AYUDA ESTATAL — SUECIA

Ayuda estatal SA.52617 (2019/C) (ex 2018/FC) Ayuda estatal en favor del Consorcio del puente del Øresund

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

(Texto pertinente a efectos del EEE)

(2019/C 109/04)

Por carta de 28 de febrero de 2019, reproducida en la versión lingüística auténtica en las páginas siguientes al presente resumen, la Comisión notificó a Suecia su decisión de incoar el procedimiento previsto en el artículo 108, apartado 2, del Tratado de Funcionamiento de la Unión Europea en relación con las medidas de apoyo concedidas a Øresundsbro Konsortiet («Consorcio»).

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

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

Dichas observaciones, que se presentarán dentro de plazo tanto en su versión original como en su versión no confidencial, serán comunicadas en su versión no confidencial a Dinamarca y Suecia. Los interesados que presenten observaciones podrán solicitar por escrito, exponiendo los motivos de su solicitud, que su identidad sea tratada de forma confidencial.

1. PROCEDIMIENTO

El 16 de abril de 2013 Scandlines Øresund I/S (1) presentó una denuncia a la Comisión en la que alegaba que las garantías estatales concedidas por Dinamarca y Suecia en favor del Consorcio para las necesidades de financiación del enlace fijo del Øresund («enlace»), así como determinadas ventajas fiscales concedidas por Dinamarca y Suecia, constituyen ayuda estatal ilegal y que dicha ayuda es incompatible con el mercado interior.

Tras varios intercambios de información, el 15 de octubre de 2014, la Comisión adoptó una decisión de no objeción, considerando que las garantías públicas sobre los préstamos del Consorcio y determinadas medidas fiscales (amortización de activos, traslado de pérdidas fiscales acumuladas) constituían ayuda estatal compatible con el mercado interior sobre la base del artículo 107, apartado 3, letra b), del Tratado. El 19 de septiembre de 2018, a raíz del recurso de anulación interpuesto por el denunciante, el Tribunal General anuló parcialmente la Decisión de 2014 e indicó a la Comisión que debería haber incoado el procedimiento de investigación formal para evaluar el asunto a fondo (2).

2. DESCRIPCIÓN DEL PROYECTO Y MEDIDAS DE APOYO

En 1991, Dinamarca y Suecia firmaron un acuerdo intergubernamental por el que se establecía una asociación para construir y explotar el enlace (un puente de peaje de 16 km de longitud, una isla artificial y un túnel para el tráfico por carretera y ferrocarril que conecta Copenhague con Malmo). Para ello, ambos países acordaron constituir sendas sociedades de responsabilidad limitada, A/S Øresund y Svensk-Danske Broförbindelsen SVEDAB AB. Estas empresas, a su vez, formaron un Consorcio encargado del proyecto, el diseño y todos los demás preparativos para el enlace, así como de su financiación, construcción y explotación.

Ambos Estados acordaron garantizar todos los préstamos que contrajera el Consorcio para la financiación del enlace. Dinamarca, además, dispuso un trato fiscal especial en lo referente a la amortización de los activos del Consorcio, así como medidas que permitieran el traslado de las pérdidas fiscales acumuladas.

El enlace se construyó entre 1995 y 2000 y está en funcionamiento desde junio de 2000. En el momento en que se planificó y construyó el enlace, se consideraba que la explotación de dicha infraestructura no constituía una actividad económica y que, por consiguiente, la financiación pública para este tipo de proyectos no entraba en el ámbito de las normas sobre ayudas estatales. La Comisión así lo confirmó específicamente en el caso del enlace en cartas dirigidas a Dinamarca y Suecia en 1995. A raíz de una serie de sentencias del Tribunal de Justicia, entre tanto se ha pasado a considerar de manera general que la financiación de la infraestructura utilizada para la prestación de servicios a cambio de una remuneración es una actividad económica y, por tanto, está sujeta al control de las ayudas estatales.

3. EVALUACIÓN

Sobre la base de la información disponible, la Comisión considera con carácter preliminar que las medidas constituyen ayuda estatal a tenor del artículo 107, apartado 1, del TFUE. No obstante, tiene la intención de evaluar la naturaleza de las medidas como ayuda individual o régimen de ayudas así como la fecha o fechas en que se concedieron las medidas y su número. La Comisión considera que la medida relativa al traslado de las pérdidas fiscales acumuladas aplicable hasta 2001 constituye ayuda existente, mientras que la misma medida que se aplica desde el 1 de enero de 2013 constituye nueva ayuda. Por lo que se refiere a la medida relativa a la amortización de activos, que entró en vigor en 1991 y que se mantuvo sin modificaciones hasta el momento en que fue derogada, puede considerarse ayuda existente. La Comisión examinará también si las garantías constituyen ayuda existente o nueva.

Además, tiene previsto recabar las opiniones de las partes interesadas en cuanto a la compatibilidad de las medidas de ayuda con el mercado interior. Aunque puede considerarse que estas medidas tienen como objetivo la promoción de un proyecto importante de interés común europeo, la Comisión quiere examinar más a fondo en esta fase cuestiones tales como su naturaleza de ayuda a la inversión o ayuda de funcionamiento, su necesidad y proporcionalidad, si conllevan falseamientos indebidos de la competencia que no puedan ser compensados por sus efectos positivos, y las condiciones de movilización de estas garantías. Por último, aunque la Comisión considera que los Estados y el beneficiario disfrutan de confianza legítima hasta la sentencia Aéroports de Paris (3), tiene previsto examinar el período exacto, tras dicha sentencia, durante el cual el beneficiario, Suecia y Dinamarca pueden alegar confianza legítima en el caso de que se considerara que las medidas constituyen ayuda estatal incompatible e ilegal.

TEXTO DE LA CARTA

(1) Desde noviembre de 2018, la empresa que gestiona la línea Helsingor-Helsingborg se llama FORSEA.

(2) Véase la sentencia del Tribunal General de 19 de septiembre de 2018, HH Ferries y otros/Comisión, T-68/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:563.

(3) Sentencia del Tribunal General de 12 de diciembre de 2000, Aéroports de Paris/Comisión, T 128/98, ECLI:EU:T:2000:290.

(4) Scandlines is owned 50 % by Stena Line Øresund AB and 50 % by Scandlines Helsingor-Helsingborg A/S. In January 2015, the company’s new name became HH Ferries. On 9 November 2018, HH Ferries announced that the shipping company would change its name to ForSea.

(5) This complaint was registered as SA.36558 for Denmark and as SA.36662 for Sweden.

(6) This part of the complaint was registered as SA.38371.

(7) Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018, HH Ferries and Others v Commission, T-68/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:563.

(8) Judgment of the General Court of 12 December 2000, Aéroports de Paris v Commission, T-128/98, ECLI:EU:T:2000:290.

(9) Act No 590 of 19 August 1991 on the Fixed Link across Øresund. The Construction Act regulated — among other issues — the ownership structure of the Link, the basic financial terms as well as the overall fiscal matters in terms of tax. In 2005, the Construction Act was incorporated in Act no 588 of 24 June 2005 on Sund & Bælt Act.

(10) Swedish bill No 158, 1990:91 approved by the Swedish Parliament on 12 June 1991.

(11) A/S Øresund is wholly owned by Sund & Bælt Holding A/S, which, in turn, is wholly owned by the Danish State.

(12) A/S Øresund is wholly owned by Sund & Bælt Holding A/S, which, in turn, is wholly owned by the Danish State.

(13) SVEDAB AB is wholly owned by the Swedish State.

(14) See article 10 of the Intergovernmental Agreement and Section 1 of the Consortium Agreement.

(15) See article 11 of the Intergovernmental Agreement and Section 3 of the Consortium Agreement.

(16) The Swedish hinterland connections consist of a 10 km motorway between Lernacken and Yttre Ringvägen in Malmö, and a 20 km railway (Öresundsbanan and Kontinentalbanan), which connects the Link to Malmö Central Station and to the Södra Stambanan (the Swedish south main railway line).

(17) See Article 8 of the Intergovernmental Agreement.

(18) See section 2(5) of the Consortium Agreement.

(19) At 1990 prices.

(20) See article 14 of the Intergovernmental Agreement and Section 4§ 6 of the Consortium Agreement.

(21) See paragraph 4 of the additional protocol to the Intergovernmental Agreement.

(22) Swedish bill No 158, 1990:91 approved by the Swedish Parliament on 12 June 1991.

(23) Danish Act No 590 of 19 August 1991.

(24) See Sections 12 to 14 of the Act No. 588 of 24 June 2005.

(25) See section 15 of Act no 660 of 19 October 1989.

(26) See Section 11 of the Construction Act.

(27) Danish Act no. 313 of 21 May 2002.

(28) Section 11 of the Øresund Act was also amended to remove the limitations it contained.

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

(30) 2012 values — the amount is indexed on an annual basis.

(31) See section 13 of Act no. 591 of 18 June 2012 amending sections 12-12D of the Danish act on Corporation Tax.

(32) Act no.590 of 19 August 1991. In 2005, the Construction Act was incorporated in Act no 588 of 24 June 2005 on Sund & Bælt Act.

(33) See section 22 of the consolidated act no. 597 of 16 August 1991.

(34) See section 17 of Act No 433 of 26 June 1998.

(35) See Act No 540 of 6 June 2007.

(36) As replaced in 2005 by Sections 13 and 14 of the Sund & Bælt Act.

(37) 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.

(38) Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018, HH Ferries I/S, formerly Scandlines Øresund I/S and Others v. Commission, T-68/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:563.

(39) According to the complainant under Danish and Swedish law, the boards of director of limited liability companies are to promote the interests of the companies themselves and are as such independent of the companies’ shareholders.

(40) 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. 10-22.

(41) To this end they refer to Commission decision of 14.09.2000, on State aid N 208/2000 — Netherlands — Subsidy Scheme for Public Inland Terminals (SOIT, OJ C 315 of 4.11.2000, p. 22;; of 17.07.2002, on State aid N 356/2002 — United Kingdom — Network Rail, OJ C 232 of 28.09.2002, p. 2; (OJ C 232/2002); of 20.12.2001 on State aid N 649/2001 — United Kingdom — Freight Facilities Grant, OJ C 45 of 19.02.2002, p. 2, paragraph 45.They also refer to the Commission Guidelines on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and of Article 61 of the EEA Agreement to State aids in the aviation sector, OJ C 305, of 10.12.1994, paragraph 12; the Commission White Paper of 22 July 1998, on Fair payment for infrastructure use: a phased approach to a common transport infrastructure charging in the framework in the EU (COM (1998) 466 final,, paragraph 43; Communication from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament of 13 February 2001: Reinforcing Quality Services in Sea Ports: a Key for European Transport, COM (2001) 35 final.

(42) 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

(43) See 68 of the Danish Act No 590 of 19 August 1991 (now § 11 in Act No 588 of 24 June 2005) and the Swedish bill No 158, 1991:91 approved by the Swedish Parliament on 12 June 1991.

(44) 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,

(45) Including on ferry services between Helsingør and Helsingborg and the catamaran ferry line between Copenhagen and Malmö, which was closed in 2002.

(46) 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.

(47) 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

(48) 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.

(49) 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.

(50) 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.

(51) 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. 1-50.

(52) Judgment of the Court of 19 February 2002, Wouters, Savelbergh and Price Waterhouse Belastingadviseurs BV v Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten, C-309/99, ECLI:EU:C:2002:98, paragraph 48.

(53) Judgment of the Court of 17 February 1993, Poucet v Assurances Générales de France and Caisse Mutuelle Régionale du Languedoc-Roussillon and Pistre v Cancave, Joint Cases C-159/91 and C-160/91, ECLI:EU:C:1993:63.

(54) The Consortium's pricing policy entails differentiated prices to its users depending on the type of customer (e.g. private or business), type of vehicle, frequency of use (e.g. annual pass, 10-trip card or Øresund Business), time of passage and payment method.

(55) 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.

(56) 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.

(57) 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.

(58) 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.

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

(60) 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.

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

(62) 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.

(63) 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,

(64) According to the Danish authorities, the tax measures apply only to the Danish partner of the Consortium, thus only to half of the costs and losses deriving from the activity of the Consortium.

(65) 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.

(66) 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.

(67) Section 15 of Act no 660 of 19 October 1989.

(68) See paragraph 38 of this decision.

(69) 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.

(70) 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.

(71) 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.

(72) See recitals 37 to 39 of this decision.

(73) 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.

(74) See also paragraph 80 of the judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2018, HH Ferries and Others v. Commission, T-68/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:563.

(75) See Section 5.1.3.2 of this decision.

(76) According to Article 17 of the Procedural Regulation, ‘1. The powers of the Commission to recover aid shall be subject to a limitation period of 10 years. 2. The limitation period shall begin on the day on which unlawful aid is awarded to the beneficiary either as individual aid or as an aid scheme. Any action taken by the Commission or the Member State, acting on the request of the Commission, with regard to the unlawful aid shall interrupt the limitation period…3. Any aid with regard to which the limitation period had expired shall be deemed to be existing aid.’

(77) Treaty of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden (1994), OJ C 241, 29.8.1994.

(78) Article 1 (b) (iv) of the Procedural Regulation states: For the purposes of this Regulation, the following definitions shall apply […] b) | ‘existing aid’ means […] aid which is deemed to be existing aid pursuant to Article 17 of this Regulation.

(79) 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 of 20 June 2014, p. 4.

(80) Commission Notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid, OJ C 119, 22.05.2002, p. 22.

(81) See, for example, Commission Decisions of 17.03.2009, in case N 157/2009 — Denmark — Financing of the planning phase of the Fehmarn Belt fixed link, OJ C 2002 of 27.08.2009, p. 1; of 13.03.1996 concerning fiscal aid given to German airlines in the form of a depreciation facility, OJ L 146 of 20.06.1996, p. 42, of 22.12.1998, N 576/98 of 22 December 1998 in case N 576/98 — United Kingdom — Channel Tunnel Rail Link, OJ C 56 of 26 February 1999, p. 6, and of 13.05.2009 in case N 420/08 — United Kingdom — Restructuring of London & Continental Railways, OJ C 183,5.08.2009, p. 2.

(82) See above footnote 5.

(83) Article 14 of the Intergovernmental Agreement.

(84) Judgment of the General Court of 12 July 2018. Republic of Austria v European Commission. Case T-356/15. ECLI:EU:T:2018:439.

(85) See in particular points 577 to 586 of the judgment.

(86) For instance, at the end of 2000, the Consortium’s net financial debt, including accumulated interest, amounted to 19.4 billion Danish kroner (DKK), which at the end of 2003 had risen to DKK 20.1 billion, and had fallen at the end of 2013 to DKK 16.6 billion.

(87) The repayment period is estimated on an annual basis and published in the Consortium’s annual reports. This estimate has fluctuated between 30 and 50 years.

(88) Annual Report — Øresundsbro Konsortiet — 2013

(89) The base case scenario envisaged a moderate growth of 4 % for the next few years after which growth would decrease gradually towards a long term trend of 1,8 %.

(90) The growth scenario assumes that the integration of the Øresund Region will result in strong traffic growth as was the case before the global recession. The Danish and Swedish economies are reviving, and annual traffic growth is assumed to increase by approximately 6 %, arriving at 2,5 % in the long run.

(91) The stagnation scenario assumes negative growth for the next few years followed by moderate growth of approximately 2 % over the medium term and a long-term trend of a little more than 1 per cent.

(92) In their reply to the Commission’s questions of 22 October 2018, Denmark and Sweden indicated that it now expected to take up to 50 years to repay all the debts of the Consortium (including the necessary dividend payments to A/S Øresund and SVEDAB AB) on the assumption, inter alia, that the Consortium maximises its income.

(93) See 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.

(94) See Commission letter to the Member States, reference SG(89) D/4328, of 5 April 1989.

(95) See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 November 1987, Rijn-Schelde-Verolme (RSV) Machinefabrieken en Scheepswerven NV v Commission, 223/85, ECLI:EU:C:1987:502.

(96) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 3 May 1978, August Töpfer & Co. GmbH v Commission, 112/77, EU:C:1978:94, paragraph 19.

(97) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 May 1992, Mulder and Others v Council and Commission, Joint Cases C-104/89 and C-37/90, EU:C:1992:217, paragraph 15.

(98) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 March 1987, Van den Bergh en Jurgens and Van Dijk Food Products (Lopik) v Commission of the European Communities, 265/85, EU:C:1987:121, paragraph 44 and the case-law cited therein.

(99) Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2005, Branco v Commission, T-347/03, EU:T:2005:265, paragraph 102 and the case-law cited therein; Judgment of of the General Court of 23 February 2006, Cementbouw Handel & Industrie v Commission, T-282/02, EU:T:2006:64, paragraph 77; Judgment of the General Court of 30 June 2009, CPEM v Commission, T-444/07, EU:T:2009:227, paragraph 126.

(100) See Judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 June 2006, Belgium and Forum 187 ASBL v Commission, Joint Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03, ECLI:EU:C:2006:416 , para 147; Judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 November 2005, Germany v Commission, C-506/03, ECLI:EU:C:2005:715, paragraph. 58.

(101) Judgment of the Court of Justice of 11 November 2004, Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing España SA (Demesa) and Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava v Commission, Joined Cases C-183/02 P and C-187/02 P, ECLI:EU:C:2004:701, paragraphs 44 and 45, and the case law cited therein.

(102) Commission Decision of 3 October 2012 on the measure SA.23600 — C 38/08 (ex NN 53/07) — Germany — Financing arrangements for Munich Airport Terminal 2, OJ L 319, 29.11.2013, p. 8.

(103) 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 Judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 October 2002, Aéroports de Paris v Commission, C-82/01 P, ECLI:EU:C:2002:617.

(104) See, for instance, Community guidelines on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA Agreement to State aids in the aviation sector, OJ C 350 of 10.12.1994, paragraph 12 refers explicitly to bridges: The construction of enlargement of infrastructure projects (such as airports, motorways, bridges, etc.) represents a general measure of economic policy which cannot be controlled by the Commission under the Treaty rules on State aid.; Commission White Paper of 22 July 1998 on Fair payment for infrastructure use: A phased approach to a common transport infrastructure charging in the framework in the EU (COM (1998) 466 final, paragraph 43; Green Paper of 10 December 1997 ea and Maritime Infrastructure. COM (97) 678 final, paragraph 42; Communication from the Commission to the Council and to the European Parliament of 13 February 2001: Reinforcing Quality Services in Sea Ports: a Key for European Transport, (COM (2001) 35 final.

(105) See, Commission decisions of 14.09.2000, on State aid N 208/2000 — Netherlands — Subsidy Scheme for Public Inland Terminals (SOIT), OJ C 315 of 4.11.2000, p. 22; of 17.07.2002, on State aid N 356/2002 — United Kingdom — Network Rail, OJ C 232 of 28.09.2002, p. 2; of 20.12.2001, on State aid N 649/2001 — United Kingdom — Freight Facilities Grant, OJ C 45 of 19.02.2002, p. 2, paragraph 45, of 8.03.2006, on State aid N 284/2005 — Ireland — Regional Broadband Programme: Metropolitan Area Networks (‘MANs’), phases II and III, paragraph 34, OJ C 207 of 30.8.2006, p. 2; of of 2 August 2002 on State aid C 42/2001 — Spain — Terra Mitica SA, OJ L 91, 8.4.2003, p. 23, paragraphs 64 and 65; of 20.04.2005, on State aid N 355/2004 — Belgium — PPP Antwerp Airport, OJ C 176, of 16.7.2005, p. 11, paragraph 34; of 11.12.2001, on State aid N 550/2001 — Belgium — Partenariat public privé pour la construction d’installations de chargement et de déchargement, OJ C 24, 26.1.2002, p. 2, paragraph 24; of 20.12.2001, on State aid N 649/2001 -United Kingdom — Freight Facilities Grant (FFG), OJ C 045 of 19.02.2002, p. 2;.. See also paragraph 201 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, OJ C 262, 19.7.2016, p. 1.

(106) See, for instance Guidelines on State aid to airports and airlines, OJ C 99, 4.4.2014, p. 3, paragraphs 28-29; Commission decision of 3 October 2012, on State aid C 38/2008 — Germany — Munich airport Terminal 2, OJ L 319, 29.11.2013, p. 8, paragraphs 74 to 81.

(107) The Commission would point out that, since the entry into force of Regulation No 659/99 and of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing it (OJ L 140, 30.04.2001, p. 1), such a state of affairs cannot happen again. Both Regulations remind Member States of their obligation to notify in advance any proposal to grant new aid. The practical arrangements for making such notifications, such as the use of standard forms, are set out clearly.

(108) See recitals 309 to 322 of the judgment.

(109) Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018, World Duty Free Group, SA, formerly Autogrill España, SA v Commission, T-219/10 RENV, ECLI:EU:T:2018:784; Judgement of the General Court of 15 November 2018, Deutsche Telekom AG v Commission, T-207/10, ECLI:EU:T:2018:786; Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018, Banco Santander, SA v Commission, Case T-227/10, ECLI:EU:T:2018:785; Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018, Axa Mediterranean Holding, SA v Commission, T-405/11, ECLI:EU:T:2018:780; Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018, Banco Santander, SA and Santusa Holding, SL v Commission, Case T-399/11 RENV, ECLI:EU:T:2018:787.

(110) See among others paragraph 293 of Judgment of the General Court of 15 November 2018, World Duty Free Group, SA, formerly Autogrill España, SA v Commission, T-219/10 RENV, ECLI:EU:T:2018:784.