STATE AID — DENMARK

State aid SA.39078 (2019/C) (ex 2014/N) — Financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2019/C 226/03)

By means of the letter dated 14 June 2019 reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the Commission notified Denmark of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union concerning measures relevant to the financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project.

Interested parties may submit their comments on the measures in favour of Femern A/S and in respect of which the Commission is initiating the procedure within one month of the date of publication of this summary and the following letter, to:

European Commission Directorate-General Competition State Aid Greffe 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel BELGIQUE/BELGIË Fax +32 22961242 Stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu

These comments will be communicated to Denmark. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

1. PROCEDURE

On 22 December 2014, Denmark notified to the Commission the financing model of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project (‘Fehmarn Belt’). On 5 June 2014, 5 September 2014, 26 November 2014, 19 January 2015, and 22 April 2015, the Commission received five complaints (1) alleging that Denmark had granted unlawful and incompatible State aid for the planning, construction and operation of the Link in favour of Femern A/S (2).

On 23 July 2015, the Commission adopted a no objection decision (‘Construction Decision’) (3) finding among others, that, even in the case where the measures in favour of Femern A/S for the planning, construction and operation of the Fixed Link did constitute State aid, they were compatible with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(b) TFEU. The General Court partially annulled the 2015 Decision (4), in so far as the Commission decided not raise any objections to the measures granted by Denmark to Femern A/S for the planning, construction and operation of the Link. The General Court dismissed the action as to the remainder. In particular, it rejected the arguments of the applicant concerning the Commission’s conclusion that the measures granted to A/S Femern Landanlaeg for the planning, construction and operation of the road and rail hinterland connections in Denmark do not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

Procedure on alleged additional measures

On 2 August 2016, Scandlines sent a letter to the Commission, asking it to take steps in respect of certain alleged aid measures in favour of Femern A/S, which, in their view, had not been addressed by the Commission in its Construction Decision. By letter of 30 September 2016, the Commission services replied to Scandlines. On 12 December 2016, Scandlines lodged an action of annulment of the Commission services letter of 30 September 2016 (5), as well as an action against the Commission for failure to act on their complaint, in the event that the Commission services letter would not be deemed to constitute the definition of a position within the meaning of Article 265 TFEU (6).

On 6 November 2017, Scandlines filed an additional complaint on alleged unlawful and incompatible aid measures used to finance the Fehmern A/S’ information/promotion activities.

On 30 July 2018, Scandlines sent a second letter (7) to the Commission asking it to define its position on alleged aid measures granted in breach of the Decision the Commission had adopted for the planning phase of the project (‘Planning Decision’) (8). On 28 September 2018, the Commission adopted a decision (‘Confirmation Decision’) concluding that the alleged aid measures did not constitute unlawful State aid and were authorised by the Planning and the Construction Decision.

On 13 December 2018, the General Court ordered the above actions dismissed as inadmissible (9). Scandlines appealed in Court the order in the case relevant to the action of annulment of the Commission services letter of 30 September 2016 (10).

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AND MEASURES

The Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project will consist of a coast-to-coast infrastructure and rail and road hinterland connections. The coast-to-coast infrastructure (‘Fixed Link’) will be constructed as a 19 km-long, double-track railway and a four-lane motorway, immersed tunnel between Rødby on the island of Lolland in Denmark and Puttgarden in Germany.

In 2008, Denmark and Germany signed a Treaty according to which Denmark would be the sole owner and would bear the full risk for the financing of the Fixed Link, as well as for the upgrading of the Danish hinterland connections. Germany would be responsible for the financing and upgrading of the German hinterland connections (not concerned by the current formal investigation). Two public undertakings were entrusted with the execution of the project. The first, Femern A/S, is responsible for the Fixed Link. The second, A/S Femern Landanlæg, is responsible for the Danish hinterland connections.

The planning, construction and operation of the Fixed Link and the Danish hinterland connections should be mainly financed by loans, raised on the international financial markets and covered by a State guarantee, or by government-backed State loans from Denmark’s Central Bank. Denmark also foresaw capital injections and a special tax treatment as regards the depreciation of assets of Femern A/S, measures allowing for a fiscal loss carry forward as well as a joint taxation regime. Alleged additional aid measures consist in gratuitous use of State property and non-market conform railway fees paid by the State through its controlled railway operator Danske Statsbaner.

The current investigation only concerns the measures in favour of Femern A/S, as the measures in favour of A/S Femern Landanlæg do not constitute State aid.

3. ASSESSMENT

On the basis of the information available, the Commission at this stage has doubts as to whether Femern A/S can be considered as engaged in economic activity and thus as an undertaking in the sense of State aid rules. Should Femern A/S be considered as an undertaking in the final decision, the Commission now intends to assess the nature of the measures as individual aid or aid scheme.

The Commission also intends to receive stakeholders views as regards the compatibility of possible aid measures with the Internal Market. Although these measures can be considered as aiming at the promotion of an important project of European common interest, at this stage, the Commission wants to further look into such issues as their nature as investment and/or operating aid, their necessity and proportionality, as well as the conditions of mobilisation of the measures in the form of guarantees.

(1) By Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (‘Scandlines’), 3i Investment Plc, TT Line, Stena Line Scandinavia AB (‘Stena Line’) and Trelleborgs Hamn AB.

(2) These complaints were registered by the Commission services under the numbers SA.38915 and SA.41640.

(3) Commission decision of 23.7.2015 in case SA. 39078 (2014/N) – Denmark – Financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project (OJ C 325, 2.10.2015, p. 1).

(4) Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018, Stena Line Scandinavia AB and Others v Commission, T-631/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:944 and Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018, Scandlines Danmark ApS, Scandlines Deutschland GmbH and Others v Commission, T-630/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:942.

(5) Case T-890/16, Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2018:1004.

(6) Case T-891/16, Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2018:1003.

(7) This letter was registered as SA. 51981.

(8) Commission decision of 17.3.2009, State aid N 157/2009 – Denmark – Financing of the planning phase of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link (OJ C 202, 27.8.2009, p. 1).

(9) Orders of the General Court of 13 December 2018, Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH v Commission, T-890/16, ECLI:EU:T:2018:1004 and T-891/16, ECLI:EU:T:2018:1003.

(10) Case C-173/19 P, Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission.

(11) Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018, Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH v Commission, T-630/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:942.

(12) Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018, Stena Line Scandinavia AB and Others v Commission, T-631/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:944

(13) Commission decision of 17.3.2009, State aid N 157/2009 – Denmark – Financing of the planning phase of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link (OJ C 202, 27.8.2009, p. 1).

(14) By Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH (‘Scandlines’), 3i Investment Plc, TT Line, Stena Line Scandinavia AB (‘Stena Line’) and Trelleborgs Hamn AB.

(15) These complaints were registered by the Commission services under the numbers SA.38915 and SA.41640.

(16) Commission decision of 23.7.2015 in Case SA. 39078 (2014/N) – Denmark – Financing of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link project (OJ C 325, 2.10.2015, p. 1).

(17) Scandlines and Stena Line.

(18) Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018, Stena Line Scandinavia AB and Others v Commission, T-631/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:944 and Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018, Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH v Commission, T-630/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:942.

(19) Case C-174/19 P Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission, and Case C-175/19 P Stena Line Scandinavia v Commission.

(20) 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).

(21) Case T-890/16, Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2018:1004.

(22) Case T-891/16, Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH v Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2018:1003.

(23) This letter was registered as SA. 51981.

(24) Commission decision of 28 September 2018 on State aid SA. 51981 (2018/FC) – Denmark – Complaint about alleged unlawful aid to Femern A/S and Femern Landanlæg A/S (OJ C 406, 9.11.2018, p. 1). Scandlines.

(25) Case T-7/19, Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission, pending.

(26) Orders of the General Court of 13 December 2018, Scandlines Danmark ApS and Scandlines Deutschland GmbH v Commission, T-890/16, ECLI:EU:T:2018:1004 and T-891/16, ECLI:EU:T:2018:1003.

(27) Case C-173/19 P, Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission, pending.

(28) This complaint was registered by the Commission under case SA. 49589 (2017/FC).

(29) European Rail Traffic Management System.

(30) The Treaty was signed on 3 September 2008 and ratified by Denmark and Germany in 2009.

(31) These project costs have been calculated on the basis of the priced offers received from bidders of the four principal civil works contracts on 22 December 2014 increased by reserve budget.

(32) See Commission Implementing Decisions C(2015) 5274 of 31 July 2015 establishing a list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)-Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual work Programme, and C(2017)8803 of 5 January 2018 following a call for proposals launched on 8 February 2017 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme.

(33) A/S Femern Landanlæg was established on 16 November 2009.

(34) The Danish bill on the planning of a Fixed Link across the Fehmarn Belt and the Danish hinterland connections (Act no. 285 of 15 April 2009).

(35) See Commission decision of 13 July 2009 in case N157/2009 Financing of the planning phase of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link (OJ C 202, 27.8.2009, p. 2).

(36) Act no. 575 of 4/05/2015.

(37) See Section 38 of the Construction Act.

(38) See Section 1 of the Construction Act.

(39) See section 42 of the Construction Act.

(40) See Section 41 of the Construction Act.

(41) The German hinterland connections have not been the subject of this case.

(42) See section 2 of the Construction Act.

(43) See Section 39 of the Construction act.

(44) Based on the value of Rail Net Denmark’s assets and A/S Femern Landanlæg’s assets.

(45) According to information however submitted by Denmark under the case SA. 51981, the total amount of the capital injections was DKK 510 million (EUR 68,3 million).

(46) According to Section 6 of the Sund & Baelt Act.

(47) See Section 7(3)(5) of the Planning Act (Law no 285 of 15 April 2009) and Section 4(2) of the Construction Act (Law no 575 of 4 May 2015).

(48) Section 4(2) in combination with Section 1 of the Construction Act.

(49) Section 4(4) in combination with Section 1 of the Construction Act.

(50) Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (OJ C 155, 20.6.2008, p. 10).

(51) See Section 7(4) of the Planning Act and Section 4(3) of the Construction Act.

(52) Fixed on the day when the loans are obtained and is fixed by the market conditions applicable on that moment.

(53) DKK 4 billion (i.e. EUR 533 million) instead of DKK 14 45 million (EUR 194 million).

(54) According to Scandlines, the initial amount of EUR 187 million was increased 4 times up to 2013.

(55) Such as operation of a press department and 2 information centers and a video channel, organisation and participation in competition events, information actions on the use of Fehmarn Belt, publications in media and websites, preparation and dissemination of scientific information to producers, processors and marketers, consumer targeted advertising campaigns, sponsorship of marathons and football tournaments.

(56) e.g. contract concerning ‘monitoring of media coverage’ (2014), marketing management and consultancy services contract (2017).

(57) See section 12, subsection 2 of Act No 591 of 18 June 2012 amending Danish act on Corporation tax.

(58) Losses incurred in previous financial years.

(59) 2012 values – the amount is indexed on an annual basis.

(60) Section 9 of the Planning act was abolished by Act no 581 of 4 May 2015.

(61) See Sections 13 and 14 of Act no 588 of 24 June 2005 (‘Sund & Bælt Act’).

(62) Amendment introduced in Act no 581 of 4 May 2015.

(63) See Section 16 of the Planning Act.

(64) See Section 45 of the Construction Act.

(65) See Section 41 of the Construction Act.

(66) Danish State Railways.

(67) Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 32).

(68) Commission decision of 15.10.2014, in case SA. 36558 (2014/NN) and SA. 38371(2014/NN) – Denmark, SA. 36662 (2014/NN) – Sweden, Aid granted to Øresundsbro Konsortiet (OJ C 437, 5.12.2014, p. 1).

(69) Scandlines, Stena, TT-Line.

(70) To this end, Scandlines refers to the Fehmarn Belt Forecast 2014 – Update of the FTC-Study of 2002 – Treatment of Great Belt in the Forecast (Passenger traffic) for Femern A/S 2015.

(71) Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (OJ C 155, 20.6.2008, p. 10).

(72) Communication from the Commission — Criteria for the analysis of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest (OJ C 188, 20.6.2014, p. 4).

(73) ‘Advance Activities’ authorised by the Danish Parliament in March 2013.

(74) The omitted costs include costs of construction works which allegedly had started before the notification of the aid (approximately EUR 94 million), as well as costs incurred during the planning of the Fixed Link (DKK 4 billion, or approximately 536 million).

(75) According to Scandlines, the duration of the aid should be limited to 20 years starting from 2013, when the construction of the Fixed Link allegedly started and in any case, it should not be linked to a loan repayment period, as this would always be a moving target.

(76) Judgments of the Court of Justice of 12 July 2012, Compass-Datenbank GmbH, C-138/11, ECLI:EU:C:2012:449, and Judgment of the Court of Jus tice of 18 March 1997, Diego Calì & Figli Srl v Servizi ecologici porto di Genova SpA (SEPG), C-343/95, ECLI:EU:C:1997:160.

(77) Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011, Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt and Others v Commission, Joined cases T-443/08 and T-455/08, ECLI:EU:T:2011:117; upheld on appeal in Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 December 2012, Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG and Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH v Commission, C-288/11 P, ECLI:EU:C:2012:821.

(78) Communication from the Commission — Criteria for the analysis of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest (OJ C 188, 20.6.2014, p. 4).

(79) ‘Misuse of aid’ means aid used by the beneficiary in contravention of a decision taken pursuant to Article 4(3) or Article 7(3) or (4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 or Article 4(3) or Article 9(3) or (4) of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/1589.

(80) 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).

(81) The Construction decision did not conclude on the aid character of the measures assessed; see recital 81 of the decision.

(82) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 September 2000, Pavlov and Others v Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten, Joined cases C-180/98 to C-184/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:428.

(83) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 16 June 1987, Commission v Italy, 118/85, ECLI:EU:C:1987:283, paragraph 7; judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 June 1998, Commission v Italian Republic, C-35/96 ECLI:EU:C:1998:303, paragraph 36; judgment of the Court of Jusrice of 12 September 2000, Pavlov and Others v Stichting Pensioenfonds Medische Specialisten, Joint Cases C-180/98 to C-184/98, ECLI:EU:C:2000:428

(84) Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2000, Aéroports de Paris v Commission, T-128/98, ECLI:EU:T:2000:290, paragraph 125, confirmed by the Court of Justice in its Judgment of 24 October 2002, Aéroports de Paris v Commission, C-82/01 P, ECLI:EU:C:2002:617.

(85) Judgment of the General Court of 24 March 2011, Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt and Others v Commission, Joined Cases T-443/08 and T-455/08, ECLI:EU:T:2011:117; upheld on appeal in Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 December 2012, Mitteldeutsche Flughafen AG and Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH v Commission, C-288/11 P, ECLI:EU:C:2012:821.

(86) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 January 2015, Eventech v The Parking Adjudicator, C-518/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:9, paragraph 40; Judgment of the General Court of 15 March 2018, Naviera Armas v Commission, T-108/16, ECLI:EU:T:2018:145, paragraph 78.

(87) See also paragraph 202 of the 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 C/2016/2946 (OJ C 262, 19.7.2016, p. 1).

(88) See, by contrast, the Commission’s analysis in its decision on the Øresund Bridge (see footnote 58), where the Commission noted that the Consortium was free to set its prices and determine its commercial policy

(89) Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2000, Aéroports de Paris v Commission, T-128/98, ECLI:EU:T:2000:290, paragraphs 120-121, confirmed by the Court of Justice in its Judgment of 24 October 2002, Aéroports de Paris v Commission, C-82/01 P, ECLI:EU:C:2002:617

(90) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 12 July 2012, Compass-Datenbank GmbH v Republik Österreich, C-138/ ECLI:EU:C:2012:449, paragraph 38, with further references.

(91) See inter alia judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 November 2001, Adria-Wien Pipeline GmbH and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten, C-143/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:598, paragraph 38; judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 July 2004, Spain v Commission,C-501/00, ECLI:EU:C:2004:438, paragraph 90, and the case law cited therein; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 December 2005, Italy v Commission, C-66/02 ECLI:EU:C:2005:768, paragraph 77; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 10 January 2006, Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze v Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze, C-222/04, ECLI:EU:C:2006:8, paragraph 131, and the case law cited therein.

(92) See, for example, Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 March 1994, Banco Exterior de España, C-387/92, ECLI:EU:C:1994:100, paragraph 14.

(93) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 1 December 1998, Ecotrade Srl v Altiforni e Ferriere di Servola SpA (AFS), C-200/97, ECLI:EU:C:1998:579, paragraph 41; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 March 2013, Bouygues and Bouygues Télécom v Commission and Others, Joined Cases C-399/10 P and C-401/10 P, ECLI:EU:C:2013:175, paragraphs 137, 138 and 139.

(94) See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 July 1996, Syndicat français de l'Express international (SFEI) and others v La Poste and others, C-39/94 ECLI:EU:C:1996:285, paragraph 60; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 April 1999, Spain v Commission, C-342/96 ECLI:EU:C:1999:210, paragraph 41.

(95) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 2 July 1974, Italy v Commission, 173/73, ECLI:EU:C:1974:71, paragraph 13.

(96) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 December 2011, Residex Capital v Gemeente Rotterdam, C-275/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:814, paragraph 39.

(97) Judgment of the General Court Salzgitter v Commission, T-308/00, ECLI:EU:T:2004:199, paragraph 79, and the case law cited therein.

(98) Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017, Hellenic Republic v Commission, T-314/15, ECLI:EU:T:2017:903, paragraphs 78 and 79.

(99) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 4 June 2015, Commission v MOL, C-15/14 P, ECLI:EU:C:2015:362, paragraphs 60 et seq.; Opinion of Advocate General Mengozzi of 27 June 2013, Deutsche Lufthansa, C-284/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:442, paragraph 52.

(100) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 September 2011, Commission v Netherlands, C-279/08 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:551, paragraph 62; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 November 2001, Adria-Wien Pipeline, C-143/99, ECLI:EU:C:2001:598.

(101) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 September 2011, Paint Graphos and others, Joined Cases C-78/08 to C-80/08, ECLI:EU:C:2011:550, paragraph 49 et seq.; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 April 2004, GIL Insurance, C-308/01, ECLI:EU: C:2004:252.

(102) See Danish Act no. 313 of 21 May 2002.

(103) See recital 52 of this decision.

(104) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 September 2011, Paint Graphos and others, Joined Cases C-78/08 to C-80/08, ECLI:EU:C:2011:550, paragraph 69.

(105) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 September 2011, Paint Graphos and others, Joined Cases C-78/08 to C-80/08, ECLI:EU: C:2011:550, paragraphs 69 and 70; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2006, Portugal v Commission, C-88/03, ECLI:EU: C:2006:511, paragraph 81; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 September 2011, Commission v Netherlands, C-279/08 P, ECLI:EU: C:2011:551; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 December 2008, British Aggregates v Commission, C-487/06 P, ECLI:EU:C:2008:757; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 18 July 2013, P Oy, C-6/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:525, paragraphs 27 et seq.

(106) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 15 November 2011, Commission and Spain v Government of Gibraltar and United Kingdom, Joined Cases C-106/09 P and C-107/09 P, ECLI:EU:C:2011:732, paragraph 146; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 29 April 2004, Netherlands v Commission, C-159/01, ECLI:EU:C:2004:246, paragraph 43; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 6 September 2006, Portugal v Commission, C-88/03, ECLI:EU:C:2006:511.

(107) Consolidated Act No 11 91 on Depreciation Allowance of 11 October 2007.

(108) See also judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018, Scandlines Danmark and Scandlines Deutschland v Commission, T-630/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:942, paragraphs 278 to 282.

(109) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 14 January 2015, Eventech v The Parking Adjudicator, C-518/13, ECLI:EU:C:2015:9, paragraph 66; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 8 May 2013, Libert and others, Joined Cases C-197/11 and C-203/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:288, paragraph 77; Judgment of the General Court of 4 April 2001, Friulia Venezia Giulia, T-288/97, ECLI:EU:T:2001:115, paragraph 41.

(110) 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).

(111) Communication for the analysis of the compatibility with the internal market of State aid to promote the execution of important projects of common European interest (OJ C 188, 20.6.2014, p. 4).

(112) See Commission decision of 13 July 2009 in case N159/2009 Financing of the planning phase of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link (OJ C 202, 27.8.2007, p. 2), recital 40.

(113) A study prepared for the Danish Ministry of Transport by Incentive, of 5 January 2015, as revised and updated by a study of 27 March 2015.

(114) See Commission Implementing Decisions C(2015) 5274 of 31 July 2015 establishing a list of proposals selected for receiving EU financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF)-Transport sector following the calls for proposals launched on 11 September 2014 based on the Multi-Annual work Programme, and C(2017)8803 of 5 January 2018 following a call for proposals launched on 8 February 2017 based on the Multi-Annual Work Programme.

(115) See Commission decision of 13 July 2009 in case N159/2009 Financing of the planning phase of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link (OJ C 202, 27.8.2007, p. 2), recital 42.

(116) These costs are not related to the current case.

(117) The General Court has also confirmed the analysis of the Commission in this respect; see judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018, Scandlines v European Commission, T-630/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:942, paragraphs 144-181.

(118) According to (f) of the Annex of the IPCEI Communication, personnel and administrative costs (including overheads) incurred during the construction of the infrastructure, are eligible costs that may be covered with investment aid.

(119) See in this respect recitals 32 and 33 of the Planning Decision.

(120) As the funding of the hinterland connections does not constitute State aid, only the measures relevant specifically to the planning of the Fixed Link would have to be assessed by the Commission in its final decision.

(121) Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018, Austria v Commission, Case T-356/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:439, paragraph 580.

(122) See in particular paragraphs 577 to 586 of the judgment.

(123) See in this respect judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018, Scandlines Denmark and Scandlines Germany v Commission, T-630/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:942, paragraph 192.

(124) See footnote 2 of paragraph 28 of the IPCEI Communication.

(125) As interpreted by the General Court in its judgment of 13 December 2018, Scandlines v European Commission, T-630/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:942, paragraphs 188 to 193.

(126) The results from the Enquiry of Commercial Interest were published in the report: ‘Fehmarnbelt, An infrastructure Investment, Finance and Organisation, June 2002’.

(127) The participants included consortia consisting of contractors, operators and banks on the one hand and individual companies, mainly banks, engineering companies and insurers, on the other.

(128) See paragraph 29 of the IPCEI Communication.

(129) During the planning phase the risks for the project would be significantly higher than the risks of the selected European industry companies, which were at the operation phase.

(130) Including the payment of dividends for the hinterland connections.

(131) See in this respect judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018, Scandlines v European Commission, T-630/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:942, paragraph 213.

(132) See recitals 163 to 163 of this decision.

(133) The eligible costs are those laid down in the Annex of the IPCEI Communication.

(134) See footnote 2, in paragraph 36 of the IPCEI Communication ‘Aid in the form of guarantees must be limited in time, and aid in the form of loans must be subject to repayment periods’ and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Section 4.1 of the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees Guarantee Notice (OJ C 155, 20.6.2008, p. 10) stating: ‘When calculating the aid element in a guarantee, the Commission will devote special attention to the following elements: […] (b) whether the extent of each guarantee can be properly measured when it is granted. This means that the guarantees must be linked to a specific financial transaction, for a fixed maximum amount and limited in time. In this connection the Commission considers in principle that unlimited guarantees are incompatible with Article 87 of the Treaty’.

(135) The eligible costs would amount to DKK 58,8 billion in 2014 prices, which at net present value corresponds to DKK 42,1 billion. The cost of the planning and construction of the Fixed Link would amount to DKK 54,9 billion in fixed 2014 prices (based on priced offers received from the bidders of the four principal civil works contracts on 22 December 2014 including a reserve of DKK 3,7 billion and calculated without CEF financial assistance).

(136) See recital 172 of this decision.

(137) See in this respect judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018, Scandlines v European Commission, T-630/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:942, paragraphs 230 and 233.

(138) See in this respect judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018, Scandlines v European Commission, T-630/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:942, paragraph 237.

(139) Directive 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on the charging of heavy goods vehicles for the use of certain infrastructures (OJ L 187, 20.7.1999, p. 42), as amended by Directive 2006/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 (OJ L 157, 9.6.2006, p. 8), and Directive 2011/76/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2011 (OJ L 269, 14.10.2011, p. 1).

(140) Directive 2012/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 November 2012 establishing a single European railway area (OJ L 343, 14.12.2012, p. 32).

(141) A cost-benefit analysis of the Fehmarn Belt Fixed Link, a study prepared for the Ministry of Transport by Incentive, 5 January 2015. Updated study prepared for the Danish Ministry of Transport by Incentive, 27 March 2015.

(142) Taking into account all benefits and costs for Denmark alone, the Fixed Link and the associated hinterland connections in Denmark will generate a net social benefit of DKK 28 billion over 50 years. This equates to an economic return of 4,7 per cent.

(143) See in this respect judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018, Scandlines v European Commission, T-630/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:942, paragraph 256.

(144) See also in this respect judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018, Scandlines v European Commission, T-630/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:942, paragraphs 274-275.