valladolid, Santa Maria la Real de Nieva and Cuellar contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,5320177, lat 41,3459358

30.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Valladolid of the comarcas of Olmedo and Cuéllar contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,5320177, lat 41,3459358

From 22.3.2022 until 30.3.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,694225, lat 37,4235978

11.5.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,694225, lat 37,4235978

From 3.5.2022 until 11.5.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarcas of Carmona, Cantillana and Sevilla contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long-5,7322995 lat 37,4194919

15.5.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Carmona contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long, -5,7322995 lat 37,4194919

From 7.5.2022 until 15.5.2022

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarcas of La Palma del Condado, Almonte, Cartaya and Valverde del Camino contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6742835, lat 37,3738911

13.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarca of La Palma del Condado contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6742835, lat 37,3738911

From 5.4.2022 until 13.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarcas of La Palma del Condado, Almonte, Cartaya and Valverde del Camino contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6877604, lat 37,3635289

13.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Huelva of the comarcas of La Palma del Condado and Almonte contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -6,6877604, lat 37,3635289

From 5.4.2022 until 13.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarcas of Osuna and Écija contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,0032525, lat 37,2584618

15.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -5,0032525, lat 37,2584618

From 7.4.2022 until 15.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna and in the province of Málaga of the comarca of Antequera contained within a circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,920941, lat 37,2274386

15.4.2022

Those parts in the province of Sevilla of the comarca of Osuna contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on UTM 30, ETRS89 coordinates long -4,920941, lat 37,2274386

From 7.4.2022 until 15.4.2022

Member State: France

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Gers (32) |
| BAJONNETTE
  BERAUT
  BIVES
  BLAZIERT
  BRUGNENS
  CADEILHAN
  CASTELNAU-D'ARBIEU
  CASTELNAU-SUR-L'AUVIGNON
  CASTERA-LECTOUROIS
  CAUSSENS
  CERAN
  CONDOM (A l’est de D41 entre La Croix de Gensac et Mauhourat Et à l’est de D204, entre Mauhourat et Caussens)
  FLEURANCE
  GAVARRET-SUR-AULOUSTE
  GOUTZ
  L'ISLE-BOUZON
  LA ROMIEU
  LA SAUVETAT
  LAGARDE
  LALANNE
  LAMOTHE-GOAS
  LARROQUE-ENGALIN
  LARROQUE-SAINT-SERNIN
  LECTOURE
  MAGNAS
  MARAVAT
  MARSOLAN
  MAS-D'AUVIGNON
  MIRAMONT-LATOUR
  MONTESTRUC-SUR-GERS
  PAUILHAC
  PIS
  PRECHAC
  PUYSEGUR
  REJAUMONT
  ROQUEFORT
  ROQUEPINE
  SAINT-BRES
  SAINT-CLAR
  SAINT-LEONARD
  SAINT-ORENS-POUY-PETIT
  SAINT-PUY
  SAINTE-CHRISTIE
  SAINTE-GEMME
  SAINTE-RADEGONDE
  TAYBOSC
  TERRAUBE
  URDENS | 28.2.2022 |
| AIGNAN
  AURENSAN
  AVERON-BERGELLE
  AYZIEU
  BASCOUS
  BAZIAN
  BEAUMONT
  BELMONT
  BETOUS
  BEZOLLES
  CAILLAVET
  CASTELNAVET
  CASTEX-D'ARMAGNAC
  CAZAUBON
  CAZAUX-D'ANGLES
  COULOUME-MONDEBAT
  COURRENSAN
  CRAVENCERES
  ESPAS
  ESTANG
  FOURCES
  GALIAX
  GONDRIN
  JU-BELLOC
  JUSTIAN
  LABARTHETE
  LADEVEZE-RIVIERE
  LADEVEZE-VILLE
  LAGARDERE
  LANNEMAIGNAN
  LANNEPAX
  LAREE
  LARRESSINGLE
  LARROQUE-SUR-L'OSSE
  LASSERADE
  LAURAET
  LIAS-D'ARMAGNAC
  LOUBEDAT
  LOUSSOUS-DEBAT
  LUPIAC
  MARAMBAT
  MARGOUET-MEYMES
  MARGUESTAU
  MAUMUSSON LAGUIAN
  MAUPAS
  MONGUILHEM
  MONLEZUN-D'ARMAGNAC
  MORMES
  MOUCHAN
  MOUREDE
  NOULENS
  PANJAS
  PERCHEDE
  PLAISANCE
  PRECHAC-SUR-ADOUR
  RAMOUZENS
  ROQUEBRUNE
  ROQUES
  ROZES
  SABAZAN
  SAINT-AUNIX-LENGROS
  SAINT-JEAN-POUTGE
  SAINT-PAUL-DE-BAISE
  SAINT-PIERRE-D'AUBEZIES
  SEAILLES
  SION
  TIESTE-URAGNOUX
  TOUJOUSE
  TUDELLE
  VIELLA | 9.3.2022 |
| ARBLADE-LE-BAS
  ARBLADE-LE-HAUT
  BARCELONNE-DU-GERS
  BERNEDE
  BOURROUILLAN
  BOUZON-GELLENAVE
  BRETAGNE-D'ARMAGNAC
  CAHUZAC-SUR-ADOUR
  CAMPAGNE-D'ARMAGNAC
  CASTELNAU D'AUZAN LABARRERE
  CASTILLON-DEBATS
  CAUMONT
  CAUPENNE-D’ARMAGNAC
  CAZENEUVE
  CORNEILLAN
  DEMU
  EAUZE
  FUSTEROUAU
  GEE-RIVIERE
  GOUX
  IZOTGES
  LAGRAULET-DU-GERS
  LANNE-SOUBIRAN
  LANNUX
  LAUJUZAN
  LE HOUGA
  LELIN-LAPUJOLLE
  LUPPE-VIOLLES
  MAGNAN
  MANCIET
  MAULEON-D'ARMAGNAC
  MAULICHERES
  MONCLAR
  MONTREAL
  NOGARO
  POUYDRAGUIN
  PRENERON
  PROJAN
  REANS
  RISCLE
  SAINT-GERME
  SAINT-GRIEDE
  SAINT-MARTIN-D'ARMAGNAC
  SAINT-MONT
  SAINTE-CHRISTIE-D'ARMAGNAC
  SALLES-D'ARMAGNAC
  SARRAGACHIES
  SEGOS
  SORBETS
  TARSAC
  TASQUE
  TERMES-D'ARMAGNAC
  URGOSSE
  VERGOIGNAN
  VERLUS
  VIC-FEZENSAC | From 1.3.2022 until 9.3.2022 |
| CASTEX
  SARRAGUZAN
  MONTEGUT-ARROS | 19.3.2022 |
| Département: Indre (36) and Loir-et-Cher (41) |
| CHATEAUVIEUX
  ECUEILLE
  VILLENTROIS-FAVEROLLES-EN-BERRY est de la D22
  LUCAY-LE-MÂLE | 23.3.2022 |
| VILLENTROIS-FAVEROLLES-EN-BERRY ouest de la D22 | From 15.3.2022 until 23.3.2022 |
| Département: Indre-et-Loire (37) |
| CERE-LA-RONDE
  CHEMILLE-SUR-INDROIS
  GENILLE (hors ZP)
  LE LIEGE
  ORBIGNY (hors ZP, ouest D11 et ouest D89) | 20.3.2022 |
| BEAUMONT-VILLAGE
  GENILLE (à l'est de la route entre les Hauts-Millets et les Merrières, et à l'est de la route entre Marsin et les Bruyères)
  ORBIGNY (à l'ouest de la route D81 et de la route D11) | From 12.3.2022 until 20.3.2022 |
| LOCHE-SUR-INDROIS est de la D11 et de la D760
  MONTRESOR
  ORBIGNY est D11 et est D89
  VILLELOIN-COULANGE
  VILLEDOMAIN | 23.3.2022 |
| NOUANS-LES-FONTAINES | From 15.3.2022 until 23.3.2022 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Landes (40) |
| Angoumé
  Arengosse
  Artassenx
  Audon
  Bascons
  Bégaar
  Bélus
  Bénesse-lès-Dax
  Betbezer-d'Armagnac
  Bostens
  Bourriot-Bergonce
  Bretagne-de-Marsan
  Cagnotte
  Campagne
  Campet-et-Lamolère
  Candresse
  Cauneille
  Créon-d'Armagnac
  Dax
  Escalans
  Estigarde
  Gaas
  Gabarret
  Gaillères
  Gouts
  Herré
  Heugas
  Hinx
  Josse
  Lacquy
  Lagrange
  Laluque
  Lesgor
  Le Leuy
  Losse
  Lubbon
  Lucbardez et Bargues
  Retjons
  Magescq
  Mauvezin-d'Armagnac
  Mazerolles
  Mées
  Mont-de-Marsan
  Montégut
  Narrosse
  Oeyreluy
  Orist
  Ousse-Suzan
  Parleboscq
  Pey
  Peyrehorade
  Pontonx-sur-l'Adour
  Port-de-Lanne
  Pouydesseaux
  Rion-des-Landes
  Saint-Avit
  Saint-Cricq-du-Gave
  Saint-Étienne-d'Orthe
  Sainte-Foy
  Saint-Gor
  Saint-Jean-de-Marsacq
  Saint-Julien-d'Armagnac
  Saint-Justin
  Saint-Lon-les-Mines
  Saint-Martin-d'Oney
  Saint-Pandelon
  Saint-Paul-lès-Dax
  Saint-Perdon
  Saint-Pierre-du-Mont
  Saint-Vincent-de-Paul
  Saint-Vincent-de-Tyrosse
  Saubion
  Saubrigues
  Saugnac-et-Cambran
  Seyresse
  Siest
  Sorde-l'Abbaye
  Soustons
  Tartas
  Tercis-les-Bains
  Téthieu
  Tosse
  Villenave
  Ygos-Saint-Saturnin
  Yzosse | 10.3.2022 |
| Aire-sur-l'Adour
  Amou
  Arboucave
  Argelos
  Arsague
  Arthez-d'Armagnac
  Aubagnan
  Audignon
  Aurice
  Bahus-Soubiran
  Baigts
  Banos
  Bas-Mauco
  Bassercles
  Bastennes
  Bats
  Benquet
  Bergouey
  Beylongue
  Beyries
  Bonnegarde
  Bordères-et-Lamensans
  Bougue
  Bourdalat
  Brassempouy
  Buanes
  Carcarès-Sainte-Croix
  Carcen-Ponson
  Cassen
  Castaignos-Souslens
  Castandet
  Castelnau-Chalosse
  Castelnau-Tursan
  Castelner
  Castel-Sarrazin
  Cauna
  Caupenne
  Cazalis
  Cazères-sur-l'Adour
  Classun
  Clèdes
  Clermont
  Coudures
  Doazit
  Donzacq
  Duhort-Bachen
  Dumes
  Estibeaux
  Eugénie-les-Bains
  Eyres-Moncube
  Fargues
  Le Frêche
  Gamarde-les-Bains
  Garrey
  Gaujacq
  Geaune
  Gibret
  Goos
  Gousse
  Grenade-sur-l'Adour
  Habas
  Hagetmau
  Hauriet
  Haut-Mauco
  Hontanx
  Horsarrieu
  Labastide-Chalosse
  Labastide-d'Armagnac
  Labatut
  Lacajunte
  Lacrabe
  Laglorieuse
  Lahosse
  Lamothe
  Larbey
  Larrivière-Saint-Savin
  Latrille
  Laurède
  Lauret
  Louer
  Lourquen
  Lussagnet
  Mant
  Marpaps
  Mauries
  Maurrin
  Maylis
  Meilhan
  Mimbaste
  Miramont-Sensacq
  Misson
  Momuy
  Monget
  Monségur
  Montaut
  Montfort-en-Chalosse
  Montgaillard
  Montsoué
  Morganx
  Mouscardès
  Mugron
  Nassiet
  Nerbis
  Nousse
  Onard
  Ossages
  Ozourt
  Payros-Cazautets
  Pécorade
  Perquie
  Peyre
  Philondenx
  Pimbo
  Pomarez
  Poudenx
  Pouillon
  Poyanne
  Poyartin
  Préchacq-les-Bains
  Pujo-le-Plan
  Puyol-Cazalet
  Renung
  Saint-Agnet
  Saint-Aubin
  Sainte-Colombe
  Saint-Cricq-Chalosse
  Saint-Cricq-Villeneuve
  Saint-Gein
  Saint-Geours-d'Auribat
  Saint-Jean-de-Lier
  Saint-Loubouer
  Saint-Maurice-sur-Adour
  Saint-Sever
  Saint-Yaguen
  Samadet
  Sarraziet
  Sarron
  Saubusse
  Serres-Gaston
  Serreslous-et-Arribans
  Sorbets
  Sort-en-Chalosse
  Souprosse
  Tilh
  Toulouzette
  Urgons
  Vicq-d'Auribat
  Vielle-Tursan
  Vielle-Soubiran
  Le Vignau
  Villeneuve-de-Marsan | From 2.3.2022 until 10.3.2022 |
| Biarrotte
  Orthevielle
  Saint-Laurent-de-Gosse
  Sainte-Marie-de-Gosse
  Saint-Martin-de-Hinx | 9.3.2022 |
| Hastingues
  Oeyregave | From 1.3.2022 until 9.3.2022 |
| Saint-Geours-de-Maremne
  Rivière-Saas-et-Gourby
  Saubusse | From 23.2.2022 until 3.3.2022 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Loire-Atlantique (44) |
| LEGE (Ouest axe la noue-Moulin Guérin D178; Ouest axe Moulin Guérin-Salvert D54; Ouest axe Salvert-La Bossardière-La Garrelière-La Peaudouère-La Guichère)
  TOUVOIS
  CORCOUE SUR LORGNE (Sud route de la Croisée-Le Bousson; Sud axe Bousson-Le Clody D72; Sud axe Le Clody-La Noue)
  SAINT ETIENNE DE MER MORTE (Nord limite communale 85; Ouest limite communale avec Paulx D263; Sud route de la croisée jusqu'à Courcoue sur Lorgne) | 25.3.2022 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Lot-et-Garonne (47) |
| SAINTE-MAURE-DE-PEYRAC
  SAINT-PE-SAINT-SIMON | From 1.3.2022 until 9.3.2022 |
| MEZIN
  POUDENAS
  SOS | 9.3.2022 |
| Département: Maine-et-Loire (49) |
| BOUILLE-MENARD
  BOURG-L'EVEQUE
  SEGRE-EN-ANJOU BLEU (Châtelais
  OMBREE D'ANJOU (Grugé-l'Hôpital)
  OMBREE D'ANJOU (Chazé-Henry)
  OMBREE D'ANJOU (Combrée)
  OMBREE D'ANJOU (La Chapelle-Hullin)
  OMBREE D'ANJOU (Vergonnes) | 18.3.2022 |
| Département: Mayenne (53) |
| ATHEE
  BALLOTS
  CHERANCE
  CONGRIER
  CRAON
  LA BOISSIERE
  LA ROE
  LA SELLE-CRAONNAISE
  LIVRE-LA-TOUCHE
  MEE
  NIAFLES
  POMMERIEUX
  SAINT-AIGNAN-SUR-ROE
  SAINT-ERBLON
  SAINT-MICHEL-DE-LA-ROE
  SAINT-QUENTIN-LES -ANGES | 18.3.2022 |
| BOUCHAMPS-LES-CRAON
  RENAZE
  SAINT-MARTIN-DU-LIMET
  SAINT-SATURNIN-DU-LIMET | From 10.3.2022 until 18.3.2022 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Pyrénées-Atlantiques (64) |
| BIDACHE
  GUICHE
  SAMES
  CAME | From 1.3.2022 until 9.3.2022 |
| ARANCOU
  ARRAUTE-CHARRITTE
  AUTERRIVE
  BARDOS
  BERGOUEY-VIELLENAVE
  LEREN
  OREGUE
  SAINT-DOS
  SAINT-PE-DE-LEREN
  URT | 9.3.2022 |
| AAST
  ABERE
  ABIDOS
  AGNOS
  AMENDEUIX-ONEIX
  AMOROTS-SUCCOS
  ANCE
  ANDOINS
  ANGAIS
  ANGOUS
  ANOYE
  ARBERATS-SILLEGUE
  ARESSY
  ARGAGNON
  ARNOS
  ARRAST-LARREBIEU
  ARRICAU-BORDES
  ARRIEN
  ARTHEZ-DE-BÉARN
  ARTHEZ-D'ASSON
  ARTIGUELOUTAN
  ARZACQ-ARRAZIGUET
  ASSAT
  ASSON
  AUBIN
  AUBOUS
  AURIONS-IDERNES
  AUSSURUCQ
  AYDIE
  BALANSUN
  BALEIX
  BALIROS
  BARCUS
  BARZUN
  BEDEILLE
  BEGUIOS
  BEHASQUE-LAPISTE
  BELLOCQ
  BERENX
  BERROGAIN-LARUNS
  BEUSTE
  BIDOS
  BIRON
  BIZANOS
  BOEIL-BEZING
  BORDERES
  BORDES
  BOSDARROS
  BOUILLON
  BOUMOURT
  BOURNOS
  BRUGES-CAPBIS-MIFAGET
  BUNUS
  BUROS
  BUROSSE-MENDOUSSE
  CADILLON
  CAMOU-CIHIGUE
  CARDESSE
  CASTEIDE-DOAT
  CASTETBON
  CASTETIS
  CASTETNER
  CASTILLON (CANTON D'ARTHEZ-DE-BEARN)
  CASTILLON (CANTON DE LEMBEYE)
  CAUBIOS-LOOS
  CHERAUTE
  CONCHEZ-DE-BEARN
  CORBERE-ABERES
  COUBLUCQ
  CUQUERON
  DOAZON
  ESCOU
  ESCOUBES
  ESCOUT
  ESCURES
  ESLOURENTIES-DABAN
  ESPECHEDE
  ESPES-UNDUREIN
  ESPOEY
  ESQUIULE
  ESTIALESCQ
  ESTOS
  EYSUS
  FEAS
  FICHOUS-RIUMAYOU
  GAN
  GARLEDE-MONDEBAT
  GAROS
  GARRIS
  GAYON
  GELOS
  GER
  GERDEREST
  GEUS-D'ARZACQ
  GOES
  GOMER
  GOTEIN-LIBARRENX
  GURMENCON
  HAGETAUBIN
  HERRERE
  L'HOPITAL-D'ORION
  L'HOPITAL-SAINT-BLAISE
  HOURS
  IDAUX-MENDY
  IDRON
  IGON
  JUXUE
  LAA-MONDRANS
  LABETS-BISCAY
  LACADÉE
  LAGOS
  LAHONTAN
  LAHOURCADE
  LALONGUE
  LANNEPLAA
  LARCEVEAU-ARROS-CIBITS
  LARREULE
  LASSERRE
  LEE
  LEMBEYE
  LESCAR
  LESPIELLE
  LESPOURCY
  LESTELLE-BETHARRAM
  LIMENDOUS
  LIVRON
  LOMBIA
  LONCON
  LONS
  LOUBIENG
  LOURENTIES
  LOUVIE-JUZON
  LOUVIGNY
  LUCGARIER
  LUSSAGNET-LUSSON
  LUXE-SUMBERRAUTE
  LYS
  MASCARAAS-HARON
  MASLACQ
  MASPARRAUTE
  MASPIE-LALONQUERE-JUILLACQ
  MAUCOR
  MAULEON-LICHARRE
  MAZERES-LEZONS
  MAZEROLLES
  MEILLON
  MENDITTE
  MERACQ
  MESPLÈDE
  MIALOS
  MOMAS
  MONASSUT-AUDIRACQ
  MONCAUP
  MONCAYOLLE-LARRORY-MENDIBIEU
  MONEIN
  MONPEZAT
  MONT
  MONTANER
  MONTARDON
  MONTAUT
  MONT-DISSE
  MORLAAS
  MOURENX
  NARCASTET
  NOUSTY
  OLORON-SAINTE-MARIE
  ORSANCO
  OS-MARSILLON
  OSSAS-SUHARE
  OSTABAT-ASME
  OUILLON
  OUSSE
  OZENX-MONTESTRUCQ
  PAU
  PEYRELONGUE-ABOS
  POMPS
  PONSON-DEBAT-POUTS
  PONSON-DESSUS
  POULIACQ
  PRECILHON
  PUYOO
  REBENACQ
  RONTIGNON
  ROQUIAGUE
  SAINTE-COLOME
  SAINT-JEAN-POUDGE
  SAINT-JUST-IBARRE
  SAINT-PALAIS
  SALLES-MONGISCARD
  SAMSONS-LION
  SARPOURENX
  SAUBOLE
  SAUGUIS-SAINT-ETIENNE
  SAUVAGNON
  SEDZE-MAUBECQ
  SEDZERE
  SEMEACQ-BLACHON
  SENDETS
  SERRES-CASTET
  SERRES-MORLAAS
  SEVIGNACQ-MEYRACQ
  SIMACOURBE
  SOUMOULOU
  TADOUSSE-USSAU
  TROIS-VILLES
  UROST
  UZAN
  UZEIN
  UZOS
  VIALER
  VIGNES
  VIODOS-ABENSE-DE-BAS | 19.3.2022 |
| BASSILLON-VAUZE
  BENTAYOU-SEREE
  CASTERA-LOUBIX
  LABATUT
  LAMAYOU
  LUC-ARMAU
  LUCARRE
  MAURE
  MOMY
  MONSEGUR
  PONTIACQ-VIELLEPINTE | From 18.2.2022 until 11.3.2022 |
| ABITAIN
  AICIRITS-CAMOU-SUHAST
  AINHARP
  ANDREIN
  ANOS
  ARAUJUZON
  ARAUX
  ARBOUET-SUSSAUTE
  AREN
  ARGELOS
  ARGET
  ARHANSUS
  AROUE-ITHOROTS-OLHAIBY
  ARROS-DE-NAY
  ARROSES
  ASTIS
  ATHOS-ASPIS
  AUDAUX
  AUGA
  AURIAC
  AUTEVIELLE-SAINT-MARTIN-BIDEREN
  BAIGTS-DE-BEARN
  BALIRACQ-MAUMUSSON
  BARINQUE
  BARRAUTE-CAMU
  BASTANES
  BAUDREIX
  BENEJACQ
  BERNADETS
  BETRACQ
  BONNUT
  BOUEILH-BOUEILHO-LASQUE
  BOURDETTES
  BUGNEIN
  BURGARONNE
  CABIDOS
  CARRERE
  CARRESSE-CASSABER
  CASTAGNEDE
  CASTEIDE-CANDAU
  CASTETNAU-CAMBLONG
  CASTETPUGON
  CHARRE
  CHARRITTE-DE-BAS
  CLARACQ
  COARRAZE
  COSLEDAA-LUBE-BOAST
  CROUSEILLES
  DIUSSE
  DOGNEN
  DOMEZAIN-BERRAUTE
  DOUMY
  ESCOS
  ESPIUTE
  ETCHARRY
  GABASTON
  GABAT
  GARINDEIN
  GARLIN
  GERONCE
  GESTAS
  GEUS-D'OLORON
  GUINARTHE-PARENTIES
  GURS
  HAUT-DE-BOSDARROS
  HIGUERES-SOUYE
  ILHARRE
  JASSES
  LAAS
  LABASTIDE-VILLEFRANCHE
  LABATMALE
  LABEYRIE
  LAGOR
  LALONQUETTE
  LANNECAUBE
  LARRIBAR-SORHAPURU
  LASCLAVERIES
  LAY-LAMIDOU
  LEDEUIX
  LEME
  LICHOS
  LOHITZUN-OYHERCQ
  LUCQ-DE-BEARN
  MALAUSSANNE
  MERITEIN
  MIOSSENS-LANUSSE
  MIREPEIX
  MONCLA
  MONTAGUT
  MONTFORT
  MORLANNE
  MOUHOUS
  MOUMOUR
  MUSCULDY
  NABAS
  NARP
  NAVAILLES-ANGOS
  NAVARRENX
  NAY
  OGENNE-CAMPTORT
  ORAAS
  ORDIARP
  ORIN
  ORION
  ORRIULE
  ORTHEZ
  OSSENX
  OSSERAIN-RIVAREYTE
  PAGOLLE
  PARDIES-PIETAT
  PIETS-PLASENCE-MOUSTROU
  POEY-D'OLORON
  PONTACQ
  PORTET
  POURSIUGUES-BOUCOUE
  PRECHACQ-JOSBAIG
  PRECHACQ-NAVARRENX
  RAMOUS
  RIBARROUY
  RIUPEYROUS
  RIVEHAUTE
  SAINT-ABIT
  SAINT-ARMOU
  SAINT-BOES
  SAINT-CASTIN
  SAINT-GIRONS-EN-BEARN
  SAINT-GLADIE-ARRIVE-MUNEIN
  SAINT-GOIN
  SAINT-JAMMES
  SAINT-LAURENT-BRETAGNE
  SAINT-MEDARD
  SAINT-VINCENT
  SALIES-DE-BEARN
  SALLESPISSE
  SAUCEDE
  SAULT-DE-NAVAILLES
  SAUVELADE
  SAUVETERRE-DE-BEARN
  SEBY
  SEVIGNACQ
  SUS
  SUSMIOU
  TABAILLE-USQUAIN
  TARON-SADIRAC-VIELLENAVE
  THEZE
  UHART-MIXE
  VERDETS
  VIELLENAVE-DE-NAVARRENX
  VIELLESEGURE
  VIVEN | From 11.3.2022 until 19.3.2022 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Hautes-Pyrénées (65) |
| ADE
  ARCIZAC-EZ-ANGLES
  ARTAGNAN
  ARTIGUES
  ASPIN-EN-LAVEDAN
  AUREILHAN
  AURENSAN
  AURIEBAT
  AVERAN
  BARRY
  BAZET
  BAZILLAC
  BENAC
  BORDERES-SUR-L'ECHEZ
  BOULIN
  BOURREAC
  BOURS
  CAIXON
  CAMALES
  CASTERA-LOU
  CAUSSADE-RIVIERE
  CHIS
  DOURS
  ESCAUNETS
  ESCONDEAUX
  ESCOUBES-POUTS
  ESTIRAC
  GARDERES
  HIBARETTE
  IBOS
  JARRET
  JUILLAN
  JULOS
  LABATUT-RIVIERE
  LACASSAGNE
  LAFITOLE
  LANNE
  LARREULE
  LASCAZERES
  LAYRISSE
  LES ANGLES
  LESCURRY
  LEZIGNAN
  LIZOS
  LOUEY
  LOURDES
  LUGAGNAN
  LUQUET
  MARSAC
  MAUBOURGUET
  NOUILHAN
  ODOS
  OLEAC-DEBAT
  OMEX
  ORINCLES
  ORLEIX
  OROIX
  OSSEN
  PAREAC
  PEYROUSE
  PINTAC
  RABASTENS-DE-BIGORRE
  SABALOS
  SAINT-CREAC
  SAINT-MARTIN
  SAINT-PE-DE-BIGORRE
  SANOUS
  SARNIGUET
  SARRIAC-BIGORRE
  SEGUS
  SERON
  SOMBRUN
  SOREAC
  TARBES
  TOSTAT
  UGNOUAS
  VIC-EN-BIGORRE
  VIGER
  VILLEFRANQUE
  VILLENAVE-PRES-MARSAC | 9.3.2022 |
| ANGOS
  BARBAZAN-DEBAT
  BERNADETS-DEBAT
  BERNADETS-DESSUS
  BONNEFONT
  BORDES
  BOUILH-DEVANT
  BUGARD
  BURG
  CALAVANTE
  CLARAC
  ESTAMPURES
  FONTRAILLES
  FRECHEDE
  GONEZ
  JACQUE
  LALANNE-TRIE
  LAMEAC
  LANSAC
  LAPEYRE
  LASLADES
  LESPOUEY
  LHEZ
  LIBAROS
  LUSTAR
  MANSAN
  MASCARAS
  MAZEROLLES
  MONTASTRUC
  MONTIGNAC
  MOULEDOUS
  MOUMOULOUS
  ORIEUX
  PEYRAUBE
  PEYRUN
  PUYDARRIEUX
  SAINT-SEVER-DE-RUSTAN
  SARROUILLES
  SEMEAC
  SENAC
  SENTOUS
  SINZOS
  SOUYEAUX
  TOURNAY
  TOURNOUS-DARRE
  TRIE-SUR-BAISE
  VIDOU
  VILLEMBITS | 19.3.2022 |
| LAHITTE-TOUPIERE
  VIDOUZE | From 18.2.2022 until 11.3.2022 |
| ANDREST
  AZEREIX
  BARLEST
  BARTRES
  CASTELNAU-RIVIERE-BASSE
  GAYAN
  HAGEDET
  HERES
  LAGARDE
  LAMARQUE-PONTACQ
  LOUBAJAC
  MADIRAN
  OSSUN
  OURSBELILLE
  POUEYFERRE
  PUJO
  SAINT-LANNE
  SAINT-LEZER
  SIARROUY
  SOUBLECAUSE
  TALAZAC
  TARASTEIX
  VILLENAVE-PRES-BEARN | From 1.3.2022 until 9.3.2022 |
| ANTIN
  AUBAREDE
  BOUILH-PEREUILH
  CABANAC
  CASTELVIEILH
  CHELLE-DEBAT
  COLLONGUES
  COUSSAN
  GOUDON
  HOURC
  LAMARQUE-RUSTAING
  LOUIT
  LUBRET-SAINT-LUC
  LUBY-BETMONT
  MARQUERIE
  MARSEILLAN
  MUN
  OSMETS
  PEYRIGUERE
  POUYASTRUC
  SERE-RUSTAING
  THUY
  TROULEY-LABARTHE | From 11.3.2022 until 19.3.2022 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Seine-Maritime (76) |
| ARGUEIL
  BEAUBEC-LA ROSIERE
  BEAUSSAULT
  BOIS-GUILBERT
  BOIS-HEROULT
  BOISSAY
  BOSC-BORDEL
  BREMONTIER-MERVAL
  BUCHY
  LA CHAPELLE-SAINT-OUEN
  COMPAINVILLE
  CONTEVILLE
  DAMPIERRE-EN-BRAY
  DOUDEAUVILLE
  ERNEMONT-SUR-BUCHY
  FRY
  GAILLEFONTAINE
  GANCOURT-SUR-ETIENNE
  GRUMESNIL
  LA HALLOTIERE
  HAUCOURT
  HAUSSEZ
  LE HERON
  HERONCHELLES
  HODENG-HODENGER
  MATHONVILLE
  MENERVAL
  LE MESNIL-LIEUBRAY
  MESNIL-MAUGER
  MONTEROLIER
  MORVILLE-SUR-ANDELLE
  NOLLEVAL
  REBETS
  SAINTE-CROIX-SUR-BUCHY
  SAINTE-GENEVIEVE
  SAINT LUCIEN
  SERQUEUX
  SOMMERY | 10.3.2022 |
| LA BELLIERE
  BOSC-EDELINE
  LA FERTE-SAINT-SAMSON
  FORGES-LES-EAUX
  LONGMESNIL
  MAUQUENCHY
  MESANGUEVILLE
  POMMEREUX
  RONCHEROLLES-EN-BRAY
  ROUVRAY-CATILLON
  SAINT-MICHEL-D'HALESCOURT
  SAUMONT-LA-POTERIE
  SIGY-EN-BRAY
  LE THIL-RIBERPRE | From 2.3.2022 until 10.3.2022 |
| ANCOURTEVILLE-SUR-HERICOURT
  ANCRETTEVILLE-SUR-MER
  ANGERVILLE-LA-MARTEL
  ANVEVILLE
  AUBERVILLE-LA-MANUEL
  BERTREVILLE
  BUTOT-VENESVILLE
  CANOUVILLE
  CARVILLE-POT-DE-FER
  CLASVILLE
  CLEUVILLE
  CLIPONVILLE
  CRASVILLE-LA-MALLET
  CRIQUETOT-LE-MAUCONDUIT
  DOUDEVILLE
  DROSAY
  ENVRONVILLE
  FULTOT
  GERPONVILLE
  HARCANVILLE
  HAUTOT-L'AUVRAY
  HAUTOT-SAINT-SULPICE
  HERICOURT-EN-CAUX
  INGOUVILLE
  MALLEVILLE-LES-GRES
  NEVILLE
  NORMANVILLE
  OCQUEVILLE
  OUAINVILLE
  PALUEL
  RIVILLE
  ROBERTOT
  ROCQUEFORT
  ROUTES
  SAINTE-COLOMBE
  SAINT-MARTIN-AUX-BUNEAUX
  SAINT-RIQUIER-ES-PLAINS
  SAINT-SYLVAIN
  SAINT-VAAST-DIEPPEDALLE
  SASSETOT-LE-MAUCONDUIT
  SASSEVILLE
  SOMMESNIL
  SORQUAINVILLE
  TERRES-DE-CAUX
  THEROULDEVILLE
  THEUVILLE-AUX-MAILLOTS
  THIERGEVILLE
  THIETREVILLE
  THIOUVILLE
  VALMONT
  VEAUVILLE-LES-QUELLES
  VINNEMERVILLE
  VITTEFLEUR
  YPREVILLE-BIVILLE | 6.3.2022 |
| BERTHEAUVILLE
  BEUZEVILLE-LA-GUERARD
  BOSVILLE
  CANY-BARVILLE
  GRAINVILLE-LA-TEINTURIERE
  LE HANOUARD
  OHERVILLE
  OURVILLE-EN-CAUX | From 26.2.2022 until 6.3.2022 |
| Les communes suivantes dans le département: Vendée (85) |
| BELLEVIGNY (à l'ouest de la D763)
  SAINT-DENIS-LA-CHEVASSE (à l'ouest de la D763) | 28.2.2022 |
| LES-LUCS-SUR-BOULOGNE
  LE-POIRE-SUR-VIE
  SAINT-ETIENNE-DU-BOIS
  BEAUFOU | From 25.1.2022 until 28.2.2022 |
| COËX (au nord de la D6 et D2006)
  SAINT MAIXENT SUR VIE
  SOULANS (au sud D205, à l’est des D69, D82, D103)
  LA GARNACHE (au sud de la D75, à l’est de la D32)
  FROIDFOND
  GRAND’LANDES Est D81 et D50
  PALLUAU
  AIZENAY (nord D948 et ouest de la D978)
  SAINT-CHRISTOPHE-DU-LIGNERON (ouest D754)
  LA CHAPELLE PALLUAU est D978
  APREMONT (ouest D21 - sud rivière La Vie) | 25.3.2022 |
| CHALLANS
  COMMEQUIERS | From 17.2.2022 until 25.3.2022 |
| APREMONT (Est D21 - Nord rivière La Vie)
  MACHE
  SAINT-CHRISTOPHE-DU-LIGNERON (est D754)
  SAINT-PAUL-MONT-PENIT
  LA CHAPELLE PALLUAU Ouest D978
  FALLERON
  GRAND’LANDES Ouest D81 et D50 | From 17.3.2022 until 25.3.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Gers (32)

BAJONNETTE

BERAUT

BIVES

BLAZIERT

BRUGNENS

CADEILHAN

CASTELNAU-D'ARBIEU

CASTELNAU-SUR-L'AUVIGNON

CASTERA-LECTOUROIS

CAUSSENS

CERAN

CONDOM (A l’est de D41 entre La Croix de Gensac et Mauhourat Et à l’est de D204, entre Mauhourat et Caussens)

FLEURANCE

GAVARRET-SUR-AULOUSTE

GOUTZ

L'ISLE-BOUZON

LA ROMIEU

LA SAUVETAT

LAGARDE

LALANNE

LAMOTHE-GOAS

LARROQUE-ENGALIN

LARROQUE-SAINT-SERNIN

LECTOURE

MAGNAS

MARAVAT

MARSOLAN

MAS-D'AUVIGNON

MIRAMONT-LATOUR

MONTESTRUC-SUR-GERS

PAUILHAC

PIS

PRECHAC

PUYSEGUR

REJAUMONT

ROQUEFORT

ROQUEPINE

SAINT-BRES

SAINT-CLAR

SAINT-LEONARD

SAINT-ORENS-POUY-PETIT

SAINT-PUY

SAINTE-CHRISTIE

SAINTE-GEMME

SAINTE-RADEGONDE

TAYBOSC

TERRAUBE

URDENS

28.2.2022

AIGNAN

AURENSAN

AVERON-BERGELLE

AYZIEU

BASCOUS

BAZIAN

BEAUMONT

BELMONT

BETOUS

BEZOLLES

CAILLAVET

CASTELNAVET

CASTEX-D'ARMAGNAC

CAZAUBON

CAZAUX-D'ANGLES

COULOUME-MONDEBAT

COURRENSAN

CRAVENCERES

ESPAS

ESTANG

FOURCES

GALIAX

GONDRIN

JU-BELLOC

JUSTIAN

LABARTHETE

LADEVEZE-RIVIERE

LADEVEZE-VILLE

LAGARDERE

LANNEMAIGNAN

LANNEPAX

LAREE

LARRESSINGLE

LARROQUE-SUR-L'OSSE

LASSERADE

LAURAET

LIAS-D'ARMAGNAC

LOUBEDAT

LOUSSOUS-DEBAT

LUPIAC

MARAMBAT

MARGOUET-MEYMES

MARGUESTAU

MAUMUSSON LAGUIAN

MAUPAS

MONGUILHEM

MONLEZUN-D'ARMAGNAC

MORMES

MOUCHAN

MOUREDE

NOULENS

PANJAS

PERCHEDE

PLAISANCE

PRECHAC-SUR-ADOUR

RAMOUZENS

ROQUEBRUNE

ROQUES

ROZES

SABAZAN

SAINT-AUNIX-LENGROS

SAINT-JEAN-POUTGE

SAINT-PAUL-DE-BAISE

SAINT-PIERRE-D'AUBEZIES

SEAILLES

SION

TIESTE-URAGNOUX

TOUJOUSE

TUDELLE

VIELLA

9.3.2022

ARBLADE-LE-BAS

ARBLADE-LE-HAUT

BARCELONNE-DU-GERS

BERNEDE

BOURROUILLAN

BOUZON-GELLENAVE

BRETAGNE-D'ARMAGNAC

CAHUZAC-SUR-ADOUR

CAMPAGNE-D'ARMAGNAC

CASTELNAU D'AUZAN LABARRERE

CASTILLON-DEBATS

CAUMONT

CAUPENNE-D’ARMAGNAC

CAZENEUVE

CORNEILLAN

DEMU

EAUZE

FUSTEROUAU

GEE-RIVIERE

GOUX

IZOTGES

LAGRAULET-DU-GERS

LANNE-SOUBIRAN

LANNUX

LAUJUZAN

LE HOUGA

LELIN-LAPUJOLLE

LUPPE-VIOLLES

MAGNAN

MANCIET

MAULEON-D'ARMAGNAC

MAULICHERES

MONCLAR

MONTREAL

NOGARO

POUYDRAGUIN

PRENERON

PROJAN

REANS

RISCLE

SAINT-GERME

SAINT-GRIEDE

SAINT-MARTIN-D'ARMAGNAC

SAINT-MONT

SAINTE-CHRISTIE-D'ARMAGNAC

SALLES-D'ARMAGNAC

SARRAGACHIES

SEGOS

SORBETS

TARSAC

TASQUE

TERMES-D'ARMAGNAC

URGOSSE

VERGOIGNAN

VERLUS

VIC-FEZENSAC

From 1.3.2022 until 9.3.2022

CASTEX

SARRAGUZAN

MONTEGUT-ARROS

19.3.2022

Département: Indre (36) and Loir-et-Cher (41)

CHATEAUVIEUX

ECUEILLE

VILLENTROIS-FAVEROLLES-EN-BERRY est de la D22

LUCAY-LE-MÂLE

23.3.2022

VILLENTROIS-FAVEROLLES-EN-BERRY ouest de la D22

From 15.3.2022 until 23.3.2022

Département: Indre-et-Loire (37)

CERE-LA-RONDE

CHEMILLE-SUR-INDROIS

GENILLE (hors ZP)

LE LIEGE

ORBIGNY (hors ZP, ouest D11 et ouest D89)

20.3.2022

BEAUMONT-VILLAGE

GENILLE (à l'est de la route entre les Hauts-Millets et les Merrières, et à l'est de la route entre Marsin et les Bruyères)

ORBIGNY (à l'ouest de la route D81 et de la route D11)

From 12.3.2022 until 20.3.2022

LOCHE-SUR-INDROIS est de la D11 et de la D760

MONTRESOR

ORBIGNY est D11 et est D89

VILLELOIN-COULANGE

VILLEDOMAIN

23.3.2022

NOUANS-LES-FONTAINES

From 15.3.2022 until 23.3.2022

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Landes (40)

Angoumé

Arengosse

Artassenx

Audon

Bascons

Bégaar

Bélus

Bénesse-lès-Dax

Betbezer-d'Armagnac

Bostens

Bourriot-Bergonce

Bretagne-de-Marsan

Cagnotte

Campagne

Campet-et-Lamolère

Candresse

Cauneille

Créon-d'Armagnac

Dax

Escalans

Estigarde

Gaas

Gabarret

Gaillères

Gouts

Herré

Heugas

Hinx

Josse

Lacquy

Lagrange

Laluque

Lesgor

Le Leuy

Losse

Lubbon

Lucbardez et Bargues

Retjons

Magescq

Mauvezin-d'Armagnac

Mazerolles

Mées

Mont-de-Marsan

Montégut

Narrosse

Oeyreluy

Orist

Ousse-Suzan

Parleboscq

Pey

Peyrehorade

Pontonx-sur-l'Adour

Port-de-Lanne

Pouydesseaux

Rion-des-Landes

Saint-Avit

Saint-Cricq-du-Gave

Saint-Étienne-d'Orthe

Sainte-Foy

Saint-Gor

Saint-Jean-de-Marsacq

Saint-Julien-d'Armagnac

Saint-Justin

Saint-Lon-les-Mines

Saint-Martin-d'Oney

Saint-Pandelon

Saint-Paul-lès-Dax

Saint-Perdon

Saint-Pierre-du-Mont

Saint-Vincent-de-Paul

Saint-Vincent-de-Tyrosse

Saubion

Saubrigues

Saugnac-et-Cambran

Seyresse

Siest

Sorde-l'Abbaye

Soustons

Tartas

Tercis-les-Bains

Téthieu

Tosse

Villenave

Ygos-Saint-Saturnin

Yzosse

10.3.2022

Aire-sur-l'Adour

Amou

Arboucave

Argelos

Arsague

Arthez-d'Armagnac

Aubagnan

Audignon

Aurice

Bahus-Soubiran

Baigts

Banos

Bas-Mauco

Bassercles

Bastennes

Bats

Benquet

Bergouey

Beylongue

Beyries

Bonnegarde

Bordères-et-Lamensans

Bougue

Bourdalat

Brassempouy

Buanes

Carcarès-Sainte-Croix

Carcen-Ponson

Cassen

Castaignos-Souslens

Castandet

Castelnau-Chalosse

Castelnau-Tursan

Castelner

Castel-Sarrazin

Cauna

Caupenne

Cazalis

Cazères-sur-l'Adour

Classun

Clèdes

Clermont

Coudures

Doazit

Donzacq

Duhort-Bachen

Dumes

Estibeaux

Eugénie-les-Bains

Eyres-Moncube

Fargues

Le Frêche

Gamarde-les-Bains

Garrey

Gaujacq

Geaune

Gibret

Goos

Gousse

Grenade-sur-l'Adour

Habas

Hagetmau

Hauriet

Haut-Mauco

Hontanx

Horsarrieu

Labastide-Chalosse

Labastide-d'Armagnac

Labatut

Lacajunte

Lacrabe

Laglorieuse

Lahosse

Lamothe

Larbey

Larrivière-Saint-Savin

Latrille

Laurède

Lauret

Louer

Lourquen

Lussagnet

Mant

Marpaps

Mauries

Maurrin

Maylis

Meilhan

Mimbaste

Miramont-Sensacq

Misson

Momuy

Monget

Monségur

Montaut

Montfort-en-Chalosse

Montgaillard

Montsoué

Morganx

Mouscardès

Mugron

Nassiet

Nerbis

Nousse

Onard

Ossages

Ozourt

Payros-Cazautets

Pécorade

Perquie

Peyre

Philondenx

Pimbo

Pomarez

Poudenx

Pouillon

Poyanne

Poyartin

Préchacq-les-Bains

Pujo-le-Plan

Puyol-Cazalet

Renung

Saint-Agnet

Saint-Aubin

Sainte-Colombe

Saint-Cricq-Chalosse

Saint-Cricq-Villeneuve

Saint-Gein

Saint-Geours-d'Auribat

Saint-Jean-de-Lier

Saint-Loubouer

Saint-Maurice-sur-Adour

Saint-Sever

Saint-Yaguen

Samadet

Sarraziet

Sarron

Saubusse

Serres-Gaston

Serreslous-et-Arribans

Sorbets

Sort-en-Chalosse

Souprosse

Tilh

Toulouzette

Urgons

Vicq-d'Auribat

Vielle-Tursan

Vielle-Soubiran

Le Vignau

Villeneuve-de-Marsan

From 2.3.2022 until 10.3.2022

Biarrotte

Orthevielle

Saint-Laurent-de-Gosse

Sainte-Marie-de-Gosse

Saint-Martin-de-Hinx

9.3.2022

Hastingues

Oeyregave

From 1.3.2022 until 9.3.2022

Saint-Geours-de-Maremne

Rivière-Saas-et-Gourby

Saubusse

From 23.2.2022 until 3.3.2022

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Loire-Atlantique (44)

LEGE (Ouest axe la noue-Moulin Guérin D178; Ouest axe Moulin Guérin-Salvert D54; Ouest axe Salvert-La Bossardière-La Garrelière-La Peaudouère-La Guichère)

TOUVOIS

CORCOUE SUR LORGNE (Sud route de la Croisée-Le Bousson; Sud axe Bousson-Le Clody D72; Sud axe Le Clody-La Noue)

SAINT ETIENNE DE MER MORTE (Nord limite communale 85; Ouest limite communale avec Paulx D263; Sud route de la croisée jusqu'à Courcoue sur Lorgne)

25.3.2022

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Lot-et-Garonne (47)

SAINTE-MAURE-DE-PEYRAC

SAINT-PE-SAINT-SIMON

From 1.3.2022 until 9.3.2022

MEZIN

POUDENAS

SOS

9.3.2022

Département: Maine-et-Loire (49)

BOUILLE-MENARD

BOURG-L'EVEQUE

SEGRE-EN-ANJOU BLEU (Châtelais

OMBREE D'ANJOU (Grugé-l'Hôpital)

OMBREE D'ANJOU (Chazé-Henry)

OMBREE D'ANJOU (Combrée)

OMBREE D'ANJOU (La Chapelle-Hullin)

OMBREE D'ANJOU (Vergonnes)

18.3.2022

Département: Mayenne (53)

ATHEE

BALLOTS

CHERANCE

CONGRIER

CRAON

LA BOISSIERE

LA ROE

LA SELLE-CRAONNAISE

LIVRE-LA-TOUCHE

MEE

NIAFLES

POMMERIEUX

SAINT-AIGNAN-SUR-ROE

SAINT-ERBLON

SAINT-MICHEL-DE-LA-ROE

SAINT-QUENTIN-LES -ANGES

18.3.2022

BOUCHAMPS-LES-CRAON

RENAZE

SAINT-MARTIN-DU-LIMET

SAINT-SATURNIN-DU-LIMET

From 10.3.2022 until 18.3.2022

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Pyrénées-Atlantiques (64)

BIDACHE

GUICHE

SAMES

CAME

From 1.3.2022 until 9.3.2022

ARANCOU

ARRAUTE-CHARRITTE

AUTERRIVE

BARDOS

BERGOUEY-VIELLENAVE

LEREN

OREGUE

SAINT-DOS

SAINT-PE-DE-LEREN

URT

9.3.2022

AAST

ABERE

ABIDOS

AGNOS

AMENDEUIX-ONEIX

AMOROTS-SUCCOS

ANCE

ANDOINS

ANGAIS

ANGOUS

ANOYE

ARBERATS-SILLEGUE

ARESSY

ARGAGNON

ARNOS

ARRAST-LARREBIEU

ARRICAU-BORDES

ARRIEN

ARTHEZ-DE-BÉARN

ARTHEZ-D'ASSON

ARTIGUELOUTAN

ARZACQ-ARRAZIGUET

ASSAT

ASSON

AUBIN

AUBOUS

AURIONS-IDERNES

AUSSURUCQ

AYDIE

BALANSUN

BALEIX

BALIROS

BARCUS

BARZUN

BEDEILLE

BEGUIOS

BEHASQUE-LAPISTE

BELLOCQ

BERENX

BERROGAIN-LARUNS

BEUSTE

BIDOS

BIRON

BIZANOS

BOEIL-BEZING

BORDERES

BORDES

BOSDARROS

BOUILLON

BOUMOURT

BOURNOS

BRUGES-CAPBIS-MIFAGET

BUNUS

BUROS

BUROSSE-MENDOUSSE

CADILLON

CAMOU-CIHIGUE

CARDESSE

CASTEIDE-DOAT

CASTETBON

CASTETIS

CASTETNER

CASTILLON (CANTON D'ARTHEZ-DE-BEARN)

CASTILLON (CANTON DE LEMBEYE)

CAUBIOS-LOOS

CHERAUTE

CONCHEZ-DE-BEARN

CORBERE-ABERES

COUBLUCQ

CUQUERON

DOAZON

ESCOU

ESCOUBES

ESCOUT

ESCURES

ESLOURENTIES-DABAN

ESPECHEDE

ESPES-UNDUREIN

ESPOEY

ESQUIULE

ESTIALESCQ

ESTOS

EYSUS

FEAS

FICHOUS-RIUMAYOU

GAN

GARLEDE-MONDEBAT

GAROS

GARRIS

GAYON

GELOS

GER

GERDEREST

GEUS-D'ARZACQ

GOES

GOMER

GOTEIN-LIBARRENX

GURMENCON

HAGETAUBIN

HERRERE

L'HOPITAL-D'ORION

L'HOPITAL-SAINT-BLAISE

HOURS

IDAUX-MENDY

IDRON

IGON

JUXUE

LAA-MONDRANS

LABETS-BISCAY

LACADÉE

LAGOS

LAHONTAN

LAHOURCADE

LALONGUE

LANNEPLAA

LARCEVEAU-ARROS-CIBITS

LARREULE

LASSERRE

LEE

LEMBEYE

LESCAR

LESPIELLE

LESPOURCY

LESTELLE-BETHARRAM

LIMENDOUS

LIVRON

LOMBIA

LONCON

LONS

LOUBIENG

LOURENTIES

LOUVIE-JUZON

LOUVIGNY

LUCGARIER

LUSSAGNET-LUSSON

LUXE-SUMBERRAUTE

LYS

MASCARAAS-HARON

MASLACQ

MASPARRAUTE

MASPIE-LALONQUERE-JUILLACQ

MAUCOR

MAULEON-LICHARRE

MAZERES-LEZONS

MAZEROLLES

MEILLON

MENDITTE

MERACQ

MESPLÈDE

MIALOS

MOMAS

MONASSUT-AUDIRACQ

MONCAUP

MONCAYOLLE-LARRORY-MENDIBIEU

MONEIN

MONPEZAT

MONT

MONTANER

MONTARDON

MONTAUT

MONT-DISSE

MORLAAS

MOURENX

NARCASTET

NOUSTY

OLORON-SAINTE-MARIE

ORSANCO

OS-MARSILLON

OSSAS-SUHARE

OSTABAT-ASME

OUILLON

OUSSE

OZENX-MONTESTRUCQ

PAU

PEYRELONGUE-ABOS

POMPS

PONSON-DEBAT-POUTS

PONSON-DESSUS

POULIACQ

PRECILHON

PUYOO

REBENACQ

RONTIGNON

ROQUIAGUE

SAINTE-COLOME

SAINT-JEAN-POUDGE

SAINT-JUST-IBARRE

SAINT-PALAIS

SALLES-MONGISCARD

SAMSONS-LION

SARPOURENX

SAUBOLE

SAUGUIS-SAINT-ETIENNE

SAUVAGNON

SEDZE-MAUBECQ

SEDZERE

SEMEACQ-BLACHON

SENDETS

SERRES-CASTET

SERRES-MORLAAS

SEVIGNACQ-MEYRACQ

SIMACOURBE

SOUMOULOU

TADOUSSE-USSAU

TROIS-VILLES

UROST

UZAN

UZEIN

UZOS

VIALER

VIGNES

VIODOS-ABENSE-DE-BAS

19.3.2022

BASSILLON-VAUZE

BENTAYOU-SEREE

CASTERA-LOUBIX

LABATUT

LAMAYOU

LUC-ARMAU

LUCARRE

MAURE

MOMY

MONSEGUR

PONTIACQ-VIELLEPINTE

From 18.2.2022 until 11.3.2022

ABITAIN

AICIRITS-CAMOU-SUHAST

AINHARP

ANDREIN

ANOS

ARAUJUZON

ARAUX

ARBOUET-SUSSAUTE

AREN

ARGELOS

ARGET

ARHANSUS

AROUE-ITHOROTS-OLHAIBY

ARROS-DE-NAY

ARROSES

ASTIS

ATHOS-ASPIS

AUDAUX

AUGA

AURIAC

AUTEVIELLE-SAINT-MARTIN-BIDEREN

BAIGTS-DE-BEARN

BALIRACQ-MAUMUSSON

BARINQUE

BARRAUTE-CAMU

BASTANES

BAUDREIX

BENEJACQ

BERNADETS

BETRACQ

BONNUT

BOUEILH-BOUEILHO-LASQUE

BOURDETTES

BUGNEIN

BURGARONNE

CABIDOS

CARRERE

CARRESSE-CASSABER

CASTAGNEDE

CASTEIDE-CANDAU

CASTETNAU-CAMBLONG

CASTETPUGON

CHARRE

CHARRITTE-DE-BAS

CLARACQ

COARRAZE

COSLEDAA-LUBE-BOAST

CROUSEILLES

DIUSSE

DOGNEN

DOMEZAIN-BERRAUTE

DOUMY

ESCOS

ESPIUTE

ETCHARRY

GABASTON

GABAT

GARINDEIN

GARLIN

GERONCE

GESTAS

GEUS-D'OLORON

GUINARTHE-PARENTIES

GURS

HAUT-DE-BOSDARROS

HIGUERES-SOUYE

ILHARRE

JASSES

LAAS

LABASTIDE-VILLEFRANCHE

LABATMALE

LABEYRIE

LAGOR

LALONQUETTE

LANNECAUBE

LARRIBAR-SORHAPURU

LASCLAVERIES

LAY-LAMIDOU

LEDEUIX

LEME

LICHOS

LOHITZUN-OYHERCQ

LUCQ-DE-BEARN

MALAUSSANNE

MERITEIN

MIOSSENS-LANUSSE

MIREPEIX

MONCLA

MONTAGUT

MONTFORT

MORLANNE

MOUHOUS

MOUMOUR

MUSCULDY

NABAS

NARP

NAVAILLES-ANGOS

NAVARRENX

NAY

OGENNE-CAMPTORT

ORAAS

ORDIARP

ORIN

ORION

ORRIULE

ORTHEZ

OSSENX

OSSERAIN-RIVAREYTE

PAGOLLE

PARDIES-PIETAT

PIETS-PLASENCE-MOUSTROU

POEY-D'OLORON

PONTACQ

PORTET

POURSIUGUES-BOUCOUE

PRECHACQ-JOSBAIG

PRECHACQ-NAVARRENX

RAMOUS

RIBARROUY

RIUPEYROUS

RIVEHAUTE

SAINT-ABIT

SAINT-ARMOU

SAINT-BOES

SAINT-CASTIN

SAINT-GIRONS-EN-BEARN

SAINT-GLADIE-ARRIVE-MUNEIN

SAINT-GOIN

SAINT-JAMMES

SAINT-LAURENT-BRETAGNE

SAINT-MEDARD

SAINT-VINCENT

SALIES-DE-BEARN

SALLESPISSE

SAUCEDE

SAULT-DE-NAVAILLES

SAUVELADE

SAUVETERRE-DE-BEARN

SEBY

SEVIGNACQ

SUS

SUSMIOU

TABAILLE-USQUAIN

TARON-SADIRAC-VIELLENAVE

THEZE

UHART-MIXE

VERDETS

VIELLENAVE-DE-NAVARRENX

VIELLESEGURE

VIVEN

From 11.3.2022 until 19.3.2022

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Hautes-Pyrénées (65)

ADE

ARCIZAC-EZ-ANGLES

ARTAGNAN

ARTIGUES

ASPIN-EN-LAVEDAN

AUREILHAN

AURENSAN

AURIEBAT

AVERAN

BARRY

BAZET

BAZILLAC

BENAC

BORDERES-SUR-L'ECHEZ

BOULIN

BOURREAC

BOURS

CAIXON

CAMALES

CASTERA-LOU

CAUSSADE-RIVIERE

CHIS

DOURS

ESCAUNETS

ESCONDEAUX

ESCOUBES-POUTS

ESTIRAC

GARDERES

HIBARETTE

IBOS

JARRET

JUILLAN

JULOS

LABATUT-RIVIERE

LACASSAGNE

LAFITOLE

LANNE

LARREULE

LASCAZERES

LAYRISSE

LES ANGLES

LESCURRY

LEZIGNAN

LIZOS

LOUEY

LOURDES

LUGAGNAN

LUQUET

MARSAC

MAUBOURGUET

NOUILHAN

ODOS

OLEAC-DEBAT

OMEX

ORINCLES

ORLEIX

OROIX

OSSEN

PAREAC

PEYROUSE

PINTAC

RABASTENS-DE-BIGORRE

SABALOS

SAINT-CREAC

SAINT-MARTIN

SAINT-PE-DE-BIGORRE

SANOUS

SARNIGUET

SARRIAC-BIGORRE

SEGUS

SERON

SOMBRUN

SOREAC

TARBES

TOSTAT

UGNOUAS

VIC-EN-BIGORRE

VIGER

VILLEFRANQUE

VILLENAVE-PRES-MARSAC

9.3.2022

ANGOS

BARBAZAN-DEBAT

BERNADETS-DEBAT

BERNADETS-DESSUS

BONNEFONT

BORDES

BOUILH-DEVANT

BUGARD

BURG

CALAVANTE

CLARAC

ESTAMPURES

FONTRAILLES

FRECHEDE

GONEZ

JACQUE

LALANNE-TRIE

LAMEAC

LANSAC

LAPEYRE

LASLADES

LESPOUEY

LHEZ

LIBAROS

LUSTAR

MANSAN

MASCARAS

MAZEROLLES

MONTASTRUC

MONTIGNAC

MOULEDOUS

MOUMOULOUS

ORIEUX

PEYRAUBE

PEYRUN

PUYDARRIEUX

SAINT-SEVER-DE-RUSTAN

SARROUILLES

SEMEAC

SENAC

SENTOUS

SINZOS

SOUYEAUX

TOURNAY

TOURNOUS-DARRE

TRIE-SUR-BAISE

VIDOU

VILLEMBITS

19.3.2022

LAHITTE-TOUPIERE

VIDOUZE

From 18.2.2022 until 11.3.2022

ANDREST

AZEREIX

BARLEST

BARTRES

CASTELNAU-RIVIERE-BASSE

GAYAN

HAGEDET

HERES

LAGARDE

LAMARQUE-PONTACQ

LOUBAJAC

MADIRAN

OSSUN

OURSBELILLE

POUEYFERRE

PUJO

SAINT-LANNE

SAINT-LEZER

SIARROUY

SOUBLECAUSE

TALAZAC

TARASTEIX

VILLENAVE-PRES-BEARN

From 1.3.2022 until 9.3.2022

ANTIN

AUBAREDE

BOUILH-PEREUILH

CABANAC

CASTELVIEILH

CHELLE-DEBAT

COLLONGUES

COUSSAN

GOUDON

HOURC

LAMARQUE-RUSTAING

LOUIT

LUBRET-SAINT-LUC

LUBY-BETMONT

MARQUERIE

MARSEILLAN

MUN

OSMETS

PEYRIGUERE

POUYASTRUC

SERE-RUSTAING

THUY

TROULEY-LABARTHE

From 11.3.2022 until 19.3.2022

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Seine-Maritime (76)

ARGUEIL

BEAUBEC-LA ROSIERE

BEAUSSAULT

BOIS-GUILBERT

BOIS-HEROULT

BOISSAY

BOSC-BORDEL

BREMONTIER-MERVAL

BUCHY

LA CHAPELLE-SAINT-OUEN

COMPAINVILLE

CONTEVILLE

DAMPIERRE-EN-BRAY

DOUDEAUVILLE

ERNEMONT-SUR-BUCHY

FRY

GAILLEFONTAINE

GANCOURT-SUR-ETIENNE

GRUMESNIL

LA HALLOTIERE

HAUCOURT

HAUSSEZ

LE HERON

HERONCHELLES

HODENG-HODENGER

MATHONVILLE

MENERVAL

LE MESNIL-LIEUBRAY

MESNIL-MAUGER

MONTEROLIER

MORVILLE-SUR-ANDELLE

NOLLEVAL

REBETS

SAINTE-CROIX-SUR-BUCHY

SAINTE-GENEVIEVE

SAINT LUCIEN

SERQUEUX

SOMMERY

10.3.2022

LA BELLIERE

BOSC-EDELINE

LA FERTE-SAINT-SAMSON

FORGES-LES-EAUX

LONGMESNIL

MAUQUENCHY

MESANGUEVILLE

POMMEREUX

RONCHEROLLES-EN-BRAY

ROUVRAY-CATILLON

SAINT-MICHEL-D'HALESCOURT

SAUMONT-LA-POTERIE

SIGY-EN-BRAY

LE THIL-RIBERPRE

From 2.3.2022 until 10.3.2022

ANCOURTEVILLE-SUR-HERICOURT

ANCRETTEVILLE-SUR-MER

ANGERVILLE-LA-MARTEL

ANVEVILLE

AUBERVILLE-LA-MANUEL

BERTREVILLE

BUTOT-VENESVILLE

CANOUVILLE

CARVILLE-POT-DE-FER

CLASVILLE

CLEUVILLE

CLIPONVILLE

CRASVILLE-LA-MALLET

CRIQUETOT-LE-MAUCONDUIT

DOUDEVILLE

DROSAY

ENVRONVILLE

FULTOT

GERPONVILLE

HARCANVILLE

HAUTOT-L'AUVRAY

HAUTOT-SAINT-SULPICE

HERICOURT-EN-CAUX

INGOUVILLE

MALLEVILLE-LES-GRES

NEVILLE

NORMANVILLE

OCQUEVILLE

OUAINVILLE

PALUEL

RIVILLE

ROBERTOT

ROCQUEFORT

ROUTES

SAINTE-COLOMBE

SAINT-MARTIN-AUX-BUNEAUX

SAINT-RIQUIER-ES-PLAINS

SAINT-SYLVAIN

SAINT-VAAST-DIEPPEDALLE

SASSETOT-LE-MAUCONDUIT

SASSEVILLE

SOMMESNIL

SORQUAINVILLE

TERRES-DE-CAUX

THEROULDEVILLE

THEUVILLE-AUX-MAILLOTS

THIERGEVILLE

THIETREVILLE

THIOUVILLE

VALMONT

VEAUVILLE-LES-QUELLES

VINNEMERVILLE

VITTEFLEUR

YPREVILLE-BIVILLE

6.3.2022

BERTHEAUVILLE

BEUZEVILLE-LA-GUERARD

BOSVILLE

CANY-BARVILLE

GRAINVILLE-LA-TEINTURIERE

LE HANOUARD

OHERVILLE

OURVILLE-EN-CAUX

From 26.2.2022 until 6.3.2022

Les communes suivantes dans le département: Vendée (85)

BELLEVIGNY (à l'ouest de la D763)

SAINT-DENIS-LA-CHEVASSE (à l'ouest de la D763)

28.2.2022

LES-LUCS-SUR-BOULOGNE

LE-POIRE-SUR-VIE

SAINT-ETIENNE-DU-BOIS

BEAUFOU

From 25.1.2022 until 28.2.2022

COËX (au nord de la D6 et D2006)

SAINT MAIXENT SUR VIE

SOULANS (au sud D205, à l’est des D69, D82, D103)

LA GARNACHE (au sud de la D75, à l’est de la D32)

FROIDFOND

GRAND’LANDES Est D81 et D50

PALLUAU

AIZENAY (nord D948 et ouest de la D978)

SAINT-CHRISTOPHE-DU-LIGNERON (ouest D754)

LA CHAPELLE PALLUAU est D978

APREMONT (ouest D21 - sud rivière La Vie)

25.3.2022

CHALLANS

COMMEQUIERS

From 17.2.2022 until 25.3.2022

APREMONT (Est D21 - Nord rivière La Vie)

MACHE

SAINT-CHRISTOPHE-DU-LIGNERON (est D754)

SAINT-PAUL-MONT-PENIT

LA CHAPELLE PALLUAU Ouest D978

FALLERON

GRAND’LANDES Ouest D81 et D50

From 17.3.2022 until 25.3.2022

Member State: Italy

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| The area of Veneto and Lombardia Regions extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometers from the following outbreaks ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00168, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00246, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00247, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00248, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00301, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00304 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.277172844 E11.061649543, N45.280768665 E11.050865463, N45.278391753 E11.059469926, N45.275557225 E11.058289583, N45.276713596 E11.048013722, N45.274003643 E11.058793354) | 28.2.2022 |
| The area of Veneto Region within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreaks ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00168, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00246, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00247, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00248, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00301, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00304 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.277172844 E11.061649543, N45.280768665 E11.050865463, N45.278391753 E11.059469926, N45.275557225 E11.058289583, N45.276713596 E11.048013722, N45.274003643 E11.058793354) | From 20.2.2022 until 28.2.2022 |
| The area of Lombardia and Emilia Romagna Regions extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometers from the following outbreak ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00016 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.089934 E9.380432) | 14.3.2022 |
| The area of Lombardia and Emilia Romagna Regions within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreak ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00016 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.089934 E9.380432) | From 6.3.2022 until 14.3.2022 |
| The area of Lombardia and Emilia Romagna Regions extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometers from the following outbreak ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00019 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.087314 E9.396439) | 19.3.2022 |
| The area of Lombardia and Emilia Romagna Regions within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreak ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00019 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.087314 E9.396439) | From 11.3.2022 until 19.3.2022 |
| The area of Toscana and Emilia-Romagna Regions extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometers from the following outbreak ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00018 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N44.043697 E11.153191) | 21.3.2022 |
| The area of Toscana Region within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreak ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00018 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N44.043697 E11.153191) | From 13.3.2022 until 21.3.2022 |
| The area of Toscana Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometers from the following outbreak ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00017 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N43.928892 E11.062317) | 25.3.2022 |
| The area of Toscana Region within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreak ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00017 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N43.928892 E11.062317) | From 17.3.2022 until 25.3.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

The area of Veneto and Lombardia Regions extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometers from the following outbreaks ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00168, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00246, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00247, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00248, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00301, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00304 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.277172844 E11.061649543, N45.280768665 E11.050865463, N45.278391753 E11.059469926, N45.275557225 E11.058289583, N45.276713596 E11.048013722, N45.274003643 E11.058793354)

28.2.2022

The area of Veneto Region within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreaks ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00168, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00246, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00247, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00248, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00301, IT-HPAI(P)-2021-00304 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.277172844 E11.061649543, N45.280768665 E11.050865463, N45.278391753 E11.059469926, N45.275557225 E11.058289583, N45.276713596 E11.048013722, N45.274003643 E11.058793354)

From 20.2.2022 until 28.2.2022

The area of Lombardia and Emilia Romagna Regions extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometers from the following outbreak ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00016 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.089934 E9.380432)

14.3.2022

The area of Lombardia and Emilia Romagna Regions within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreak ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00016 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.089934 E9.380432)

From 6.3.2022 until 14.3.2022

The area of Lombardia and Emilia Romagna Regions extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometers from the following outbreak ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00019 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.087314 E9.396439)

19.3.2022

The area of Lombardia and Emilia Romagna Regions within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreak ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00019 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N45.087314 E9.396439)

From 11.3.2022 until 19.3.2022

The area of Toscana and Emilia-Romagna Regions extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometers from the following outbreak ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00018 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N44.043697 E11.153191)

21.3.2022

The area of Toscana Region within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreak ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00018 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N44.043697 E11.153191)

From 13.3.2022 until 21.3.2022

The area of Toscana Region extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of ten kilometers from the following outbreak ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00017 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N43.928892 E11.062317)

25.3.2022

The area of Toscana Region within a circle of radius of three kilometers from the following outbreak ADIS: IT-HPAI(P)-2022-00017 (WGS84 dec. coordinates N43.928892 E11.062317)

From 17.3.2022 until 25.3.2022

Member State: Hungary

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| Bács-Kiskun és Csongrád-Csanád megye: |
| Bugac, Fülöpjakab, Nyárlőrinc, Kiksunfélegyháza, Kunszállás, Tiszaalpár és Városföld települések teljes közigazgatási területe. | 7.3.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Bács-Kiskun és Csongrád-Csanád megye:

Bugac, Fülöpjakab, Nyárlőrinc, Kiksunfélegyháza, Kunszállás, Tiszaalpár és Városföld települések teljes közigazgatási területe.

7.3.2022

Member State: the Netherlands

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| Municipality Dronten, province Flevoland |
| Municipality Biddinghuizen, province Flevoland
  Vanaf de kruising Hoge vaart/ lepelaartocht, Lepelaartocht volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Vogelweg.
  Vogelweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Knardijk.
  Knardijk volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Meerkoetenweg.
  Meerkoetenweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Anthony Fokkerweg.
  Anthony Fokkerweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan A6.
  A6 volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Lage Vaart.
  Lage Vaart volgen in oostelijke richting overgaand in Dronterweg tot aan Roodbeenweg.
  Roodbeenweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Ottolanderlaan.
  Ottolanderlaan volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Rietweg.
  Rietweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Van den Hamlaan.
  Van den Hamlaan volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Ansjovisweg.
  Ansjovisweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Ansjovistocht.
  Ansjovistocht volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Hoge Vaart.
  Hoge Vaart volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Oldebroekertocht.
  Oldebroekertocht volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Bremenbergertocht.
  Bremenbergertocht volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan waterloop door Walibi World.
  Waterloop volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Spijkweg.
  Spijkweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Rotonde.
  Rotonde 3e afslag weg langs parkeerterrein volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Bremerbergdijk.
  Bremerbergdijk volgen in westelijke richting tot aan KM paal 16.
  Vanaf KM paal 16 Veluwemeer oversteken tot aan Pangelerbeek.
  Pangelerbeek volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Pangelerweg tot aan Kolmansweg.
  Kolmansweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Vreeweg.
  Vreeweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Harderwijkerweg.
  Harderwijkerweg volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Broeksteeg tot aan Hessenweg.
  Hessenweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Hierderweg tot aan A28.
  A28 volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Tankstation Drielander.
  Vanaf Drielander Wolderwijd oversteken tot aan Gelderseweg.
  Gelderseweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Spiekweg.
  Spiekweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Hoge vaart.
  Hoge Vaart volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Lepelaartocht. | 2.3.2022 |
| Those parts of the municipalities Dronten, Lelystad, Zeewolde contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5,60983, lat 52,42483 | From 22.2.2022 until 2.3.2022 |
| Municipality West Betuwe, province Gelderland |
| 1. | Vanaf Brug A27/Boven Merwede, Boven Merwede via Avelingerdiep volgen in noordelijke richting, overgaand in Schelluinse Gat, overgaand in Zandkade tot aan Voordijk. |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Municipality Dronten, province Flevoland

Municipality Biddinghuizen, province Flevoland

Vanaf de kruising Hoge vaart/ lepelaartocht, Lepelaartocht volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Vogelweg.

Vogelweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Knardijk.

Knardijk volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Meerkoetenweg.

Meerkoetenweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Anthony Fokkerweg.

Anthony Fokkerweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan A6.

A6 volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Lage Vaart.

Lage Vaart volgen in oostelijke richting overgaand in Dronterweg tot aan Roodbeenweg.

Roodbeenweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Ottolanderlaan.

Ottolanderlaan volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Rietweg.

Rietweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Van den Hamlaan.

Van den Hamlaan volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Ansjovisweg.

Ansjovisweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Ansjovistocht.

Ansjovistocht volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Hoge Vaart.

Hoge Vaart volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Oldebroekertocht.

Oldebroekertocht volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Bremenbergertocht.

Bremenbergertocht volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan waterloop door Walibi World.

Waterloop volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Spijkweg.

Spijkweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Rotonde.

Rotonde 3e afslag weg langs parkeerterrein volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Bremerbergdijk.

Bremerbergdijk volgen in westelijke richting tot aan KM paal 16.

Vanaf KM paal 16 Veluwemeer oversteken tot aan Pangelerbeek.

Pangelerbeek volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Pangelerweg tot aan Kolmansweg.

Kolmansweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Vreeweg.

Vreeweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Harderwijkerweg.

Harderwijkerweg volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Broeksteeg tot aan Hessenweg.

Hessenweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Hierderweg tot aan A28.

A28 volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Tankstation Drielander.

Vanaf Drielander Wolderwijd oversteken tot aan Gelderseweg.

Gelderseweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Spiekweg.

Spiekweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Hoge vaart.

Hoge Vaart volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Lepelaartocht.

2.3.2022

Those parts of the municipalities Dronten, Lelystad, Zeewolde contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5,60983, lat 52,42483

From 22.2.2022 until 2.3.2022

Municipality West Betuwe, province Gelderland

1.

Vanaf Brug A27/Boven Merwede, Boven Merwede via Avelingerdiep volgen in noordelijke richting, overgaand in Schelluinse Gat, overgaand in Zandkade tot aan Voordijk.

| 2. | Voordijk volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Giessen. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Voordijk volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Giessen.

| 3. | Giessen volgen in oostelijke richting, overgaand in Noordeloos, overgaand in Groote Vliet tot aan Bordenweg. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Giessen volgen in oostelijke richting, overgaand in Noordeloos, overgaand in Groote Vliet tot aan Bordenweg.

| 4. | Bordenweg volgen in oostelijke richting, Oude Zederik overstekend tot aan A27. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Bordenweg volgen in oostelijke richting, Oude Zederik overstekend tot aan A27.

| 5. | A27 volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Achterkade. |
| --- | --- |

5.

A27 volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Achterkade.

| 6. | Achterkade volgen in zuidelijke richting, overgaand in Zijderveldselaan tot aan Dorpsweg. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Achterkade volgen in zuidelijke richting, overgaand in Zijderveldselaan tot aan Dorpsweg.

| 7. | Dorpsweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan N484. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Dorpsweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan N484.

| 8. | N484 volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan A12. |
| --- | --- |

8.

N484 volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan A12.

| 9. | A12 volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Steenweg. |
| --- | --- |

9.

A12 volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Steenweg.

| 10. | Steenweg volgen in westelijke richting, overgaand in Waalbandijk tot aan de Waal. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Steenweg volgen in westelijke richting, overgaand in Waalbandijk tot aan de Waal.

| 11. | De Waal volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Waalbandijk (Gameren). |
| --- | --- |

11.

De Waal volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Waalbandijk (Gameren).

| 12. | Waalbandijk (Gameren) volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Delkant. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Waalbandijk (Gameren) volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Delkant.

| 13. | Delkant volgen in zuidelijke richting, overgaand in Prins Willem Alexanderstraat tot aan Jan Stuverstraat. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Delkant volgen in zuidelijke richting, overgaand in Prins Willem Alexanderstraat tot aan Jan Stuverstraat.

| 14. | Jan Stuverstraat volgen in westelijke richting, overgaand in Dreef tot aan Zeedijk. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Jan Stuverstraat volgen in westelijke richting, overgaand in Dreef tot aan Zeedijk.

| 15. | Zeedijk volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Eendenkade. |
| --- | --- |

15.

Zeedijk volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Eendenkade.

| 16. | Eendenkade volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Vliet. |
| --- | --- |

16.

Eendenkade volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Vliet.

| 17. | Vliet volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Afgedamde Maas. |
| --- | --- |

17.

Vliet volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Afgedamde Maas.

| 18. | Afgedamde Maas volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan pad naar Maasdijk. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Afgedamde Maas volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan pad naar Maasdijk.

| 19. | Maasdijk volgen in westelijke richting tot aan De Kroon. |
| --- | --- |

19.

Maasdijk volgen in westelijke richting tot aan De Kroon.

| 20. | De Kroon volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Perzikstraat. |
| --- | --- |

20.

De Kroon volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Perzikstraat.

| 21. | Perzikstraat volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Wijksestraat. |
| --- | --- |

21.

Perzikstraat volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Wijksestraat.

| 22. | Wijksestraat volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Groeneweg. |
| --- | --- |

22.

Wijksestraat volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Groeneweg.

| 23. | Groeneweg volgen in zuidelijke richting, overgaand in Bosseweg tot aan Het Hakkevelt. |
| --- | --- |

23.

Groeneweg volgen in zuidelijke richting, overgaand in Bosseweg tot aan Het Hakkevelt.

| 24. | Het Hakkevelt volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Zwaansheuvel. |
| --- | --- |

24.

Het Hakkevelt volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Zwaansheuvel.

| 25. | Zwaansheuvel volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Achterdijk. |
| --- | --- |

25.

Zwaansheuvel volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Achterdijk.

| 26. | Achterdijk volgen in westelijke richting, overgaand in Eendenveld tot aan Broekgraaf. |
| --- | --- |

26.

Achterdijk volgen in westelijke richting, overgaand in Eendenveld tot aan Broekgraaf.

| 27. | Broekgraaf volgen in noordelijke richting, overgaand in Hoge Oldersdijk tot aan Waardhuizen. |
| --- | --- |

27.

Broekgraaf volgen in noordelijke richting, overgaand in Hoge Oldersdijk tot aan Waardhuizen.

| 28. | Waardhuizen volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Almweg. |
| --- | --- |

28.

Waardhuizen volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Almweg.

| 29. | Almweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Oude Alm. |
| --- | --- |

29.

Almweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Oude Alm.

| 30. | Oude Alm volgen in noordelijke richting, overgaand in Wijde Alm tot aan Waterloop. |
| --- | --- |

30.

Oude Alm volgen in noordelijke richting, overgaand in Wijde Alm tot aan Waterloop.

| 31. | Waterloop volgen in noordelijke richting onder Poortweg door tot aan A27. |
| --- | --- |

31.

Waterloop volgen in noordelijke richting onder Poortweg door tot aan A27.

| 32. | A27 volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Boven Merwede. |
| --- | --- |

32.

A27 volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Boven Merwede.

3.3.2022

Those parts of the municipality West Betuwe (province GElderland) and Vijfheerenlanden (province Utrecht) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5,07466, lat 51,85738

From 23.2.2022 until 3.3.2022

Municipality Zeewolde, province Flevoland

| 1. | Vanaf kruising Schollevaarweg/ Gruttoweg, Gruttoweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Kluutweg. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Vanaf kruising Schollevaarweg/ Gruttoweg, Gruttoweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Kluutweg.

| 2. | Kluutweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Gruttotocht. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Kluutweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Gruttotocht.

| 3. | Gruttotocht volgen in noordelijke richting overgaand in A27 tot aan A6. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Gruttotocht volgen in noordelijke richting overgaand in A27 tot aan A6.

| 4. | A6 volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Spectrumdreef. |
| --- | --- |

4.

A6 volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Spectrumdreef.

| 5. | Spectrumdreef volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Evenaar. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Spectrumdreef volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Evenaar.

| 6. | Evenaar volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Atlas. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Evenaar volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Atlas.

| 7. | Atlas volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Kalenderweg. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Atlas volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Kalenderweg.

| 8. | Kalanderweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Bosranddreef. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Kalanderweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Bosranddreef.

| 9. | Bosranddreef volgen in noordelijke richting overgaand in Jac. P. Thijsseweg tot aan Oostvaardersdijk. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Bosranddreef volgen in noordelijke richting overgaand in Jac. P. Thijsseweg tot aan Oostvaardersdijk.

| 10. | Oostvaardersdijk volgen in oostelijke richting overgaand in Houtribweg tot aan Houtribdreef. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Oostvaardersdijk volgen in oostelijke richting overgaand in Houtribweg tot aan Houtribdreef.

| 11. | Houtribdreef volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Oostranddreef. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Houtribdreef volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Oostranddreef.

| 12. | Oostranddreef volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Dronterweg. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Oostranddreef volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Dronterweg.

| 13. | Dronterweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Larserringweg. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Dronterweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Larserringweg.

| 14. | Larserringweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Rietweg. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Larserringweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Rietweg.

| 15. | Rietweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Harderringweg. |
| --- | --- |

15.

Rietweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Harderringweg.

| 16. | Harderringweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Vleetweg. |
| --- | --- |

16.

Harderringweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Vleetweg.

| 17. | Vleetweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Larserweg. |
| --- | --- |

17.

Vleetweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Larserweg.

| 18. | Larserweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Gooiseweg. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Larserweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Gooiseweg.

| 19. | Gooiseweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Ganzenweg. |
| --- | --- |

19.

Gooiseweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Ganzenweg.

| 20. | Ganzenweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Sternweg. |
| --- | --- |

20.

Ganzenweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Sternweg.

| 21. | Sternweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Knardijk. |
| --- | --- |

21.

Sternweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Knardijk.

| 22. | Knardijk volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Ossenkampweg. |
| --- | --- |

22.

Knardijk volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Ossenkampweg.

| 23. | Ossenkampweg volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Helling overgaand in Beloop tot aan Kruisboog. |
| --- | --- |

23.

Ossenkampweg volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Helling overgaand in Beloop tot aan Kruisboog.

| 24. | Kruisboog volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Spiekweg. |
| --- | --- |

24.

Kruisboog volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Spiekweg.

| 25. | Spiekweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Gooiseweg. |
| --- | --- |

25.

Spiekweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Gooiseweg.

| 26. | Gooiseweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Adelaarsweg. |
| --- | --- |

26.

Gooiseweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Adelaarsweg.

| 27. | Adelaarsweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Schollevaarweg. |
| --- | --- |

27.

Adelaarsweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Schollevaarweg.

| 28. | Schollevaarweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Gruttoweg. |
| --- | --- |

28.

Schollevaarweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Gruttoweg.

5.3.2022

Those parts of the municipalities Zeewolde and Lelystad (Flevoland) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5,44293, lat 52,42627

From 25.2.2022 until 5.3.2022

Municipality Harderwijk, province Gelderland

| 1. | Vanaf kruising Nulderpad / Spiekweg, Spiekweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Gooiseweg. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Vanaf kruising Nulderpad / Spiekweg, Spiekweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Gooiseweg.

| 2. | Gooiseweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Boordmeestocht. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Gooiseweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Boordmeestocht.

| 3. | Baardmeestocht volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Hoge Vaart. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Baardmeestocht volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Hoge Vaart.

| 4. | Hoge Vaart volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan N302. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Hoge Vaart volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan N302.

| 5. | N302 volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Rietweg. |
| --- | --- |

5.

N302 volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Rietweg.

| 6. | Rietweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Hoekwanttocht. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Rietweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Hoekwanttocht.

| 7. | Hoekwandtocht volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Biddingerweg. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Hoekwandtocht volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Biddingerweg.

| 8. | Biddingerweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan rand sportpark de Schelp. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Biddingerweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan rand sportpark de Schelp.

| 9. | Rand volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Kokkelweg. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Rand volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Kokkelweg.

| 10. | Kokkelweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan N708. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Kokkelweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan N708.

| 11. | N708 volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Bremerbergtocht. |
| --- | --- |

11.

N708 volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Bremerbergtocht.

| 12. | Bremertocht 1600 meter volgen in oostelijke richting tot bospad. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Bremertocht 1600 meter volgen in oostelijke richting tot bospad.

| 13. | Bospad volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Spijkweg, |
| --- | --- |

13.

Bospad volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Spijkweg,

| 14. | Spijkweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Bijsselseweg. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Spijkweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Bijsselseweg.

| 15. | Bijsselseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting Veluwemeer overstekend tot aan Bliksweg. |
| --- | --- |

15.

Bijsselseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting Veluwemeer overstekend tot aan Bliksweg.

| 16. | Bliksweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Oude Molenweg overgaand in Molenweg tot aan Bovenweg. |
| --- | --- |

16.

Bliksweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Oude Molenweg overgaand in Molenweg tot aan Bovenweg.

| 17. | Bovenweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Elburgseweg. |
| --- | --- |

17.

Bovenweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Elburgseweg.

| 18. | Elburgseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Oenenburgweg. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Elburgseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Oenenburgweg.

| 19. | Oenenburgweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Eperweg. |
| --- | --- |

19.

Oenenburgweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Eperweg.

| 20. | Eperweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Pasopweg. |
| --- | --- |

20.

Eperweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Pasopweg.

| 21. | Pasopweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Tongerenseweg. |
| --- | --- |

21.

Pasopweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Tongerenseweg.

| 22. | Tongerenseweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Gortelseweg. |
| --- | --- |

22.

Tongerenseweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Gortelseweg.

| 23. | Gortelseweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Elspeterbosweg. |
| --- | --- |

23.

Gortelseweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Elspeterbosweg.

| 24. | Elspeterbosweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Vierhouterweg tot aan Uddelerweg N310. |
| --- | --- |

24.

Elspeterbosweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Vierhouterweg tot aan Uddelerweg N310.

| 25. | N310 volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Garderenseweg overgaand in Koningsweg tot aan Dorpsstraat. |
| --- | --- |

25.

N310 volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Garderenseweg overgaand in Koningsweg tot aan Dorpsstraat.

| 26. | Dorpsstraat volgen in noordelijke richting overgaand in Putterweg overgaand in Garderenseweg overgaand in Achterstraat overgaand in Dorpsstraat overgaand in Stationsstraat tot aan Cleenhorsterweg. |
| --- | --- |

26.

Dorpsstraat volgen in noordelijke richting overgaand in Putterweg overgaand in Garderenseweg overgaand in Achterstraat overgaand in Dorpsstraat overgaand in Stationsstraat tot aan Cleenhorsterweg.

| 27. | Cleenhorsterweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Engersteeg. |
| --- | --- |

27.

Cleenhorsterweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Engersteeg.

| 28. | Engersteeg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Waterweg. |
| --- | --- |

28.

Engersteeg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Waterweg.

| 29. | Waterweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan De Kronkel(water). |
| --- | --- |

29.

Waterweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan De Kronkel(water).

| 30. | De kronkel volgen in westelijke richting de A28 overstekend vervolgens Nuldernauw overstekend tot aan Seaewaldallee. |
| --- | --- |

30.

De kronkel volgen in westelijke richting de A28 overstekend vervolgens Nuldernauw overstekend tot aan Seaewaldallee.

| 31. | Seaewaldallee volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Nulderpad. |
| --- | --- |

31.

Seaewaldallee volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Nulderpad.

| 32. | Nulderpad volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Spiekweg. |
| --- | --- |

32.

Nulderpad volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Spiekweg.

9.3.2022

Those parts of the municipalities Harderwijk and Nunspeet (province Gelderland) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5,6647, lat 52,34514

From 25.2.2022 until 7.3.2022

Those parts of the municipalities Harderwijk and Nunspeet (province Gelderland) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5,67004, lat 52,34306

From 27.2.2022 until 7.3.2022

Those parts of the municipalities Harderwijk and Nunspeet (province Gelderland) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5.66425, lat 52.34671

From 1.3.2022 until 9.3.2022

Municipality Lochem , province Gelderland

| 1. | Vanaf kruising Oudhuizerstraat spoorlijn Apeldoorn/Zutphen, spoorlijn volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Hoofdweg. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Vanaf kruising Oudhuizerstraat spoorlijn Apeldoorn/Zutphen, spoorlijn volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Hoofdweg.

| 2. | Hoofdweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Zutphenseweg. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Hoofdweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Zutphenseweg.

| 3. | Zutphenseweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Withagenweg. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Zutphenseweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Withagenweg.

| 4. | Withagenweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Bloemenksweg. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Withagenweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Bloemenksweg.

| 5. | Bloemenksweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Kneuterstraat. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Bloemenksweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Kneuterstraat.

| 6. | Kneuterstraat volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Enkweg. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Kneuterstraat volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Enkweg.

| 7. | Enkweg volgen in noordelijke richting overgaand in H.W. Iordensweg tot aan A2. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Enkweg volgen in noordelijke richting overgaand in H.W. Iordensweg tot aan A2.

| 8. | A2 volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Deventerweg. |
| --- | --- |

8.

A2 volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Deventerweg.

| 9. | Deventerweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Noorwegenstraat. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Deventerweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Noorwegenstraat.

| 10. | Noorwegenstraat volgen in oostelijke richting overgaand in Visbystraat overgaand in Zweedsestraat tot aan Holterweg. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Noorwegenstraat volgen in oostelijke richting overgaand in Visbystraat overgaand in Zweedsestraat tot aan Holterweg.

| 11. | Holterweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Spitdijk. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Holterweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Spitdijk.

| 12. | Spitdijk volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Deventerweg overgaand in Dorpsstraat overgaand in Looweg tot aan Schipbeeksweg. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Spitdijk volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Deventerweg overgaand in Dorpsstraat overgaand in Looweg tot aan Schipbeeksweg.

| 13. | Schipbeeksweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Marsdijk. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Schipbeeksweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Marsdijk.

| 14. | Marsdijk volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan A1i. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Marsdijk volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan A1i.

| 15. | A1 volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Schipbeek. |
| --- | --- |

15.

A1 volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Schipbeek.

| 16. | Schipbeek volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Voorste beek. |
| --- | --- |

16.

Schipbeek volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Voorste beek.

| 17. | Voorste beek volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Dortherbeek Oost tot aan Holterweg. |
| --- | --- |

17.

Voorste beek volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Dortherbeek Oost tot aan Holterweg.

| 18. | Holterweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Markeloseweg. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Holterweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Markeloseweg.

| 19. | Markeloseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Olde Diek. |
| --- | --- |

19.

Markeloseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Olde Diek.

| 20. | Olde Diek volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Verwoldseweg. |
| --- | --- |

20.

Olde Diek volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Verwoldseweg.

| 21. | Verwoldseweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Dijkmansweg. |
| --- | --- |

21.

Verwoldseweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Dijkmansweg.

| 22. | Dijkmansweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Amsenseweg. |
| --- | --- |

22.

Dijkmansweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Amsenseweg.

| 23. | Amsenseweg volgen in oostelijke richting overgaand in Stationsweg overgaand in Graaf Ottoweg tot aan Nieuwstad. |
| --- | --- |

23.

Amsenseweg volgen in oostelijke richting overgaand in Stationsweg overgaand in Graaf Ottoweg tot aan Nieuwstad.

| 24. | Nieuwstad volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Zutphenseweg tot aan Hessenweg. |
| --- | --- |

24.

Nieuwstad volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Zutphenseweg tot aan Hessenweg.

| 25. | Hessenweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Tusselersveenweg, |
| --- | --- |

25.

Hessenweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Tusselersveenweg,

| 26. | Tusselersveenweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Het Langen. |
| --- | --- |

26.

Tusselersveenweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Het Langen.

| 27. | Het langen volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Vordenseweg. |
| --- | --- |

27.

Het langen volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Vordenseweg.

| 28. | Vordenseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Wildenborgseweg tot aan Kapelweg. |
| --- | --- |

28.

Vordenseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Wildenborgseweg tot aan Kapelweg.

| 29. | Kapelweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Mosselweg. |
| --- | --- |

29.

Kapelweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Mosselweg.

| 30. | Mosselweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Wiersserbroekweg. |
| --- | --- |

30.

Mosselweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Wiersserbroekweg.

| 31. | Wiersserbroekweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Ruurloseweg tot aan Kostedeweg. |
| --- | --- |

31.

Wiersserbroekweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Ruurloseweg tot aan Kostedeweg.

| 32. | Kostedeweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Lindeseweg. |
| --- | --- |

32.

Kostedeweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Lindeseweg.

| 33. | Lindeseweg volgen westelijke richting tot aan Lieferinkweg. |
| --- | --- |

33.

Lindeseweg volgen westelijke richting tot aan Lieferinkweg.

| 34. | Lieferinkweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Zomervreugdweg. |
| --- | --- |

34.

Lieferinkweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Zomervreugdweg.

| 35. | Zomervreugdweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Berkendijk. |
| --- | --- |

35.

Zomervreugdweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Berkendijk.

| 36. | Berkendijk volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Maalderinkweg. |
| --- | --- |

36.

Berkendijk volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Maalderinkweg.

| 37. | Maalderinkweg volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Slotsweg tot aan Vordenseweg. |
| --- | --- |

37.

Maalderinkweg volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Slotsweg tot aan Vordenseweg.

| 38. | Vordenseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Lankhorsterweg. |
| --- | --- |

38.

Vordenseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Lankhorsterweg.

| 39. | Lankhorsterweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Wichmondseweg. |
| --- | --- |

39.

Lankhorsterweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Wichmondseweg.

| 40. | Wichmondseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Koningsweg. |
| --- | --- |

40.

Wichmondseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Koningsweg.

| 41. | Koningsweg volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Beekstraat overgaand in Kerveldijk overgaand in Beukenlaan tot aan Vrendenbargsedijk. |
| --- | --- |

41.

Koningsweg volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Beekstraat overgaand in Kerveldijk overgaand in Beukenlaan tot aan Vrendenbargsedijk.

| 42. | Vrendenbargsedijk volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Dollemansstraat, |
| --- | --- |

42.

Vrendenbargsedijk volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Dollemansstraat,

| 43. | Dollemansstraat volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Wolffstraat tot aan Covikseweg. |
| --- | --- |

43.

Dollemansstraat volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Wolffstraat tot aan Covikseweg.

| 44. | Covikseweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Dr Alfons Ariënstraat. |
| --- | --- |

44.

Covikseweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Dr Alfons Ariënstraat.

| 45. | Dr Alfons Ariënstraat volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Onderstraat tot aan Bovenstraat. |
| --- | --- |

45.

Dr Alfons Ariënstraat volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Onderstraat tot aan Bovenstraat.

| 46. | Bovenstraat volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Veerweg. |
| --- | --- |

46.

Bovenstraat volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Veerweg.

| 47. | Veerweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Ijssel overstekend overgaand in Bronkhorsterweg tot aan N348. |
| --- | --- |

47.

Veerweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Ijssel overstekend overgaand in Bronkhorsterweg tot aan N348.

| 48. | N348 volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan De Pothof. |
| --- | --- |

48.

N348 volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan De Pothof.

| 49. | De Pothof volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Engelenburgerlaan. |
| --- | --- |

49.

De Pothof volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Engelenburgerlaan.

| 50. | Engelenburgerlaan volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Eerbeekseweg tot aan L.R.Beunenlaan. |
| --- | --- |

50.

Engelenburgerlaan volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Eerbeekseweg tot aan L.R.Beunenlaan.

| 51. | L.R.Beunenlaan volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Knoevenoordstraat. |
| --- | --- |

51.

L.R.Beunenlaan volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Knoevenoordstraat.

| 52. | Knoevenoordstraat volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Stouwstraat. |
| --- | --- |

52.

Knoevenoordstraat volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Stouwstraat.

| 53. | Stouwstraat volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Rhienderensestraat. |
| --- | --- |

53.

Stouwstraat volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Rhienderensestraat.

| 54. | Rhienderensestraat volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Hogestraat. |
| --- | --- |

54.

Rhienderensestraat volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Hogestraat.

| 55. | Hogestraat volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Kikvorsenstraat. |
| --- | --- |

55.

Hogestraat volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Kikvorsenstraat.

| 56. | Kikvorsenstraat volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Vosstraat. |
| --- | --- |

56.

Kikvorsenstraat volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Vosstraat.

| 57. | Vosstraat volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Hallsedijk. |
| --- | --- |

57.

Vosstraat volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Hallsedijk.

| 58. | Hallsedijk volgen in noordelijke richting overgaand in Polveensweg tot aan Voorster Beek. |
| --- | --- |

58.

Hallsedijk volgen in noordelijke richting overgaand in Polveensweg tot aan Voorster Beek.

| 59. | Voorsterbeek volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Oudhuizerstraat. |
| --- | --- |

59.

Voorsterbeek volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Oudhuizerstraat.

| 60. | Oudhuizerstraat volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan spoorlijn Aleldoorn/Zutphen. |
| --- | --- |

60.

Oudhuizerstraat volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan spoorlijn Aleldoorn/Zutphen.

10.3.2022

Those parts of the municipalities Lochem and Zutphen (province Gelderland) contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 6.24741, lat 52.15942

From 2.3.2022 until 10.3.2022

Municipality Putten, province Gelderland

| 1. | Vanaf Nijkerkernauw Laakse Hoek volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Eemmeerdijk. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Vanaf Nijkerkernauw Laakse Hoek volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Eemmeerdijk.

| 2. | Eemmeerdijk volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Slingerweg tot aan Winkelweg. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Eemmeerdijk volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Slingerweg tot aan Winkelweg.

| 3. | Winkelweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Nijkerkerweg. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Winkelweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Nijkerkerweg.

| 4. | Nijkerkerweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Gooiseweg. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Nijkerkerweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Gooiseweg.

| 5. | Gooiseweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Adelaarsweg. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Gooiseweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Adelaarsweg.

| 6. | Adelaarsweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Schollevaarweg. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Adelaarsweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Schollevaarweg.

| 7. | Schollevaarweg volgen oostelijke richting tot aan Knardijk. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Schollevaarweg volgen oostelijke richting tot aan Knardijk.

| 8. | Knardijk volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Sternweg. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Knardijk volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Sternweg.

| 9. | Sternweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan N302. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Sternweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan N302.

| 10. | N302 volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Newtonweg. |
| --- | --- |

10.

N302 volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Newtonweg.

| 11. | Newtonweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Zuiderzeestraatweg. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Newtonweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Zuiderzeestraatweg.

| 12. | Zuiderzeestraatweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Grevenhofsweg. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Zuiderzeestraatweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Grevenhofsweg.

| 13. | Grevenhofsweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Brouwersbosweg. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Grevenhofsweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Brouwersbosweg.

| 14. | Brouwersbosweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Paasloweg. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Brouwersbosweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Paasloweg.

| 15. | Paasloweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Bredeweg. |
| --- | --- |

15.

Paasloweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Bredeweg.

| 16. | Bredeweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Parallelweg. |
| --- | --- |

16.

Bredeweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Parallelweg.

| 17. | Parallelweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Stuizandpad. |
| --- | --- |

17.

Parallelweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Stuizandpad.

| 18. | Stuizandpad volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan A28. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Stuizandpad volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan A28.

| 19. | A28 volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Hierderweg. |
| --- | --- |

19.

A28 volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Hierderweg.

| 20. | Hierderweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Poolseweg. |
| --- | --- |

20.

Hierderweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Poolseweg.

| 21. | Poolseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Jonkheer c.j. Zandbergweg. |
| --- | --- |

21.

Poolseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Jonkheer c.j. Zandbergweg.

| 22. | Jonkheer c.j. Zandbergweg volgen in oostelijke richting overgaand in Garderenseweg tot aan Flevoweg. |
| --- | --- |

22.

Jonkheer c.j. Zandbergweg volgen in oostelijke richting overgaand in Garderenseweg tot aan Flevoweg.

| 23. | Flevoweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Leuvenumseveld. |
| --- | --- |

23.

Flevoweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Leuvenumseveld.

| 24. | Leuvenumseveld volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Garderenseweg. |
| --- | --- |

24.

Leuvenumseveld volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Garderenseweg.

| 25. | Garderenseweg volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Speulderweg tot aan Dorpsstraat. |
| --- | --- |

25.

Garderenseweg volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Speulderweg tot aan Dorpsstraat.

| 26. | Dorpsstraat volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Bakkerstraat. |
| --- | --- |

26.

Dorpsstraat volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Bakkerstraat.

| 27. | Bakkerstraat volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Hogesteeg tot aan Apeldoornsestraat. |
| --- | --- |

27.

Bakkerstraat volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Hogesteeg tot aan Apeldoornsestraat.

| 28. | Apeldoornsetraat volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Heuvelrandweg. |
| --- | --- |

28.

Apeldoornsetraat volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Heuvelrandweg.

| 29. | Heuvelrandweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan De Voortsering. |
| --- | --- |

29.

Heuvelrandweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan De Voortsering.

| 30. | De Voortsering volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Overhorsterweg. |
| --- | --- |

30.

De Voortsering volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Overhorsterweg.

| 31. | Overhorsterweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Schoenlapperweg. |
| --- | --- |

31.

Overhorsterweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Schoenlapperweg.

| 32. | Schoenlapperweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Woudweg. |
| --- | --- |

32.

Schoenlapperweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Woudweg.

| 33. | Woudweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Appelstraat. |
| --- | --- |

33.

Woudweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Appelstraat.

| 34. | Appelstraat volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Kamersteeg. |
| --- | --- |

34.

Appelstraat volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Kamersteeg.

| 35. | Kamersteeg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Barneveldseweg. |
| --- | --- |

35.

Kamersteeg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Barneveldseweg.

| 36. | Barneveldseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Peerweg. |
| --- | --- |

36.

Barneveldseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Peerweg.

| 37. | Peerweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Koperweg. |
| --- | --- |

37.

Peerweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Koperweg.

| 38. | Koperweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Vossenweg. |
| --- | --- |

38.

Koperweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Vossenweg.

| 39. | Vossenweg volgen in noordelijke richting overgaand in Nieuwe Laak tot aan Van Dijkhuizenstraat. |
| --- | --- |

39.

Vossenweg volgen in noordelijke richting overgaand in Nieuwe Laak tot aan Van Dijkhuizenstraat.

| 40. | Van Dijkhuizenstraat volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Amersfoortseweg. |
| --- | --- |

40.

Van Dijkhuizenstraat volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Amersfoortseweg.

| 41. | Amersfoortseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Arkenheemweg. |
| --- | --- |

41.

Amersfoortseweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Arkenheemweg.

| 42. | Arkenheemweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Bunschoterweg. |
| --- | --- |

42.

Arkenheemweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Bunschoterweg.

| 43. | Bunschoterweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Korte Holk. |
| --- | --- |

43.

Bunschoterweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Korte Holk.

| 44. | Korte Holk volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Dommersbeek. |
| --- | --- |

44.

Korte Holk volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Dommersbeek.

| 45. | Dommersbeek volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Bontepoort. |
| --- | --- |

45.

Dommersbeek volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Bontepoort.

| 46. | Bontepoort volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Wiel. |
| --- | --- |

46.

Bontepoort volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Wiel.

| 47. | Wiel volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan nekkeveld. |
| --- | --- |

47.

Wiel volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan nekkeveld.

| 48. | Nekkelveld volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Nijkerkernauw. |
| --- | --- |

48.

Nekkelveld volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Nijkerkernauw.

| 49. | Nijkerkernauw overstekend tot aan Laakse Hoek. |
| --- | --- |

49.

Nijkerkernauw overstekend tot aan Laakse Hoek.

19.3.2022

Those parts of the municipalities Ermelo, Putten en Zeewolde contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 5.55815 lat 52.28283

From 11.3.2022 until 19.3.2022

Municipality Woltersum, province Groningen

| 1. | Vanaf kruising N46 / Wolddijk, Wolddijk volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan spoorlijn Groningen-Delfijl. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Vanaf kruising N46 / Wolddijk, Wolddijk volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan spoorlijn Groningen-Delfijl.

| 2. | Spoorlijn volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Boterdiep. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Spoorlijn volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Boterdiep.

| 3. | Boterdiep volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Fraamklapsterweg. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Boterdiep volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Fraamklapsterweg.

| 4. | Fraamklapsterweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Delleweg. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fraamklapsterweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Delleweg.

| 5. | Delleweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Florastraat. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Delleweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Florastraat.

| 6. | Florastraat volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Colpende. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Florastraat volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Colpende.

| 7. | Colpende volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Huizingerweg. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Colpende volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Huizingerweg.

| 8. | Huizingerweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Hoofdweg overgaand in Smedemaweg tot aan Westeremdenweg. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Huizingerweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Hoofdweg overgaand in Smedemaweg tot aan Westeremdenweg.

| 9. | Westeremdenweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan N46. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Westeremdenweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan N46.

| 10. | N46 volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Karshofweg. |
| --- | --- |

10.

N46 volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Karshofweg.

| 11. | Karshofweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Kuipersweg tot aan Weversweg. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Karshofweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Kuipersweg tot aan Weversweg.

| 12. | Weversweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Nieuwstad tot aan Coolmanspad. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Weversweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Nieuwstad tot aan Coolmanspad.

| 13. | Coolmanspad volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Fiveldijk. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Coolmanspad volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Fiveldijk.

| 14. | Fiveldijk volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Garsthuizerweg. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Fiveldijk volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Garsthuizerweg.

| 15. | Garsthuizerweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Terhornseweg. |
| --- | --- |

15.

Garsthuizerweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Terhornseweg.

| 16. | Terhornseweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Westerweg. |
| --- | --- |

16.

Terhornseweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Westerweg.

| 17. | Westerweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Terhornseweg. |
| --- | --- |

17.

Westerweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Terhornseweg.

| 18. | Terhornseweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Leermenstermaar. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Terhornseweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Leermenstermaar.

| 19. | Leermenstermaar volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Tuindersweg. |
| --- | --- |

19.

Leermenstermaar volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Tuindersweg.

| 20. | Tuindersweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Kapslaan. |
| --- | --- |

20.

Tuindersweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Kapslaan.

| 21. | Kapslaan volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Leermensterpad. |
| --- | --- |

21.

Kapslaan volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Leermensterpad.

| 22. | Leermensterpad volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Kloosterweg. |
| --- | --- |

22.

Leermensterpad volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Kloosterweg.

| 23. | Kloosterweg volgen in oostelijke richting overgaand in Jurkwerderweg tot aan Damsterdiep. |
| --- | --- |

23.

Kloosterweg volgen in oostelijke richting overgaand in Jurkwerderweg tot aan Damsterdiep.

| 24. | Damsterdiep volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Nieuwe Diep. |
| --- | --- |

24.

Damsterdiep volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Nieuwe Diep.

| 25. | Nieuwe Diep volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Woldweg. |
| --- | --- |

25.

Nieuwe Diep volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Woldweg.

| 26. | Woldweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan N33. |
| --- | --- |

26.

Woldweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan N33.

| 27. | N33 volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Larkswerderweg. |
| --- | --- |

27.

N33 volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Larkswerderweg.

| 28. | Larkswerderweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Oude Heemweg. |
| --- | --- |

28.

Larkswerderweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Oude Heemweg.

| 29. | Oude Heemweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Hoofdweg. |
| --- | --- |

29.

Oude Heemweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Hoofdweg.

| 30. | Hoofdweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Weereweg. |
| --- | --- |

30.

Hoofdweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Weereweg.

| 31. | Weereweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in oost Zandenweg tot aan Oudeweg. |
| --- | --- |

31.

Weereweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in oost Zandenweg tot aan Oudeweg.

| 32. | Oudeweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan N33. |
| --- | --- |

32.

Oudeweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan N33.

| 33. | N33 volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Ringmaar. |
| --- | --- |

33.

N33 volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Ringmaar.

| 34. | Ringmaar volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Slochterweg. |
| --- | --- |

34.

Ringmaar volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Slochterweg.

| 35. | Slochterweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Geert Veenhuizenweg tot aan Sappemeersterweg. |
| --- | --- |

35.

Slochterweg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Geert Veenhuizenweg tot aan Sappemeersterweg.

| 36. | Sappemeersterweg volgen in Zuidelijke richting overgaand inSpitsbergen overgaand in Achterste Noordzijde tot aan Siepweg. |
| --- | --- |

36.

Sappemeersterweg volgen in Zuidelijke richting overgaand inSpitsbergen overgaand in Achterste Noordzijde tot aan Siepweg.

| 37. | Siepweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Lange Weg. |
| --- | --- |

37.

Siepweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Lange Weg.

| 38. | Lange Weg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Slochterstraat tot aan Winschoterdiep. |
| --- | --- |

38.

Lange Weg volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Slochterstraat tot aan Winschoterdiep.

| 39. | Winschoterdiep volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Van Storckenborgkanaal. |
| --- | --- |

39.

Winschoterdiep volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Van Storckenborgkanaal.

| 40. | Van Starckenborghkanaal volgen in westelijke richting tot aan N370. |
| --- | --- |

40.

Van Starckenborghkanaal volgen in westelijke richting tot aan N370.

| 41. | N370 volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan N46. |
| --- | --- |

41.

N370 volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan N46.

| 42. | N46 volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Wolddijk. |
| --- | --- |

42.

N46 volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Wolddijk.

17.3.2022

Those parts of the municipalities Groningen en Midden Groningen contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 6.72565 lat 53.26682

From 9.3.2022 until 17.3.2022

Municipality Het Hogeland, province Groningen

| 1. | Vanaf kruising A.G Belstraat/ Westervalge, Westervalge volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Noordpolderkanaal. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Vanaf kruising A.G Belstraat/ Westervalge, Westervalge volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Noordpolderkanaal.

| 2. | Noordpolderkanaal volgen in westelijke richting tot aan M.D.Teenstraweg. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Noordpolderkanaal volgen in westelijke richting tot aan M.D.Teenstraweg.

| 3. | M.D.Teenstraweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Noorderdijk. |
| --- | --- |

3.

M.D.Teenstraweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Noorderdijk.

| 4. | Noorderdijk volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Ranselgatweg. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Noorderdijk volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Ranselgatweg.

| 5. | Ranselgatweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Borkumkade. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Ranselgatweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Borkumkade.

| 6. | Borkumkade volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Doekegatkanaal. |
| --- | --- |

6.

Borkumkade volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Doekegatkanaal.

| 7. | Doekegatkanaal volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Schildweg. |
| --- | --- |

7.

Doekegatkanaal volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Schildweg.

| 8. | Schildweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Hubertgatweg. |
| --- | --- |

8.

Schildweg volgen in oostelijke richting tot aan Hubertgatweg.

| 9. | Hubertgatweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Kwelderweg. |
| --- | --- |

9.

Hubertgatweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Kwelderweg.

| 10. | Kwelderweg volgen in oostelijke richting overgaand in N33 tot aan Spijkstermaar. |
| --- | --- |

10.

Kwelderweg volgen in oostelijke richting overgaand in N33 tot aan Spijkstermaar.

| 11. | Spijkstermaar volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Losderpermaar tot aan Godlinzermaar. |
| --- | --- |

11.

Spijkstermaar volgen in zuidelijke richting overgaand in Losderpermaar tot aan Godlinzermaar.

| 12. | Godlinzermaar volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Schoolweg. |
| --- | --- |

12.

Godlinzermaar volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Schoolweg.

| 13. | Schoolweg volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Oostwijtwerderweg tot aan Bosweg. |
| --- | --- |

13.

Schoolweg volgen in westelijke richting overgaand in Oostwijtwerderweg tot aan Bosweg.

| 14. | Bosweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Molenweg. |
| --- | --- |

14.

Bosweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Molenweg.

| 15. | Molenweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan spoorlijn Appingedam-Roodeschool. |
| --- | --- |

15.

Molenweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan spoorlijn Appingedam-Roodeschool.

| 16. | Spoorlijn volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Delleweg. |
| --- | --- |

16.

Spoorlijn volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Delleweg.

| 17. | Delleweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Weersterweg. |
| --- | --- |

17.

Delleweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Weersterweg.

| 18. | Weersterweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Stationsweg. |
| --- | --- |

18.

Weersterweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Stationsweg.

| 19. | Stationsweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Spoorlijn. |
| --- | --- |

19.

Stationsweg volgen in zuidelijke richting tot aan Spoorlijn.

| 20. | Spoorlijn volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Westerwijtwerdermaar. |
| --- | --- |

20.

Spoorlijn volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Westerwijtwerdermaar.

| 21. | Westerwijdwerdermaar volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Dorpsweg. |
| --- | --- |

21.

Westerwijdwerdermaar volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Dorpsweg.

| 22. | Dorpsweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Halteweg. |
| --- | --- |

22.

Dorpsweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Halteweg.

| 23. | Halteweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Pomsterweg. |
| --- | --- |

23.

Halteweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Pomsterweg.

| 24. | Pomsterweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Fraamweg. |
| --- | --- |

24.

Pomsterweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Fraamweg.

| 25. | Fraamweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Onderdendamsterweg. |
| --- | --- |

25.

Fraamweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Onderdendamsterweg.

| 26. | Onderdendamsterweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Stitswerderweg. |
| --- | --- |

26.

Onderdendamsterweg volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Stitswerderweg.

| 27. | Stitswerderweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Anderwereldstertocht. |
| --- | --- |

27.

Stitswerderweg volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Anderwereldstertocht.

| 28. | Anderwerekdstertocht volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Delthe. |
| --- | --- |

28.

Anderwerekdstertocht volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Delthe.

| 29. | Delthe volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Kanaal door de Zuidhorn. |
| --- | --- |

29.

Delthe volgen in noordelijke richting tot aan Kanaal door de Zuidhorn.

| 30. | Kanaal door de Zuidhorn volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Onderdendamsterweg. |
| --- | --- |

30.

Kanaal door de Zuidhorn volgen in westelijke richting tot aan Onderdendamsterweg.

| 31. | Onderdendamsterweg volgen in noordelijke richting overgaand in A.G.Bellstraat tot aan Westervalge. |
| --- | --- |

31.

Onderdendamsterweg volgen in noordelijke richting overgaand in A.G.Bellstraat tot aan Westervalge.

22.3.2022

Those parts of the municipality Het Hoge Land contained within a circle of a radius of 3 kilometres, centered on WGS84 dec. coordinates long 6.69457 lat 53.42069

From 14.3.2022 until 22.3.2022

Member State: Poland

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| Województwo dolnośląskie |
| 1) | w powiecie milickim:







  a) | w gminie Milicz miejscowości: Tworzymirki, Tworzymirki Górne, Wziąchowo Małe, Wziąchowo Wielkie, Ostrowąsy, Wodników Górny, Latkowa, Latkowa Gajdówka, Kolęda, Bartniki, Wrocławice, Gądkowice, Wróbliniec, Joachimówka, Wielgie Milickie, Stawczyk, Godnowa, Gajdówka, Dzierzgów, Nowe Grodzisko, Smelice, Średzina Chałupy, Lelików, Dyminy, Sławoszowice, Stawno, Ruda Milicka, Grabownica, Duchowo, Niesułowice, Czatkowice- na zachód od ulicy Rzecznej, Wałkowa; Wszewilki, północna i wschodnia część miasta Milicz ograniczona od południa ulicą Sułowską i od zachodu drogą krajową nr 15 (ul. Trzebnicka), Nowy Zamek poza terenem Rezerwatu Stawów Milickich |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

Województwo dolnośląskie

1)

w powiecie milickim:

a)

w gminie Milicz miejscowości: Tworzymirki, Tworzymirki Górne, Wziąchowo Małe, Wziąchowo Wielkie, Ostrowąsy, Wodników Górny, Latkowa, Latkowa Gajdówka, Kolęda, Bartniki, Wrocławice, Gądkowice, Wróbliniec, Joachimówka, Wielgie Milickie, Stawczyk, Godnowa, Gajdówka, Dzierzgów, Nowe Grodzisko, Smelice, Średzina Chałupy, Lelików, Dyminy, Sławoszowice, Stawno, Ruda Milicka, Grabownica, Duchowo, Niesułowice, Czatkowice- na zachód od ulicy Rzecznej, Wałkowa; Wszewilki, północna i wschodnia część miasta Milicz ograniczona od południa ulicą Sułowską i od zachodu drogą krajową nr 15 (ul. Trzebnicka), Nowy Zamek poza terenem Rezerwatu Stawów Milickich

| b) | w gminie Krośnice miejscowości: Wąbnice, Dąbrowa, Czarnogoździce, Wierzchowice, Krośnice, Police, Żeleźniki, Kotlarka- na południe od drogi gminnej prowadzącej z Czatkowic do Czeszyc, Czeszyce, Luboradów, Grabownica, Stara Huta, Kuźnica Czeszycka, Suliradzice, c) w gminie Cieszków miejscowości: Wężowice, Góry, Jawor, Jankowa, Trzebicko, Trzebicko Dolne |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Krośnice miejscowości: Wąbnice, Dąbrowa, Czarnogoździce, Wierzchowice, Krośnice, Police, Żeleźniki, Kotlarka- na południe od drogi gminnej prowadzącej z Czatkowic do Czeszyc, Czeszyce, Luboradów, Grabownica, Stara Huta, Kuźnica Czeszycka, Suliradzice, c) w gminie Cieszków miejscowości: Wężowice, Góry, Jawor, Jankowa, Trzebicko, Trzebicko Dolne

25.2.2022

| 1) | w powiecie milickim:







  a) | w gminie: Milicz,miejscowości: Młodzianów, Bracław, Henrykowice, Potasznia, Borzynowo, Czatkowice- na wschód od ulicy Rzecznej, w miejscowości Nowy Zamek teren Rezerwatu Stawy Milickie, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie milickim:

a)

w gminie: Milicz,miejscowości: Młodzianów, Bracław, Henrykowice, Potasznia, Borzynowo, Czatkowice- na wschód od ulicy Rzecznej, w miejscowości Nowy Zamek teren Rezerwatu Stawy Milickie,

| b) | w gminie Krośnice miejscowości Kotlarka- na północ od drogi gminnej prowadzącej z Czatkowic do Czeszyc |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Krośnice miejscowości Kotlarka- na północ od drogi gminnej prowadzącej z Czatkowic do Czeszyc

From 17.2.2022 until 25.2.2022

Województwo łódzkie

| 1) | w powiecie sieradzkim:







  a) | w gminie Goszczanów miejscowości: Wola Tłomakowa, Sulmów, Sokołów, Wroniawy, Karolina, Lipicze, Lipicze-Olendry, Rzężawy, Goszczanów, Kaszew, Czerniaków, Poniatówek, Poniatów, Strachanów, Poradzew, Gawłowice, Poprężniki, Wacławów |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie sieradzkim:

a)

w gminie Goszczanów miejscowości: Wola Tłomakowa, Sulmów, Sokołów, Wroniawy, Karolina, Lipicze, Lipicze-Olendry, Rzężawy, Goszczanów, Kaszew, Czerniaków, Poniatówek, Poniatów, Strachanów, Poradzew, Gawłowice, Poprężniki, Wacławów

| b) | w gminie Warta miejscowości: Zadąbrowie Rudunek, Zadąbrowie Wiatraczyska, Grzybki, Krąków, Augustynów, Witów, Czartki, Głaniszew, Zagajew, Góra, Gać Warcka, Kawęczynek, Raczków, Ustków, Socha, Cielce |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Warta miejscowości: Zadąbrowie Rudunek, Zadąbrowie Wiatraczyska, Grzybki, Krąków, Augustynów, Witów, Czartki, Głaniszew, Zagajew, Góra, Gać Warcka, Kawęczynek, Raczków, Ustków, Socha, Cielce

| c) | w gminie Błaszki miejscowości: Chabierów, Chociszew, Kobylniki, Gorzałów, Garbów, Orzeżyn, Kalinowa, Tuwalczew, Adamki, Kwasków, Domaniew, Smaszków, Kostrzewice, Golków, Maciszewice, Woleń, Kokoszki, Kołdów, Sędzimirowice, Skalmierz, Suliszewice, Mroczki Małe, Wójcice, Nacesławice |
| --- | --- |

c)

w gminie Błaszki miejscowości: Chabierów, Chociszew, Kobylniki, Gorzałów, Garbów, Orzeżyn, Kalinowa, Tuwalczew, Adamki, Kwasków, Domaniew, Smaszków, Kostrzewice, Golków, Maciszewice, Woleń, Kokoszki, Kołdów, Sędzimirowice, Skalmierz, Suliszewice, Mroczki Małe, Wójcice, Nacesławice

16.3.2022

| 2) | w powiecie sieradzkim:






  a) | w gminie Goszczanów miejscowości: Chlewo, Wilkszyce, Wójcinek, Waliszewice, Świnice Kaliskie, Sulmówek, Stojanów, Chwalęcice, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2)

w powiecie sieradzkim:

a)

w gminie Goszczanów miejscowości: Chlewo, Wilkszyce, Wójcinek, Waliszewice, Świnice Kaliskie, Sulmówek, Stojanów, Chwalęcice,

| b) | w gminie Warta miejscowość: Zielęcin, |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Warta miejscowość: Zielęcin,

| c) | w gminie Błaszki miejscowości: Korzenica, Morawki, Paulinowo |
| --- | --- |

c)

w gminie Błaszki miejscowości: Korzenica, Morawki, Paulinowo

From 8.3.2022 until 16.3.2022

Województwo pomorskie

w powiecie chojnickim

gminie Chojnice miejscowości wraz z wybudowaniami: Ciechocin Pierwszy, Doręgowice, Kamionka (k. Zamartego), Nowy Dwór, Melanowo, Melanówek, Ogorzeliny, Sławęcin

9.3.2022

| 1) | w powiecie człuchowskim:







  a) | w gminie Debrzno miejscowości: Boboszewo, Bolesławowo, Cierznie, Debrzno, Gniewno, Główna, Jakubowo, Jeleniec, Kostrzyca, Krzepiszyn, Miłachowo, Myśligoszcz, Myśligoszcz Wybudowanie, Nierybie, Pokrzywy, Prusinowo Wybudowanie, Pędziszewo, Przypólsko, Rozdoły, Rozwory, Skowarnki, Słupia, Służewo, Smug, Stanisławka, Strzeszyn, Uniechówek, Uniechów, Uniechów Wybudowanie |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie człuchowskim:

a)

w gminie Debrzno miejscowości: Boboszewo, Bolesławowo, Cierznie, Debrzno, Gniewno, Główna, Jakubowo, Jeleniec, Kostrzyca, Krzepiszyn, Miłachowo, Myśligoszcz, Myśligoszcz Wybudowanie, Nierybie, Pokrzywy, Prusinowo Wybudowanie, Pędziszewo, Przypólsko, Rozdoły, Rozwory, Skowarnki, Słupia, Służewo, Smug, Stanisławka, Strzeszyn, Uniechówek, Uniechów, Uniechów Wybudowanie

| b) | w gminie Człuchów w miejscowości: Barkowo, Biskupnica, Biskupnica Wybudowanie, Chrząstowo, Chrząstowo Wybudowanie, Chrząstówko, Dziewiątka, Gębarzewo, Jaromierz, Migi, Mosiny, Rogowo |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Człuchów w miejscowości: Barkowo, Biskupnica, Biskupnica Wybudowanie, Chrząstowo, Chrząstowo Wybudowanie, Chrząstówko, Dziewiątka, Gębarzewo, Jaromierz, Migi, Mosiny, Rogowo

| c) | w gminie Czarne miejscowości: Bińcze, Gliniana Góra, Wiśniowa Aleja, Wygonki |
| --- | --- |

c)

w gminie Czarne miejscowości: Bińcze, Gliniana Góra, Wiśniowa Aleja, Wygonki

14.3.2022

| 1) | w powiecie człuchowskim:







  a) | w gminie Debrzno miejscowości: Buchowo, Grzymisław, Kamień, Strzeczona, Strzeczonka, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie człuchowskim:

a)

w gminie Debrzno miejscowości: Buchowo, Grzymisław, Kamień, Strzeczona, Strzeczonka,

| b) | w gminie Człuchów miejscowość Barkówko |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Człuchów miejscowość Barkówko

From 7.3.2022 until 14.3.2022

Województwo kujawsko-pomorskie

| 1) | w powiecie sępoleńskim:







  a) | w gminie Sępólno Krajeńskie miejscowości: Sępólno Krajeńskie, Włościbórz, Zalesie, Komierowo, Lutowo, Dziechowo, Lutówko, Piaseczno, Sikorz, Trzciany, Wałdowo; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie sępoleńskim:

a)

w gminie Sępólno Krajeńskie miejscowości: Sępólno Krajeńskie, Włościbórz, Zalesie, Komierowo, Lutowo, Dziechowo, Lutówko, Piaseczno, Sikorz, Trzciany, Wałdowo;

| b) | w gminie Kamień Krajeński miejscowości: Dąbrowa, Dąbrówka, Jerzmionki, Niwy, Nowa Wieś, Witkowo, Zamarte, Płocicz; |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Kamień Krajeński miejscowości: Dąbrowa, Dąbrówka, Jerzmionki, Niwy, Nowa Wieś, Witkowo, Zamarte, Płocicz;

| 2) | w powiecie tucholskim,







  a) | w gminie Kęsowo miejscowości: Kęsowo, Obrowo, Pamiętowo, Przymuszewo |
| --- | --- | --- |

2)

w powiecie tucholskim,

a)

w gminie Kęsowo miejscowości: Kęsowo, Obrowo, Pamiętowo, Przymuszewo

9.3.2022

| 1) | w powiecie sępoleńskim:







  a) | w gminie Kamień Krajeński miejscowości: Kamień Krajeński, Duża Cerkwica, Mała Cerkwica, Radzim, Obkas, Orzełek; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie sępoleńskim:

a)

w gminie Kamień Krajeński miejscowości: Kamień Krajeński, Duża Cerkwica, Mała Cerkwica, Radzim, Obkas, Orzełek;

| 2) | w powiecie tucholskim:







  a) | w gminie Kęsowo miejscowości: Drożdżenica |
| --- | --- | --- |

2)

w powiecie tucholskim:

a)

w gminie Kęsowo miejscowości: Drożdżenica

From 1.3.2022 until 9.3. 2022

| 1) | w powiecie inowrocławskim:







  a) | w gminie Inowrocław miejscowości: Inowrocław, Strzemkowo, Dulsk, Marulewy, Bachorze Łęgi, Miechowice, Batkowo, Krusza Zamkowa, Karczyn-Wieś, Kłopot, Sikorowo, Trzaski, Sławęcinek, Łojewo, Latkowo, Łąkocin, Cieślin, Mimowola, Czyste, Góra, Gnojno, Jaronty, Tupadły, Witowy, Ostrowo Krzyckie, Orłowo; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie inowrocławskim:

a)

w gminie Inowrocław miejscowości: Inowrocław, Strzemkowo, Dulsk, Marulewy, Bachorze Łęgi, Miechowice, Batkowo, Krusza Zamkowa, Karczyn-Wieś, Kłopot, Sikorowo, Trzaski, Sławęcinek, Łojewo, Latkowo, Łąkocin, Cieślin, Mimowola, Czyste, Góra, Gnojno, Jaronty, Tupadły, Witowy, Ostrowo Krzyckie, Orłowo;

| b) | w gminie Dąbrowa Biskupia miejscowości: Bąkowo, Niemojewo, Dziewa, Głojkowo, Brudnia, Konary, Modliborzyce, Nowy Dwór, Ośniszczewko, Parchanki, Pieczyska, Pieranie, Wonorze, Zagajewice, Radojewice, Sobiesiernie; |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Dąbrowa Biskupia miejscowości: Bąkowo, Niemojewo, Dziewa, Głojkowo, Brudnia, Konary, Modliborzyce, Nowy Dwór, Ośniszczewko, Parchanki, Pieczyska, Pieranie, Wonorze, Zagajewice, Radojewice, Sobiesiernie;

| c) | w gminie Gniewkowo miejscowości: Ostrowo, Kaczkowo, Wierzchosławice, Więcławice, Klepary, Wielowieś, Wierzbiczany, Lipie, Murzynko, Szpital, Szadłowice, Bąbolin, Skalmierowice; |
| --- | --- |

c)

w gminie Gniewkowo miejscowości: Ostrowo, Kaczkowo, Wierzchosławice, Więcławice, Klepary, Wielowieś, Wierzbiczany, Lipie, Murzynko, Szpital, Szadłowice, Bąbolin, Skalmierowice;

| d) | w gminie Kruszwica miejscowości: Przedbojewice, Janowice,Szarlej, Wola Wapowska, Arturowo, Karczyn; |
| --- | --- |

d)

w gminie Kruszwica miejscowości: Przedbojewice, Janowice,Szarlej, Wola Wapowska, Arturowo, Karczyn;

| e) | w gminie Rojewo miejscowości: Topola, Ściborze, Wybranowo, Dobiesławice, Mierogoniewice, Płonkowo |
| --- | --- |

e)

w gminie Rojewo miejscowości: Topola, Ściborze, Wybranowo, Dobiesławice, Mierogoniewice, Płonkowo

10.3.2022

| 1) | w powiecie inowrocławskim:






  a) | w gminie Inowrocław miejscowości: Turzany, Marcinkowo, Olszewice, Komaszyce, Balczewo, Pławinek, Balin, Jacewo, Słońsko, Dziennice; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie inowrocławskim:

a)

w gminie Inowrocław miejscowości: Turzany, Marcinkowo, Olszewice, Komaszyce, Balczewo, Pławinek, Balin, Jacewo, Słońsko, Dziennice;

| b) | w gminie Dąbrowa Biskupia miejscowości: Parchanie, Rejna |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Dąbrowa Biskupia miejscowości: Parchanie, Rejna

| c) | w gminie Gniewkowo, miejscowość: Gąski |
| --- | --- |

c)

w gminie Gniewkowo, miejscowość: Gąski

From 2.3.2022 until 10.3.2022

Województwo małopolskie

| 1) | w powiecie krakowskim ziemskim:







  a) | w gminie Jerzmanowice – Przeginia miejscowości: Czubrowice, Gotkowice, Jerzmanowice, Łazy, Racławice, Sąspów, Szklary |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie krakowskim ziemskim:

a)

w gminie Jerzmanowice – Przeginia miejscowości: Czubrowice, Gotkowice, Jerzmanowice, Łazy, Racławice, Sąspów, Szklary

| b) | w gminie Krzeszowice miejscowości: Czatkowice, Dębnik, Nawojowa Góra, Paczółtowice, Siedlec, Żary, Żbik część miejscowości Dubie - Krzeszowice – wschodnia część miasta ograniczona od strony zachodniej ulicami: Daszyńskiego, Rynek, Krakowską, Legionów Polskich, Czatkowice Górne |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Krzeszowice miejscowości: Czatkowice, Dębnik, Nawojowa Góra, Paczółtowice, Siedlec, Żary, Żbik część miejscowości Dubie - Krzeszowice – wschodnia część miasta ograniczona od strony zachodniej ulicami: Daszyńskiego, Rynek, Krakowską, Legionów Polskich, Czatkowice Górne

| c) | w gminie Liszki miejscowości: Chrosna, Morawica |
| --- | --- |

c)

w gminie Liszki miejscowości: Chrosna, Morawica

| d) | w gminie Michałowice miejscowość: Górna Wieś |
| --- | --- |

d)

w gminie Michałowice miejscowość: Górna Wieś

| e) | w gminie Skała miejscowości: Cianowice, Maszyce, Niebyła-Świńczów, Ojców, Rzeplin, Skała, Smardzowice, Szczodrkowice, część miejscowości Skała-wieś – południowa część miejscowości od strony północnej ograniczona drogą wojewódzką nr 794; |
| --- | --- |

e)

w gminie Skała miejscowości: Cianowice, Maszyce, Niebyła-Świńczów, Ojców, Rzeplin, Skała, Smardzowice, Szczodrkowice, część miejscowości Skała-wieś – południowa część miejscowości od strony północnej ograniczona drogą wojewódzką nr 794;

| f) | w gminie Sułoszowa miejscowość Wola Kalinowska; |
| --- | --- |

f)

w gminie Sułoszowa miejscowość Wola Kalinowska;

| g) | w gminie Wielka Wieś miejscowości: Czajowice, Giebułtów, Modlnica, Modlniczka, Prądnik Korzkiewski, Szyce, Tomaszowice, Bębło – północna część miejscowości ograniczona od południa ulicami: Na Dolinkę, Lasek, Południową i Turkusową, Będkowice – zachodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony wschodniej ulicami: Długą, Browar i Kawiory, Biały Kościół – północno-wschodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony południowo-zachodniej ulicą Krakowską, Wielka Wieś – wschodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony zachodniej ulicami: Krakowską, Słoneczną, Centralną i Polną; |
| --- | --- |

g)

w gminie Wielka Wieś miejscowości: Czajowice, Giebułtów, Modlnica, Modlniczka, Prądnik Korzkiewski, Szyce, Tomaszowice, Bębło – północna część miejscowości ograniczona od południa ulicami: Na Dolinkę, Lasek, Południową i Turkusową, Będkowice – zachodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony wschodniej ulicami: Długą, Browar i Kawiory, Biały Kościół – północno-wschodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony południowo-zachodniej ulicą Krakowską, Wielka Wieś – wschodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony zachodniej ulicami: Krakowską, Słoneczną, Centralną i Polną;

| h) | w gminie Zabierzów miejscowości: Aleksandrowice, Balice, Brzezie, Brzezinka, Brzoskwinia, Burów, Kleszczów, Kochanów, Młynka, Niegoszowice, Nielepice, Pisary, Radwanowice, Rudawa, Rząska, Szczyglice, Zabierzów, Kobylany – zachodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony wschodniej ulicą Jurajską oraz południowa część miejscowości ograniczona od strony północnej ulicą Akacjową; |
| --- | --- |

h)

w gminie Zabierzów miejscowości: Aleksandrowice, Balice, Brzezie, Brzezinka, Brzoskwinia, Burów, Kleszczów, Kochanów, Młynka, Niegoszowice, Nielepice, Pisary, Radwanowice, Rudawa, Rząska, Szczyglice, Zabierzów, Kobylany – zachodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony wschodniej ulicą Jurajską oraz południowa część miejscowości ograniczona od strony północnej ulicą Akacjową;

| i) | w gminie Zielonki miejscowości: Brzozówka, Garlica Duchowna, Garlica Murowana, Garliczka, Grębynice, Januszowice, Korzkiew, Owczary, Pękowice, Przybysławice, Trojanowice, Zielonki |
| --- | --- |

i)

w gminie Zielonki miejscowości: Brzozówka, Garlica Duchowna, Garlica Murowana, Garliczka, Grębynice, Januszowice, Korzkiew, Owczary, Pękowice, Przybysławice, Trojanowice, Zielonki

| 2) | w mieście Kraków: północno-zachodnia część miasta ograniczona od strony południowo-wschodniej ulicami: drogą wojewódzką 794 (ul. Zygmunta Glogera, ul. Matki Pauli Zofii Tajber, ul. Zielińską, ul. Henryka Pachońskiego, ul. Kazimierza Wyki), drogą krajową nr 7 (ul. Opolską, ul. Josepha Conrada), drogą krajową S7 (ul. Armii Krajowej) – do linii kolejowej nr 118 (Kraków Główny – Kraków Lotnisko), dalej wzdłuż tej linii kolejowej do ulicy Zielony Most, a następnie ulicami: Zielony Most, Na Błonie, Jesionową, Królowej Jadwigi, Junacką, Chełmską, Olszanicką |
| --- | --- |

2)

w mieście Kraków: północno-zachodnia część miasta ograniczona od strony południowo-wschodniej ulicami: drogą wojewódzką 794 (ul. Zygmunta Glogera, ul. Matki Pauli Zofii Tajber, ul. Zielińską, ul. Henryka Pachońskiego, ul. Kazimierza Wyki), drogą krajową nr 7 (ul. Opolską, ul. Josepha Conrada), drogą krajową S7 (ul. Armii Krajowej) – do linii kolejowej nr 118 (Kraków Główny – Kraków Lotnisko), dalej wzdłuż tej linii kolejowej do ulicy Zielony Most, a następnie ulicami: Zielony Most, Na Błonie, Jesionową, Królowej Jadwigi, Junacką, Chełmską, Olszanicką

25.3.2022

| 3) | w powiecie krakowskim ziemskim:






  a) | w gminie Wielka Wieś miejscowości: Wierzchowie, Bębło – południowa część miejscowości ograniczona od strony północnej ulicami: Na Dolinkę, Lasek, Południową i Turkusową, Będkowice – wschodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony zachodniej ulicami: Długą, Browar i Kawiory, Biały Kościół – południowo-zachodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony północno-wschodniej ulicą Krakowską, Wielka Wieś- zachodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony wschodniej ulicami: Krakowską, Słoneczną, Centralną i Polną; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3)

w powiecie krakowskim ziemskim:

a)

w gminie Wielka Wieś miejscowości: Wierzchowie, Bębło – południowa część miejscowości ograniczona od strony północnej ulicami: Na Dolinkę, Lasek, Południową i Turkusową, Będkowice – wschodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony zachodniej ulicami: Długą, Browar i Kawiory, Biały Kościół – południowo-zachodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony północno-wschodniej ulicą Krakowską, Wielka Wieś- zachodnia część miejscowości ograniczona od strony wschodniej ulicami: Krakowską, Słoneczną, Centralną i Polną;

| b) | w gminie Zabierzów miejscowości: Bolechowice, Karniowice, Ujazd, Więckowice, Zelków, Kobylany – centralna część miejscowości ograniczona od strony zachodniej ulicą Jurajską, a od strony południowej ulicą Akacjową |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Zabierzów miejscowości: Bolechowice, Karniowice, Ujazd, Więckowice, Zelków, Kobylany – centralna część miejscowości ograniczona od strony zachodniej ulicą Jurajską, a od strony południowej ulicą Akacjową

From 17.3.2022 until 25.3.2022

Województwo wielkopolskie

| 1) | w powiecie ostrowskim, w gminie Sieroszewice miejscowości: Strzyżew, Sieroszewice, Parczew; |
| --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie ostrowskim, w gminie Sieroszewice miejscowości: Strzyżew, Sieroszewice, Parczew;

| 2) | w powiecie ostrowskim, w gminie Przygodzice miejscowość: Bogufałów; |
| --- | --- |

2)

w powiecie ostrowskim, w gminie Przygodzice miejscowość: Bogufałów;

| 3) | w powiecie ostrzeszowskim, w gminie Mikstat miejscowości: Biskupice Zabaryczne, Kotłów |
| --- | --- |

3)

w powiecie ostrzeszowskim, w gminie Mikstat miejscowości: Biskupice Zabaryczne, Kotłów

24.3.2022

| 1) | w powiecie kaliskim, w gminie Godziesze Wielkie miejscowości: Stara Kakawa, Wola Droszewska, Zadowice; |
| --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie kaliskim, w gminie Godziesze Wielkie miejscowości: Stara Kakawa, Wola Droszewska, Zadowice;

| 2) | w powiecie ostrowskim, w gminie Ostrów Wlkp. miejscowości: Czekanów, Wtórek, Sadowie, Nowe Kamienice, Wysocko Wielkie, Smardowskie Olendry; |
| --- | --- |

2)

w powiecie ostrowskim, w gminie Ostrów Wlkp. miejscowości: Czekanów, Wtórek, Sadowie, Nowe Kamienice, Wysocko Wielkie, Smardowskie Olendry;

| 3) | w powiecie ostrowskim, w gminie Przygodzice miejscowości: Chynowa, Przygodziczki, Przygodzice, Antonin, Wysocko Małe, Smardów; |
| --- | --- |

3)

w powiecie ostrowskim, w gminie Przygodzice miejscowości: Chynowa, Przygodziczki, Przygodzice, Antonin, Wysocko Małe, Smardów;

| 4) | w powiecie ostrowskim, w gminie Nowe Skalmierzyce miejscowości: Leziona, Biskupice Ołoboczne; |
| --- | --- |

4)

w powiecie ostrowskim, w gminie Nowe Skalmierzyce miejscowości: Leziona, Biskupice Ołoboczne;

| 5) | w powiecie ostrowskim, w gminie Sieroszewice miejscowości: Latowice, Wielowieś, Namysłaki, Bilczew, Psary, Ołobok, Sławin, Masanów, Rososzyca; |
| --- | --- |

5)

w powiecie ostrowskim, w gminie Sieroszewice miejscowości: Latowice, Wielowieś, Namysłaki, Bilczew, Psary, Ołobok, Sławin, Masanów, Rososzyca;

| 6) | miasto Ostrów Wielkopolski - osiedle Pruślin; |
| --- | --- |

6)

miasto Ostrów Wielkopolski - osiedle Pruślin;

| 7) | w powiecie ostrzeszowskim, w gminie Mikstat miejscowości: Mikstat-Pustkowie, Kaliszkowice Ołobockie, Kaliszkowice Kaliskie, Przedborów, Mikstat, Komorów; |
| --- | --- |

7)

w powiecie ostrzeszowskim, w gminie Mikstat miejscowości: Mikstat-Pustkowie, Kaliszkowice Ołobockie, Kaliszkowice Kaliskie, Przedborów, Mikstat, Komorów;

| 8) | w powiecie ostrzeszowskim, w gminie Grabów nad Prosną miejscowość Chlewo. |
| --- | --- |

8)

w powiecie ostrzeszowskim, w gminie Grabów nad Prosną miejscowość Chlewo.

From 16.3.2022 until 24.3.2022

Województwo wielkopolskie

| 1) | w powiecie złotowskim:







  a) | w gminie Lipka miejscowości: Debrzno Wieś, Lipka, Smolnica, Trudna, Laskowo, Scholastykowo, Łąkie; obszar leśny w obrębie miejscowości Potulice |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie złotowskim:

a)

w gminie Lipka miejscowości: Debrzno Wieś, Lipka, Smolnica, Trudna, Laskowo, Scholastykowo, Łąkie; obszar leśny w obrębie miejscowości Potulice

14.3.2022

| 2) | w powiecie kaliskim:







  a) | w gminie Lisków miejscowości: Swoboda, Budy Liskowskie, Ciepielew, Trzebienie |
| --- | --- | --- |

2)

w powiecie kaliskim:

a)

w gminie Lisków miejscowości: Swoboda, Budy Liskowskie, Ciepielew, Trzebienie

| b) | w gminie Koźminek miejscowości: Chodybki, Dębsko, Złotniki, Stary Karolew, Gać Kaliska, Moskurnia, Nowy Karolew, Ksawerów, Marianów, Smółki, Oszczeklin, Dąbrowa, Pietrzyków |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Koźminek miejscowości: Chodybki, Dębsko, Złotniki, Stary Karolew, Gać Kaliska, Moskurnia, Nowy Karolew, Ksawerów, Marianów, Smółki, Oszczeklin, Dąbrowa, Pietrzyków

| c) | w gminie Szczytniki miejscowości: Radliczyce, Gorzuchy, Tymieniec, Mroczki Wielkie, Kościany, Lipka, Staw, Cieszyków, Trzęsów, Marchwacz-Kolonia |
| --- | --- |

c)

w gminie Szczytniki miejscowości: Radliczyce, Gorzuchy, Tymieniec, Mroczki Wielkie, Kościany, Lipka, Staw, Cieszyków, Trzęsów, Marchwacz-Kolonia

16.3.2022

| 1) | w powiecie kaliskim:







  a) | w gminie Ceków-Kolonia, miejscowości: Beznatka, Ceków, Ceków-Kolonia, Gostynie, Kamień, Kosmów, Kosmów-Kolonia, Kuźnica, Morawin, Nowa Plewnia, Nowe Prażuchy, Plewnia, Podzborów, Przedzeń, Przespolew Kościelny, Przespolew Pański, Stare Prażuchy, Szadek; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie kaliskim:

a)

w gminie Ceków-Kolonia, miejscowości: Beznatka, Ceków, Ceków-Kolonia, Gostynie, Kamień, Kosmów, Kosmów-Kolonia, Kuźnica, Morawin, Nowa Plewnia, Nowe Prażuchy, Plewnia, Podzborów, Przedzeń, Przespolew Kościelny, Przespolew Pański, Stare Prażuchy, Szadek;

| b) | w gminie Koźminek miejscowości: Bogdanów, Chodybki, Gać Kaliska, Józefina,Koźminek, Ksawerów, Marianów, Moskurnia, Nowy Karolew, Nowy Nakwasin, Osuchów, Oszczeklin, Pietrzyków, Smółki, Stary Karolew, Stary Nakwasin, Złotniki, Rogal, Dąbrowa; |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Koźminek miejscowości: Bogdanów, Chodybki, Gać Kaliska, Józefina,Koźminek, Ksawerów, Marianów, Moskurnia, Nowy Karolew, Nowy Nakwasin, Osuchów, Oszczeklin, Pietrzyków, Smółki, Stary Karolew, Stary Nakwasin, Złotniki, Rogal, Dąbrowa;

| c) | w gminie Lisków miejscowości: Annopol, Budy Liskowskie, Chrusty, Ciepielew, Józefów, Lisków, Madalin, Małgów, Małgów-Kolonia, Nadzież, Pyczek, Strzałków, Swoboda, Trzebienie, Dębniałki; |
| --- | --- |

c)

w gminie Lisków miejscowości: Annopol, Budy Liskowskie, Chrusty, Ciepielew, Józefów, Lisków, Madalin, Małgów, Małgów-Kolonia, Nadzież, Pyczek, Strzałków, Swoboda, Trzebienie, Dębniałki;

| d) | w gminie Opatówek, miejscowości: Borów, Dębe-Kolonia, Rajsko, Sierzchów, Warszew, Modła, Janików, Zmyślanka; |
| --- | --- |

d)

w gminie Opatówek, miejscowości: Borów, Dębe-Kolonia, Rajsko, Sierzchów, Warszew, Modła, Janików, Zmyślanka;

| e) | w gminie Szczytniki miejscowości: Marchwacz-Kolonia, Trzęsów; |
| --- | --- |

e)

w gminie Szczytniki miejscowości: Marchwacz-Kolonia, Trzęsów;

| f) | w powiecie kaliskim, w gminie Mycielin, miejscowości: Aleksandrów, Kuszyn, Jaszczury, Kukułka; |
| --- | --- |

f)

w powiecie kaliskim, w gminie Mycielin, miejscowości: Aleksandrów, Kuszyn, Jaszczury, Kukułka;

| g) | w powiecie kaliskim, w gminie Żelazków miejscowości: Dębe, Florentyna, Goliszew, Janków, Zborów, Biernatki, Góry Zborowskie; |
| --- | --- |

g)

w powiecie kaliskim, w gminie Żelazków miejscowości: Dębe, Florentyna, Goliszew, Janków, Zborów, Biernatki, Góry Zborowskie;

| h) | w powiecie tureckim, w gminie Kawęczyn miejscowości: Skarżyn, Stanisława, Będziechów; |
| --- | --- |

h)

w powiecie tureckim, w gminie Kawęczyn miejscowości: Skarżyn, Stanisława, Będziechów;

| i) | w powiecie tureckim, w gminie Malanów miejscowość: Skarżyn-Kolonia, Celestyny, Poroże. |
| --- | --- |

i)

w powiecie tureckim, w gminie Malanów miejscowość: Skarżyn-Kolonia, Celestyny, Poroże.

19.3.2022

| 1) | w powiecie kaliskim:







  a) | w gminie Koźminek miejscowości: Dębsko, Emilianów, Krzyżówki, Młynisko, Tymianek; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie kaliskim:

a)

w gminie Koźminek miejscowości: Dębsko, Emilianów, Krzyżówki, Młynisko, Tymianek;

| b) | w gminie Lisków miejscowości: Koźlątków, Lisków-Rzgów, Wygoda, Zakrzyn, Zakrzyn-Kolonia, Żychów. |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Lisków miejscowości: Koźlątków, Lisków-Rzgów, Wygoda, Zakrzyn, Zakrzyn-Kolonia, Żychów.

From 11.3.2022 until 19.3.2022

Województwo wielkopolskie:

| 1) | w powiecie poznańskim:







  a) | w gminie Komorniki miejscowości: Jarosławiec, Rosnówko, Walerianowo; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie poznańskim:

a)

w gminie Komorniki miejscowości: Jarosławiec, Rosnówko, Walerianowo;

| b) | w gminie Stęszew miejscowości: Górka, Trzebaw, Łódź, Dębienko, Dębno, Krąplewo, Stęszew, Witobel, Zamysłowo, Antoninek, Strykówko, Strykowo, Dębina, Twardowo, Srocko Małe, Zaparcin, Wronczyn, Modrze; |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Stęszew miejscowości: Górka, Trzebaw, Łódź, Dębienko, Dębno, Krąplewo, Stęszew, Witobel, Zamysłowo, Antoninek, Strykówko, Strykowo, Dębina, Twardowo, Srocko Małe, Zaparcin, Wronczyn, Modrze;

| c) | w gminie Mosina miejscowości: Pożegowo, Mosina, Krosinko, Krosno, Sowiniec, Sowinki, Baranówko, Drużyna, Nowinki, Żabinko; |
| --- | --- |

c)

w gminie Mosina miejscowości: Pożegowo, Mosina, Krosinko, Krosno, Sowiniec, Sowinki, Baranówko, Drużyna, Nowinki, Żabinko;

| d) | miasto Puszczykowo; |
| --- | --- |

d)

miasto Puszczykowo;

| 2) | w powiecie kościańskim:







  a) | w gminie Czempiń miejscowości: Maruszkowo, Piotrowo Pierwsze, Piotrowo Drugie, Zadory, Roszkowo, Głuchowo, Jarogniewice, Piechanin, Stare Tarnowo, Nowe Tarnowo, Piotrkowice, Jasień, Czempiń, Nowe Borówko, Borowo, Helenopol, Słonin, Betkowo; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2)

w powiecie kościańskim:

a)

w gminie Czempiń miejscowości: Maruszkowo, Piotrowo Pierwsze, Piotrowo Drugie, Zadory, Roszkowo, Głuchowo, Jarogniewice, Piechanin, Stare Tarnowo, Nowe Tarnowo, Piotrkowice, Jasień, Czempiń, Nowe Borówko, Borowo, Helenopol, Słonin, Betkowo;

| b) | w gminie Kościan miejscowości: Mikoszki, Kawczyn, Stare Oborzyska; |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Kościan miejscowości: Mikoszki, Kawczyn, Stare Oborzyska;

| 3) | w powiecie śremskim w gminie Brodnica, miejscowości: Iłówiec, Grzybno, Sucharzewo, Żabno, Iłówiec Wielki, Rogaczewo, Szołdry, Chaławy, Piotrowo, Kopyta, Brodnica, Sulejewo |
| --- | --- |

3)

w powiecie śremskim w gminie Brodnica, miejscowości: Iłówiec, Grzybno, Sucharzewo, Żabno, Iłówiec Wielki, Rogaczewo, Szołdry, Chaławy, Piotrowo, Kopyta, Brodnica, Sulejewo

4.3.2022

| 1) | w powiecie poznańskim:







  a) | w gminie Mosina miejscowości: Dymaczewo Nowe, Dymaczewo Stare, Kierzki, Bolesławiec, Borkowice, Pecna; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1)

w powiecie poznańskim:

a)

w gminie Mosina miejscowości: Dymaczewo Nowe, Dymaczewo Stare, Kierzki, Bolesławiec, Borkowice, Pecna;

| b) | w gminie Stęszew miejscowość: Będlewo; |
| --- | --- |

b)

w gminie Stęszew miejscowość: Będlewo;

| 2) | w powiecie kościańskim w gminie Czempiń miejscowości: Sierniki, Bieczyny, Srocko Wielkie. |
| --- | --- |

2)

w powiecie kościańskim w gminie Czempiń miejscowości: Sierniki, Bieczyny, Srocko Wielkie.

From 24.2.2022 until 4.3.2022

Member State: Portugal

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| The parts of Torres Vedras and Lourinhã municipalities, that are beyond the areas described in the protection zone, and are contained within circle of 10 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.140842N, 9.296611W | 4.4.2022 |
| The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.140842N, 9.296611W | From 26.3.2022 until 3.4.2022 |
| The parts of Torres Vedras and Lourinhã municipalities, that are beyond the areas described in the protection zone, and are contained within circle of 10 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.140375N, 9.305293W | 4.4.2022 |
| The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.140375N, 9.305293W | From 26.3.2022 until 3.4.2022 |
| The parts of Torres Vedras and Lourinhã municipalities, that are beyond the areas described in the protection zone, and are contained within circle of 10 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.138111N, 9.306278W | 4.4.2022 |
| The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.138111N, 9.306278W | From 26.3.2022 until 3.4.2022 |
| The parts of Torres Vedras and Lourinhã municipalities, that are beyond the areas described in the protection zone, and are contained within circle of 10 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.128166N, 9.286183W | 4.4.2022 |
| The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.128166N, 9.286183W | From 26.3.2022 until 3.4.2022 |
| The part of Mértola municipality, that are beyond the areas described in the protection zone, and are contained within circle of 10 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 37.610000N, 7.620000W | 22.3.2022 |
| The part of Mértola municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 37.610000N, 7.620000W | From 14.3.2022 until 22.3.2022 |
| The parts of Torres Vedras and Lourinhã municipalities, that are beyond the areas described in the protection zone, and are contained within circle of 10 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.131874N, 9.285700W | 4.4.2022 |
| The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.131874N, 9.285700W | From 26.3.2022 until 3.4.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

The parts of Torres Vedras and Lourinhã municipalities, that are beyond the areas described in the protection zone, and are contained within circle of 10 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.140842N, 9.296611W

4.4.2022

The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.140842N, 9.296611W

From 26.3.2022 until 3.4.2022

The parts of Torres Vedras and Lourinhã municipalities, that are beyond the areas described in the protection zone, and are contained within circle of 10 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.140375N, 9.305293W

4.4.2022

The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.140375N, 9.305293W

From 26.3.2022 until 3.4.2022

The parts of Torres Vedras and Lourinhã municipalities, that are beyond the areas described in the protection zone, and are contained within circle of 10 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.138111N, 9.306278W

4.4.2022

The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.138111N, 9.306278W

From 26.3.2022 until 3.4.2022

The parts of Torres Vedras and Lourinhã municipalities, that are beyond the areas described in the protection zone, and are contained within circle of 10 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.128166N, 9.286183W

4.4.2022

The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.128166N, 9.286183W

From 26.3.2022 until 3.4.2022

The part of Mértola municipality, that are beyond the areas described in the protection zone, and are contained within circle of 10 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 37.610000N, 7.620000W

22.3.2022

The part of Mértola municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 37.610000N, 7.620000W

From 14.3.2022 until 22.3.2022

The parts of Torres Vedras and Lourinhã municipalities, that are beyond the areas described in the protection zone, and are contained within circle of 10 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.131874N, 9.285700W

4.4.2022

The part of Torres Vedras municipality, that are contained within circle of 3 kilometers radius, centered on GPS coordinates 39.131874N, 9.285700W

From 26.3.2022 until 3.4.2022

Member State: Romania

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| County: Ialomița |
| Following localities:
  Ograda, comuna Ograda
  Gura Văii, comuna Sudiți
  Sudiți, comuna Sudiți
  Săveni, comuna Săveni
  Lăcusteni, comuna Platonești
  Platonești, comuna Platonești
  Frățilești, comuna Săveni
  Hagieni, comuna Mihail Kogălniceanu
  Mihail Kogălniceanu, comuna Mihail Kogălniceanu
  Murgeanca, comuna Valea Ciorii | 13.3.2022 |
| Following localities:
  Țăndărei | From 5.3.2022 until 13.3.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

County: Ialomița

Following localities:

Ograda, comuna Ograda

Gura Văii, comuna Sudiți

Sudiți, comuna Sudiți

Săveni, comuna Săveni

Lăcusteni, comuna Platonești

Platonești, comuna Platonești

Frățilești, comuna Săveni

Hagieni, comuna Mihail Kogălniceanu

Mihail Kogălniceanu, comuna Mihail Kogălniceanu

Murgeanca, comuna Valea Ciorii

13.3.2022

Following localities:

Țăndărei

From 5.3.2022 until 13.3.2022

United Kingdom (Northern Ireland)

| Area comprising: | Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687 |
| --- | --- |
| The area of the parts of County Fermanagh extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centred on GPS coordinates N 54.3301 and E -7.6926 | 10.3.2022 |
| Those parts of County Fermanagh contained within a circle of a radius of three kilometres, centred on GPS coordinates N 54.3301 and E -7.6926 | From 2.3.2022 until 10.3.2022 |

Area comprising:

Date until applicable in accordance with Article 55 of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2020/687

The area of the parts of County Fermanagh extending beyond the area described in the protection zone and within the circle of a radius of 10 kilometres, centred on GPS coordinates N 54.3301 and E -7.6926

10.3.2022

Those parts of County Fermanagh contained within a circle of a radius of three kilometres, centred on GPS coordinates N 54.3301 and E -7.6926

From 2.3.2022 until 10.3.2022

Part C

Further restricted zones in the concerned Member States* as referred to in Articles 1 and 3a:

Member State: Italy

| Area comprising: | Date until measures are to remain applicable in accordance with Article 3a |
| --- | --- |
| Region: Lombardia |
| — | Municipality of Acquafredda (BS) |

Area comprising:

Date until measures are to remain applicable in accordance with Article 3a

Region: Lombardia

—

Municipality of Acquafredda (BS)

| — | Municipality of Adro (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Adro (BS)

| — | Municipality of Alfianello (BS) East of A21 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Alfianello (BS) East of A21

| — | Municipality of Alfianello (BS) West of A21 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Alfianello (BS) West of A21

| — | Municipality of Azzano Mella (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Azzano Mella (BS)

| — | Municipality of Bagnolo Mella (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bagnolo Mella (BS)

| — | Municipality of Barbariga (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Barbariga (BS)

| — | Municipality of Bassano Bresciano (BS) East of A21 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bassano Bresciano (BS) East of A21

| — | Municipality of Bassano Bresciano (BS) West of A21 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bassano Bresciano (BS) West of A21

| — | Municipality of Bedizzole (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bedizzole (BS)

| — | Municipality of Borgosatollo (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Borgosatollo (BS)

| — | Municipality of Brescia (BS) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Brescia (BS) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Calcinato (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Calcinato (BS)

| — | Municipality of Calvagese della Riviera (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Calvagese della Riviera (BS)

| — | Municipality of Calvisano (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Calvisano (BS)

| — | Municipality of Capriano del Colle (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Capriano del Colle (BS)

| — | Municipality of Carpenedolo (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Carpenedolo (BS)

| — | Municipality of Castegnato (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castegnato (BS)

| — | Municipality of Castel Mella (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castel Mella (BS)

| — | Municipality of Castenedolo (BS) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castenedolo (BS) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Cazzago San Martino (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cazzago San Martino (BS)

| — | Municipality of Cigole (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cigole (BS)

| — | Municipality of Corzano (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Corzano (BS)

| — | Municipality of Dello (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Dello (BS)

| — | Municipality of Desenzano del Garda (BS) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Desenzano del Garda (BS) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Desenzano del Garda (BS) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Desenzano del Garda (BS) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Erbusco (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Erbusco (BS)

| — | Municipality of Fiesse (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Fiesse (BS)

| — | Municipality of Flero (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Flero (BS)

| — | Municipality of Gambara (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gambara (BS)

| — | Municipality of Gavardo (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gavardo (BS)

| — | Municipality of Ghedi (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ghedi (BS)

| — | Municipality of Gottolengo (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gottolengo (BS)

| — | Municipality of Isorella (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Isorella (BS)

| — | Municipality of Leno (BS) East of A21 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Leno (BS) East of A21

| — | Municipality of Leno (BS) West of A21 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Leno (BS) West of A21

| — | Municipality of Lograto (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Lograto (BS)

| — | Municipality of Lonato del Garda (BS) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Lonato del Garda (BS) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Lonato del Garda (BS) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Lonato del Garda (BS) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Longhena (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Longhena (BS)

| — | Municipality of Mairano (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Mairano (BS)

| — | Municipality of Manerba del Garda (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Manerba del Garda (BS)

| — | Municipality of Manerbio (BS) East of A21 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Manerbio (BS) East of A21

| — | Municipality of Manerbio (BS) West of A21 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Manerbio (BS) West of A21

| — | Municipality of Mazzano (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Mazzano (BS)

| — | Municipality of Milzano (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Milzano (BS)

| — | Municipality of Moniga del Garda (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Moniga del Garda (BS)

| — | Municipality of Montichiari (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Montichiari (BS)

| — | Municipality of Montirone (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Montirone (BS)

| — | Municipality of Muscoline (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Muscoline (BS)

| — | Municipality of Nuvolento (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Nuvolento (BS)

| — | Municipality of Nuvolera (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Nuvolera (BS)

| — | Municipality of Offlaga (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Offlaga (BS)

| — | Municipality of Orzinuovi (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Orzinuovi (BS)

| — | Municipality of Ospitaletto (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ospitaletto (BS)

| — | Municipality of Padenghe sul Garda (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Padenghe sul Garda (BS)

| — | Municipality of Paitone (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Paitone (BS)

| — | Municipality of Passirano (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Passirano (BS)

| — | Municipality of Pavone del Mella (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pavone del Mella (BS)

| — | Municipality of Polpenazze del Garda (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Polpenazze del Garda (BS)

| — | Municipality of Pompiano (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pompiano (BS)

| — | Municipality of Poncarale (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Poncarale (BS)

| — | Municipality of Pontevico (BS) East of A21 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pontevico (BS) East of A21

| — | Municipality of Pontevico (BS) West of A21 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pontevico (BS) West of A21

| — | Municipality of Pozzolengo (BS) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pozzolengo (BS) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Pozzolengo (BS) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pozzolengo (BS) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Pralboino (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pralboino (BS)

| — | Municipality of Prevalle (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Prevalle (BS)

| — | Municipality of Remedello (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Remedello (BS)

| — | Municipality of Rezzato (BS) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Rezzato (BS) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Roncadelle (BS) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Roncadelle (BS) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Rovato (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Rovato (BS)

| — | Municipality of San Gervasio Bresciano (BS) East of A21 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Gervasio Bresciano (BS) East of A21

| — | Municipality of San Gervasio Bresciano (BS) West of A21 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Gervasio Bresciano (BS) West of A21

| — | Municipality of San Paolo (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Paolo (BS)

| — | Municipality of San Zeno Naviglio (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Zeno Naviglio (BS)

| — | Municipality of Seniga (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Seniga (BS)

| — | Municipality of Sirmione (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sirmione (BS)

| — | Municipality of Soiano del Lago (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Soiano del Lago (BS)

| — | Municipality of Torbole Casaglia (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Torbole Casaglia (BS)

| — | Municipality of Travagliato (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Travagliato (BS)

| — | Municipality of Verolanuova (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Verolanuova (BS)

| — | Municipality of Verolavecchia (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Verolavecchia (BS)

| — | Municipality of Visano (BS) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Visano (BS)

| — | Municipality of Calvatone (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Calvatone (CR)

| — | Municipality of Cappella de' Picenardi (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cappella de' Picenardi (CR)

| — | Municipality of Cicognolo (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cicognolo (CR)

| — | Municipality of Corte de' Cortesi con Cignone (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Corte de' Cortesi con Cignone (CR)

| — | Municipality of Corte de' Frati (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Corte de' Frati (CR)

| — | Municipality of Gabbioneta-Binanuova (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gabbioneta-Binanuova (CR)

| — | Municipality of Gadesco-Pieve Delmona (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gadesco-Pieve Delmona (CR)

| — | Municipality of Grontardo (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Grontardo (CR)

| — | Municipality of Isola Dovarese (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Isola Dovarese (CR)

| — | Municipality of Malagnino (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Malagnino (CR)

| — | Municipality of Olmeneta (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Olmeneta (CR)

| — | Municipality of Ostiano (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ostiano (CR)

| — | Municipality of Persico Dosimo (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Persico Dosimo (CR)

| — | Municipality of Pescarolo ed Uniti (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pescarolo ed Uniti (CR)

| — | Municipality of Pessina Cremonese (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pessina Cremonese (CR)

| — | Municipality of Piadena Drizzona (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Piadena Drizzona (CR)

| — | Municipality of Pozzaglio ed Uniti (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pozzaglio ed Uniti (CR)

| — | Municipality of Robecco d'Oglio (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Robecco d'Oglio (CR)

| — | Municipality of Scandolara Ripa d'Oglio (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Scandolara Ripa d'Oglio (CR)

| — | Municipality of Torre de' Picenardi (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Torre de' Picenardi (CR)

| — | Municipality of Vescovato (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Vescovato (CR)

| — | Municipality of Volongo (CR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Volongo (CR)

| — | Municipality of Acquanegra sul Chiese (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Acquanegra sul Chiese (MN)

| — | Municipality of Asola (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Asola (MN)

| — | Municipality of Bagnolo San Vito (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bagnolo San Vito (MN)

| — | Municipality of Borgo Mantovano (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Borgo Mantovano (MN)

| — | Municipality of Borgo Virgilio (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Borgo Virgilio (MN)

| — | Municipality of Borgocarbonara (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Borgocarbonara (MN)

| — | Municipality of Bozzolo (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bozzolo (MN)

| — | Municipality of Canneto sull'Oglio (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Canneto sull'Oglio (MN)

| — | Municipality of Casalmoro (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Casalmoro (MN)

| — | Municipality of Casaloldo (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Casaloldo (MN)

| — | Municipality of Casalromano (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Casalromano (MN)

| — | Municipality of Castel d'Ario (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castel d'Ario (MN)

| — | Municipality of Castel Goffredo (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castel Goffredo (MN)

| — | Municipality of Castelbelforte (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castelbelforte (MN)

| — | Municipality of Castellucchio (MN) North of SP64 ex SS10 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castellucchio (MN) North of SP64 ex SS10

| — | Municipality of Castellucchio (MN) South of SP64 ex SS10 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castellucchio (MN) South of SP64 ex SS10

| — | Municipality of Castiglione delle Stiviere (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castiglione delle Stiviere (MN)

| — | Municipality of Cavriana (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cavriana (MN)

| — | Municipality of Ceresara (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ceresara (MN)

| — | Municipality of Commessaggio (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Commessaggio (MN)

| — | Municipality of Curtatone (MN) North of SP64 ex SS10 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Curtatone (MN) North of SP64 ex SS10

| — | Municipality of Curtatone (MN) South of SP64 ex SS10 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Curtatone (MN) South of SP64 ex SS10

| — | Municipality of Dosolo (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Dosolo (MN)

| — | Municipality of Gazoldo degli Ippoliti (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gazoldo degli Ippoliti (MN)

| — | Municipality of Gazzuolo (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gazzuolo (MN)

| — | Municipality of Goito (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Goito (MN)

| — | Municipality of Gonzaga (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gonzaga (MN)

| — | Municipality of Guidizzolo (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Guidizzolo (MN)

| — | Municipality of Magnacavallo (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Magnacavallo (MN)

| — | Municipality of Mantova (MN) North of SP64 ex SS10 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Mantova (MN) North of SP64 ex SS10

| — | Municipality of Mantova (MN) South of SP64 ex SS10 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Mantova (MN) South of SP64 ex SS10

| — | Municipality of Marcaria (MN) North of SP64 ex SS10 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Marcaria (MN) North of SP64 ex SS10

| — | Municipality of Marcaria (MN) South of SP64 ex SS10 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Marcaria (MN) South of SP64 ex SS10

| — | Municipality of Mariana Mantovana (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Mariana Mantovana (MN)

| — | Municipality of Marmirolo (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Marmirolo (MN)

| — | Municipality of Medole (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Medole (MN)

| — | Municipality of Moglia (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Moglia (MN)

| — | Municipality of Monzambano (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Monzambano (MN)

| — | Municipality of Motteggiana (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Motteggiana (MN)

| — | Municipality of Ostiglia (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ostiglia (MN)

| — | Municipality of Pegognaga (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pegognaga (MN)

| — | Municipality of Piubega (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Piubega (MN)

| — | Municipality of Poggio Rusco (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Poggio Rusco (MN)

| — | Municipality of Pomponesco (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pomponesco (MN)

| — | Municipality of Ponti sul Mincio (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ponti sul Mincio (MN)

| — | Municipality of Porto Mantovano (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Porto Mantovano (MN)

| — | Municipality of Quingentole (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Quingentole (MN)

| — | Municipality of Quistello (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Quistello (MN)

| — | Municipality of Redondesco (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Redondesco (MN)

| — | Municipality of Rodigo (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Rodigo (MN)

| — | Municipality of Roncoferraro (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Roncoferraro (MN)

| — | Municipality of Roverbella (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Roverbella (MN)

| — | Municipality of San Benedetto Po (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Benedetto Po (MN)

| — | Municipality of San Giacomo delle Segnate (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Giacomo delle Segnate (MN)

| — | Municipality of San Giorgio Bigarello (MN) North of SP64 ex SS10 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Giorgio Bigarello (MN) North of SP64 ex SS10

| — | Municipality of San Giorgio Bigarello (MN) South of SP64 ex SS10 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Giorgio Bigarello (MN) South of SP64 ex SS10

| — | Municipality of San Giovanni del Dosso (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Giovanni del Dosso (MN)

| — | Municipality of San Martino dall'Argine (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Martino dall'Argine (MN)

| — | Municipality of Schivenoglia (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Schivenoglia (MN)

| — | Municipality of Sermide e Felonica (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sermide e Felonica (MN)

| — | Municipality of Serravalle a Po (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Serravalle a Po (MN)

| — | Municipality of Solferino (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Solferino (MN)

| — | Municipality of Sustinente (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sustinente (MN)

| — | Municipality of Suzzara (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Suzzara (MN)

| — | Municipality of Viadana (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Viadana (MN)

| — | Municipality of Villimpenta (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Villimpenta (MN)

| — | Municipality of Volta Mantovana (MN) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Volta Mantovana (MN)

31.3.2022

Region: Veneto

| — | Municipality of Abano Terme (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Abano Terme (PD)

| — | Municipality of Albignasego (PD) North of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Albignasego (PD) North of A13

| — | Municipality of Arquá Petrarca (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Arquá Petrarca (PD)

| — | Municipality of Baone (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Baone (PD)

| — | Municipality of Barbona (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Barbona (PD)

| — | Municipality of Battaglia Terme (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Battaglia Terme (PD)

| — | Municipality of Boara Pisani (PD) West of SS16 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Boara Pisani (PD) West of SS16

| — | Municipality of Borgo Veneto (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Borgo Veneto (PD)

| — | Municipality of Campodoro (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Campodoro (PD)

| — | Municipality of Carceri (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Carceri (PD)

| — | Municipality of Casale di Scodosia (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Casale di Scodosia (PD)

| — | Municipality of Castelbaldo (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castelbaldo (PD)

| — | Municipality of Cervarese Santa Croce (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cervarese Santa Croce (PD)

| — | Municipality of Cinto Euganeo (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cinto Euganeo (PD)

| — | Municipality of Due Carrare (PD) West of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Due Carrare (PD) West of A13

| — | Municipality of Este (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Este (PD)

| — | Municipality of Galzignano Terme (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Galzignano Terme (PD)

| — | Municipality of Gazzo (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gazzo (PD)

| — | Municipality of Granze (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Granze (PD)

| — | Municipality of Lozzo Atestino (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Lozzo Atestino (PD)

| — | Municipality of Maserá di Padova (PD) West of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Maserá di Padova (PD) West of A13

| — | Municipality of Masi (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Masi (PD)

| — | Municipality of Megliadino San Vitale (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Megliadino San Vitale (PD)

| — | Municipality of Merlara (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Merlara (PD)

| — | Municipality of Mestrino (PD) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Mestrino (PD) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Mestrino (PD) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Mestrino (PD) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Monselice (PD) West of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Monselice (PD) West of A13

| — | Municipality of Monselice (PD) East of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Monselice (PD) East of A13

| — | Municipality of Montagnana (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Montagnana (PD)

| — | Municipality of Montegrotto Terme (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Montegrotto Terme (PD)

| — | Municipality of Noventa Padovana (PD) South of A4, West of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Noventa Padovana (PD) South of A4, West of A13

| — | Municipality of Ospedaletto Euganeo (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ospedaletto Euganeo (PD)

| — | Municipality of Padova (PD) South of A4, North of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Padova (PD) South of A4, North of A13

| — | Municipality of Pernumia (PD) West of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pernumia (PD) West of A13

| — | Municipality of Piacenza d'Adige (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Piacenza d'Adige (PD)

| — | Municipality of Piazzola sul Brenta (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Piazzola sul Brenta (PD)

| — | Municipality of Ponso (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ponso (PD)

| — | Municipality of Ponte San Nicolò (PD) North of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ponte San Nicolò (PD) North of A13

| — | Municipality of Pozzonovo (PD) West of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pozzonovo (PD) West of A13

| — | Municipality of Pozzonovo (PD) East of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pozzonovo (PD) East of A13

| — | Municipality of Rovolon (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Rovolon (PD)

| — | Municipality of Rubano (PD) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Rubano (PD) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Rubano (PD) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Rubano (PD) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Saccolongo (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Saccolongo (PD)

| — | Municipality of Sant'Elena (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sant'Elena (PD)

| — | Municipality of Sant'Urbano (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sant'Urbano (PD)

| — | Municipality of Selvazzano Dentro (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Selvazzano Dentro (PD)

| — | Municipality of Solesino (PD) West of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Solesino (PD) West of A13

| — | Municipality of Solesino (PD) East of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Solesino (PD) East of A13

| — | Municipality of Stanghella (PD) West of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Stanghella (PD) West of A13

| — | Municipality of Stanghella (PD) East of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Stanghella (PD) East of A13

| — | Municipality of Teolo (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Teolo (PD)

| — | Municipality of Torreglia (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Torreglia (PD)

| — | Municipality of Urbana (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Urbana (PD)

| — | Municipality of Veggiano (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Veggiano (PD)

| — | Municipality of Vescovana (PD) West of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Vescovana (PD) West of A13

| — | Municipality of Vescovana (PD) East of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Vescovana (PD) East of A13

| — | Municipality of Vighizzolo d'Este (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Vighizzolo d'Este (PD)

| — | Municipality of Vigonza (PD) South of A4, West of A13 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Vigonza (PD) South of A4, West of A13

| — | Municipality of Villa Estense (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Villa Estense (PD)

| — | Municipality of Villafranca Padovana (PD) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Villafranca Padovana (PD) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Villafranca Padovana (PD) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Villafranca Padovana (PD) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Vo' (PD) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Vo' (PD)

| — | Municipality of Arquá Polesine (RO) West of SS16 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Arquá Polesine (RO) West of SS16

| — | Municipality of Badia Polesine (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Badia Polesine (RO)

| — | Municipality of Bagnolo di Po (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bagnolo di Po (RO)

| — | Municipality of Bergantino (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bergantino (RO)

| — | Municipality of Bosaro (RO) West of SS16 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bosaro (RO) West of SS16

| — | Municipality of Calto (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Calto (RO)

| — | Municipality of Canaro (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Canaro (RO)

| — | Municipality of Canda (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Canda (RO)

| — | Municipality of Castelguglielmo (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castelguglielmo (RO)

| — | Municipality of Castelmassa (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castelmassa (RO)

| — | Municipality of Castelnovo Bariano (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castelnovo Bariano (RO)

| — | Municipality of Ceneselli (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ceneselli (RO)

| — | Municipality of Costa di Rovigo (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Costa di Rovigo (RO)

| — | Municipality of Ficarolo (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ficarolo (RO)

| — | Municipality of Fiesso Umbertiano (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Fiesso Umbertiano (RO)

| — | Municipality of Frassinelle Polesine (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Frassinelle Polesine (RO)

| — | Municipality of Fratta Polesine (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Fratta Polesine (RO)

| — | Municipality of Gaiba (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gaiba (RO)

| — | Municipality of Giacciano con Baruchella (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Giacciano con Baruchella (RO)

| — | Municipality of Lendinara (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Lendinara (RO)

| — | Municipality of Lusia (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Lusia (RO)

| — | Municipality of Melara (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Melara (RO)

| — | Municipality of Occhiobello (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Occhiobello (RO)

| — | Municipality of Pincara (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pincara (RO)

| — | Municipality of Polesella (RO) West of SS16 until crossroad with SP14, West of SP14 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Polesella (RO) West of SS16 until crossroad with SP14, West of SP14

| — | Municipality of Rovigo (RO) West of SS16 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Rovigo (RO) West of SS16

| — | Municipality of Salara (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Salara (RO)

| — | Municipality of San Bellino (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Bellino (RO)

| — | Municipality of Stienta (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Stienta (RO)

| — | Municipality of Trecenta (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Trecenta (RO)

| — | Municipality of Villamarzana (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Villamarzana (RO)

| — | Municipality of Villanova del Ghebbo (RO) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Villanova del Ghebbo (RO)

| — | Municipality of Affi (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Affi (VR)

| — | Municipality of Albaredo d'Adige (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Albaredo d'Adige (VR)

| — | Municipality of Angiari (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Angiari (VR)

| — | Municipality of Arcole (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Arcole (VR)

| — | Municipality of Badia Calavena (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Badia Calavena (VR)

| — | Municipality of Bardolino (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bardolino (VR)

| — | Municipality of Belfiore (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Belfiore (VR)

| — | Municipality of Bevilacqua (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bevilacqua (VR)

| — | Municipality of Bonavigo (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bonavigo (VR)

| — | Municipality of Boschi Sant'Anna (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Boschi Sant'Anna (VR)

| — | Municipality of Bosco Chiesanuova (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bosco Chiesanuova (VR)

| — | Municipality of Bovolone (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bovolone (VR)

| — | Municipality of Brentino Belluno (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Brentino Belluno (VR)

| — | Municipality of Brenzone sul Garda (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Brenzone sul Garda (VR)

| — | Municipality of Bussolengo (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Bussolengo (VR)

| — | Municipality of Buttapietra (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Buttapietra (VR)

| — | Municipality of Caldiero (VR) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Caldiero (VR) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Caldiero (VR) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Caldiero (VR) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Caprino Veronese (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Caprino Veronese (VR)

| — | Municipality of Casaleone (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Casaleone (VR)

| — | Municipality of Castagnaro (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castagnaro (VR)

| — | Municipality of Castel d'Azzano (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castel d'Azzano (VR)

| — | Municipality of Castelnuovo del Garda (VR) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castelnuovo del Garda (VR) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Castelnuovo del Garda (VR) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castelnuovo del Garda (VR) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Cavaion Veronese (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cavaion Veronese (VR)

| — | Municipality of Cazzano di Tramigna (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cazzano di Tramigna (VR)

| — | Municipality of Cerea (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cerea (VR)

| — | Municipality of Cerro Veronese (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cerro Veronese (VR)

| — | Municipality of Cologna Veneta (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Cologna Veneta (VR)

| — | Municipality of Colognola ai Colli (VR) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Colognola ai Colli (VR) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Colognola ai Colli (VR) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Colognola ai Colli (VR) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Concamarise (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Concamarise (VR)

| — | Municipality of Costermano sul Garda (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Costermano sul Garda (VR)

| — | Municipality of Dolcè (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Dolcè (VR)

| — | Municipality of Erbè (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Erbè (VR)

| — | Municipality of Erbezzo (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Erbezzo (VR)

| — | Municipality of Ferrara di Monte Baldo (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ferrara di Monte Baldo (VR)

| — | Municipality of Fumane (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Fumane (VR)

| — | Municipality of Garda (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Garda (VR)

| — | Municipality of Gazzo Veronese (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gazzo Veronese (VR)

| — | Municipality of Grezzana (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Grezzana (VR)

| — | Municipality of Illasi (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Illasi (VR)

| — | Municipality of Isola della Scala (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Isola della Scala (VR)

| — | Municipality of Isola Rizza (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Isola Rizza (VR)

| — | Municipality of Lavagno (VR) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Lavagno (VR) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Lavagno (VR) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Lavagno (VR) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Lazise (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Lazise (VR)

| — | Municipality of Legnago (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Legnago (VR)

| — | Municipality of Malcesine (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Malcesine (VR)

| — | Municipality of Marano di Valpolicella (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Marano di Valpolicella (VR)

| — | Municipality of Mezzane di Sotto (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Mezzane di Sotto (VR)

| — | Municipality of Minerbe (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Minerbe (VR)

| — | Municipality of Montecchia di Crosara (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Montecchia di Crosara (VR)

| — | Municipality of Monteforte d'Alpone (VR) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Monteforte d'Alpone (VR) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Monteforte d'Alpone (VR) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Monteforte d'Alpone (VR) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Mozzecane (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Mozzecane (VR)

| — | Municipality of Negrar di Valpolicella (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Negrar di Valpolicella (VR)

| — | Municipality of Nogara (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Nogara (VR)

| — | Municipality of Nogarole Rocca (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Nogarole Rocca (VR)

| — | Municipality of Oppeano (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Oppeano (VR)

| — | Municipality of Palù (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Palù (VR)

| — | Municipality of Pastrengo (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pastrengo (VR)

| — | Municipality of Pescantina (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pescantina (VR)

| — | Municipality of Peschiera del Garda (VR) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Peschiera del Garda (VR) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Peschiera del Garda (VR) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Peschiera del Garda (VR) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Povegliano Veronese (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Povegliano Veronese (VR)

| — | Municipality of Pressana (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pressana (VR)

| — | Municipality of Rivoli Veronese (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Rivoli Veronese (VR)

| — | Municipality of Roncá (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Roncá (VR)

| — | Municipality of Ronco all'Adige (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Ronco all'Adige (VR)

| — | Municipality of Roverchiara (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Roverchiara (VR)

| — | Municipality of Roverè Veronese (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Roverè Veronese (VR)

| — | Municipality of Roveredo di Guá (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Roveredo di Guá (VR)

| — | Municipality of Salizzole (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Salizzole (VR)

| — | Municipality of San Bonifacio (VR) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Bonifacio (VR) South of A4

| — | Municipality of San Bonifacio (VR) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Bonifacio (VR) North of A4

| — | Municipality of San Giovanni Ilarione (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Giovanni Ilarione (VR)

| — | Municipality of San Giovanni Lupatoto (VR) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Giovanni Lupatoto (VR) South of A4

| — | Municipality of San Giovanni Lupatoto (VR) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Giovanni Lupatoto (VR) North of A4

| — | Municipality of San Martino Buon Albergo (VR) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Martino Buon Albergo (VR) South of A4

| — | Municipality of San Martino Buon Albergo (VR) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Martino Buon Albergo (VR) North of A4

| — | Municipality of San Mauro di Saline (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Mauro di Saline (VR)

| — | Municipality of San Pietro di Morubio (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Pietro di Morubio (VR)

| — | Municipality of San Pietro in Cariano (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Pietro in Cariano (VR)

| — | Municipality of San Zeno di Montagna (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of San Zeno di Montagna (VR)

| — | Municipality of Sanguinetto (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sanguinetto (VR)

| — | Municipality of Sant'Ambrogio di Valpolicella (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sant'Ambrogio di Valpolicella (VR)

| — | Municipality of Sant'Anna d'Alfaedo (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sant'Anna d'Alfaedo (VR)

| — | Municipality of Selva di Progno (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Selva di Progno (VR)

| — | Municipality of Soave (VR) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Soave (VR) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Soave (VR) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Soave (VR) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Sommacampagna (VR) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sommacampagna (VR) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Sommacampagna (VR) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sommacampagna (VR) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Sona (VR) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sona (VR) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Sona (VR) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sona (VR) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Sorgá (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sorgá (VR)

| — | Municipality of Terrazzo (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Terrazzo (VR)

| — | Municipality of Torri del Benaco (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Torri del Benaco (VR)

| — | Municipality of Tregnago (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Tregnago (VR)

| — | Municipality of Trevenzuolo (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Trevenzuolo (VR)

| — | Municipality of Valeggio sul Mincio (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Valeggio sul Mincio (VR)

| — | Municipality of Velo Veronese (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Velo Veronese (VR)

| — | Municipality of Verona (VR) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Verona (VR) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Verona (VR) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Verona (VR) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Veronella (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Veronella (VR)

| — | Municipality of Vestenanova (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Vestenanova (VR)

| — | Municipality of Vigasio (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Vigasio (VR)

| — | Municipality of Villa Bartolomea (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Villa Bartolomea (VR)

| — | Municipality of Villafranca di Verona (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Villafranca di Verona (VR)

| — | Municipality of Zevio (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Zevio (VR)

| — | Municipality of Zimella (VR) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Zimella (VR)

| — | Municipality of Agugliaro (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Agugliaro (VI)

| — | Municipality of Albettone (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Albettone (VI)

| — | Municipality of Alonte (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Alonte (VI)

| — | Municipality of Altavilla Vicentina (VI) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Altavilla Vicentina (VI) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Arcugnano (VI) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Arcugnano (VI) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Asigliano Veneto (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Asigliano Veneto (VI)

| — | Municipality of Barbarano Mossano (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Barbarano Mossano (VI)

| — | Municipality of Brendola (VI) East of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Brendola (VI) East of A4

| — | Municipality of Brendola (VI) West of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Brendola (VI) West of A4

| — | Municipality of Camisano Vicentino (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Camisano Vicentino (VI)

| — | Municipality of Campiglia dei Berici (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Campiglia dei Berici (VI)

| — | Municipality of Castegnero (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Castegnero (VI)

| — | Municipality of Gambellara (VI) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gambellara (VI) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Gambellara (VI) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Gambellara (VI) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Grisignano di Zocco (VI) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Grisignano di Zocco (VI) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Grisignano di Zocco (VI) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Grisignano di Zocco (VI) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Grumolo delle Abbadesse (VI) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Grumolo delle Abbadesse (VI) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Grumolo delle Abbadesse (VI) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Grumolo delle Abbadesse (VI) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Longare (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Longare (VI)

| — | Municipality of Lonigo (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Lonigo (VI)

| — | Municipality of Montebello Vicentino (VI) East of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Montebello Vicentino (VI) East of A4

| — | Municipality of Montebello Vicentino (VI) West of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Montebello Vicentino (VI) West of A4

| — | Municipality of Montecchio Maggiore (VI) East of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Montecchio Maggiore (VI) East of A4

| — | Municipality of Montegalda (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Montegalda (VI)

| — | Municipality of Montegaldella (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Montegaldella (VI)

| — | Municipality of Nanto (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Nanto (VI)

| — | Municipality of Noventa Vicentina (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Noventa Vicentina (VI)

| — | Municipality of Orgiano (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Orgiano (VI)

| — | Municipality of Pojana Maggiore (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Pojana Maggiore (VI)

| — | Municipality of Sarego (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sarego (VI)

| — | Municipality of Sossano (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Sossano (VI)

| — | Municipality of Torri di Quartesolo (VI) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Torri di Quartesolo (VI) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Torri di Quartesolo (VI) North of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Torri di Quartesolo (VI) North of A4

| — | Municipality of Val Liona (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Val Liona (VI)

| — | Municipality of Vicenza (VI) South of A4 |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Vicenza (VI) South of A4

| — | Municipality of Villaga (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Villaga (VI)

| — | Municipality of Zovencedo (VI) |
| --- | --- |

—

Municipality of Zovencedo (VI)

31.3.2022

| * | In accordance with the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 5(4) of the Protocol on Ireland.Northern Ireland in conjunction with Annex 2 to that Protocol, for the purposes of this Annex, references to Member State include the United Kingdom in respect of Northern Ireland. |
| --- | --- |

*

---