AYUDA ESTATAL — DINAMARCA

Ayuda estatal SA.39078 (2019/C) (ex 2014/N) — Financiación del proyecto de enlace fijo del Femern Baelt

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 226/03)

Por carta de 14 de junio de 2019, reproducida en la versión lingüística auténtica en las páginas que siguen al presente resumen, la Comisión notificó a Dinamarca 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 al proyecto de enlace fijo del Femern Baelt.

Los interesados podrán presentar sus observaciones sobre las medidas en favor de Femern A/S y respecto de las cuales la Comisión ha incoado el procedimiento, en el 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 se comunicarán a Dinamarca. 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 22 de diciembre de 2014, Dinamarca notificó a la Comisión el modelo de financiación del proyecto de enlace fijo del Femern Baelt. El 5 de junio, el 5 de septiembre y el 26 de noviembre de 2014, así como el 19 de enero y el 22 de abril de 2015, la Comisión recibió 5 denuncias (1) en las que se alegaba que Dinamarca había concedido ayudas estatales ilegales e incompatibles para la planificación, construcción y explotación del enlace, en favor de Femern A/S (2).

El 23 de julio de 2015, la Comisión adoptó una Decisión de no objeción («Decisión de construcción») (3), en la que concluía, entre otros elementos, que, incluso en el caso de que las medidas en favor de Femern A/S para la planificación, construcción y explotación del enlace fijo constituyeran ayuda estatal, serían compatibles con el mercado interior con arreglo al artículo 107, apartado 3, letra b), del TFUE. El Tribunal General anuló parcialmente la Decisión de 2015 (4), en la medida en que la Comisión decidió no plantear objeciones a las medidas adoptadas por Dinamarca en favor de Femern A/S para la planificación, construcción y explotación del enlace. El Tribunal General desestimó el recurso en todos los demás elementos. En particular, rechazó los argumentos del requirente en relación con la conclusión de la Comisión de que las medidas adoptadas en favor de A/S Femern Landanlaeg para la planificación, construcción y explotación de las conexiones por carretera y ferrocarril con el territorio danés no constituyen ayuda estatal en el sentido del artículo 107, apartado 1, del TFUE.

Procedimiento con respecto a supuestas medidas adicionales

El 2 de agosto de 2016, Scandlines envió una carta a la Comisión en la que solicitaba la adopción de medidas en relación con unas presuntas ayudas en favor de Femern A/S que, en su opinión, no habían sido abordadas por la Comisión en su Decisión de construcción. Mediante carta de 30 de septiembre de 2016, los servicios de la Comisión respondieron a Scandlines. El 12 de diciembre de 2016, Scandlines presentó un recurso de anulación de la carta de los servicios de la Comisión de 30 de septiembre de 2016 (5), así como una acción contra la Comisión por no haber actuado en relación con su denuncia, en el caso de que no se considerarse que la carta de los servicios de la Comisión equivalía a la definición de una posición en el sentido del artículo 265 del TFUE (6).

El 6 de noviembre de 2017, Scandlines presentó una nueva denuncia sobre las medidas de ayuda ilegales e incompatibles utilizadas para financiar las actividades de información y promoción de Femern A/S.

El 30 de julio de 2018, Scandlines envió una segunda carta (7) a la Comisión en la que le pedía que definiera su posición sobre las supuestas medidas de ayuda acordadas infringiendo la Decisión que la Comisión había adoptado para la fase de planificación del proyecto («Decisión de planificación») (8). El 28 de septiembre de 2018, la Comisión adoptó una Decisión («Decisión de confirmación») en la que concluía que las supuestas medidas de ayuda no constituían ayuda estatal ilegal y que fueron autorizadas por las Decisiones de planificación y de construcción.

El 13 de diciembre de 2018, el Tribunal General falló sobre la inadmisibilidad de las acciones anteriormente mencionadas (9). Scandlines recurrió ante el Tribunal en el asunto relativo a la anulación de la carta de los servicios de la Comisión de 30 de septiembre de 2016 (10).

2. DESCRIPCIÓN DEL PROYECTO Y MEDIDAS

El proyecto de enlace fijo del Femern Baelt constará de una infraestructura de costa a costa y de conexiones ferroviarias y por carretera con el interior. La infraestructura de costa a costa («enlace fijo») consistirá en un túnel sumergido de 19 km de longitud que incluirá una línea de ferrocarril de doble vía y una autopista de 4 carriles, entre Rødby, en la isla de Lolland, en Dinamarca, y Puttgarden, en Alemania.

En 2008, Dinamarca y Alemania firmaron un tratado según el cual Dinamarca sería la única propietaria y asumiría todo el riesgo de financiación del enlace fijo, así como de mejora de las conexiones con el interior del territorio danés. Alemania sería responsable de la financiación y mejora de las conexiones interiores alemanas (no afectadas por la presente investigación formal). La ejecución del proyecto se encomendó a 2 empresas públicas: Femern A/S, responsable del enlace fijo, y A/S Femern Landanlæg, responsable de las conexiones con el interior del territorio danés.

La planificación, construcción y explotación del enlace fijo y de las conexiones con el interior del territorio danés se financiarían principalmente mediante préstamos, obtenidos en los mercados financieros internacionales y cubiertos por una garantía del Estado, o por préstamos del Banco Central de Dinamarca respaldados por el Estado. Dinamarca también preveía: inyecciones de capital y un tratamiento fiscal especial por lo que se refiere a la amortización de los bienes de Femern A/S, traslado de pérdidas fiscales acumuladas, y un régimen de tributación conjunta. Las supuestas medidas de ayuda adicionales consisten en el uso gratuito de propiedades estatales y en tasas ferroviarias no conformes a los precios de mercado que el Estado pagaría a través del operador ferroviario estatal Danske Statsbaner.

La presente investigación solo se refiere a las medidas en favor de Femern A/S, ya que las medidas en favor de A/S Femern Landanlæg no constituyen ayuda estatal.

3. EVALUACIÓN

Sobre la base de la información disponible, la Comisión tiene dudas en cuanto a si se puede considerar que Femern A/S ejerce una actividad económica y, por lo tanto, si puede considerarse una empresa en el sentido de las normas sobre ayudas estatales. Para el caso de que Femern A/S fuese considerada una empresa en la Decisión final, la Comisión desea evaluar ahora la naturaleza de las medidas como ayuda individual o régimen de ayudas.

Además, la Comisión 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 desea, en esta fase, seguir examinando cuestiones como su naturaleza de ayuda a la inversión o al funcionamiento, su necesidad y proporcionalidad, así como las condiciones de movilización de las medidas en forma de garantías.

(1) De Scandlines Danmark ApS y Scandlines Deutschland GmbH («Scandlines»), 3i Investment Plc, TT Line, Stena Line Scandinavia AB («Stena Line») y Trelleborgs Hamn AB.

(2) Estas denuncias fueron registradas por los servicios de la Comisión con los números SA.38915 y SA.41640.

(3) Decisión de la Comisión de 23.7.2015 en el asunto SA. 39078 (2014/N) – Dinamarca – Finansiering av den faste forbindelse over Femern Baelt (DO C 325 de 2.10.2015, p. 1).

(4) Sentencia del Tribunal General de 13 de diciembre de 2018, Stena Line Scandinavia AB y otros/Comisión, T-631/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:944 y sentencia del Tribunal General de 13 de diciembre de 2018, Scandlines Danmark ApS, Scandlines Deutschland GmbH y otros/Comisión, T-630/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:942.

(5) Asunto T-890/16, Scandlines Danmark ApS y Scandlines Deutschland GmbH/Comisión, ECLI:EU:T:2018:1004.

(6) Asunto T-891/16, Scandlines Danmark ApS y Scandlines Deutschland GmbH/Comisión, ECLI:EU:T:2018:1003.

(7) Esta carta fue registrada como SA. 51981.

(8) Decisión de la Comisión de 17.3.2009 en el asunto SA. 157 (2009/N) – Dinamarca – Finansiering af forundersøgelsesfasen af den faste forbindelse over Femern Bælt (DO C 202 de 27.8.2009, p. 1).

(9) Autos del Tribunal General de 13 de diciembre de 2018, Scandlines Danmark ApS y Scandlines Deutschland GmbH/Comisión, T-890/16, ECLI:EU:T:2018:1004 y T-891/16, ECLI:EU:T:2018:1003.

(10) Asunto C-173/19 P, Scandlines Danmark y Scandlines Deutschland/Comisión.

(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.