AIDE D’ÉTAT — DANEMARK

Aide d’État SA.39078 (2019/C) (ex 2014/N) — Financement du projet de liaison fixe du détroit de Fehmarn

Invitation à présenter des observations en application de l’article 108, paragraphe 2, du traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne

(Texte présentant de l'intérêt pour l'EEE)

(2019/C 226/03)

Par la lettre du 14 juin 2019, reproduite dans la langue faisant foi dans les pages qui suivent le présent résumé, la Commission a notifié au Danemark sa décision d’ouvrir la procédure prévue à l’article 108, paragraphe 2, du traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne en ce qui concerne les mesures relatives au financement du projet de liaison fixe du détroit de Fehmarn.

Les parties intéressées peuvent présenter leurs observations sur les mesures en faveur de Femern A/S à l’égard desquelles la Commission ouvre la procédure, dans un délai d’un mois à compter de la date de publication du présent résumé et de la lettre qui suit, à l’adresse suivante:

Commission européenne Direction générale de la concurrence Greffe des aides d’État 1049 Bruxelles BELGIQUE Fax +32 22961242 Stateaidgreffe@ec.europa.eu

Ces observations seront communiquées au Danemark. Le traitement confidentiel de l’identité de la partie intéressée qui présente les observations peut être demandé par écrit, en spécifiant les motifs de la demande.

1. PROCÉDURE

Le 22 décembre 2014, le Danemark a notifié à la Commission le modèle de financement du projet de liaison fixe du détroit de Fehmarn («détroit de Fehmarn»). Les 5 juin 2014, 5 septembre 2014, 26 novembre 2014, 19 janvier 2015 et 22 avril 2015, la Commission a reçu cinq plaintes (1) selon lesquelles le Danemark aurait accordé à Femern A/S une aide d’État illégale et incompatible avec le marché intérieur pour la planification, la construction et l’exploitation du lien (2).

Le 23 juillet 2015, la Commission a adopté une décision de ne pas soulever d’objection («décision relative à la construction») (3) constatant, entre autres, que même dans le cas où les mesures en faveur de Femern A/S pour la planification, la construction et l’exploitation de la liaison fixe devaient constituer des aides d’État, elles étaient compatibles avec le marché intérieur conformément à l’article 107, paragraphe 3, point b), TFUE. Le Tribunal a partiellement annulé la décision de 2015 (4) en ce que la Commission a décidé de ne pas soulever d’objections à l’égard des mesures accordées par le Danemark à Femern A/S pour la planification, la construction et l’exploitation de la liaison fixe du détroit de Fehmarn. Le Tribunal a rejeté le recours pour le surplus. Il a en particulier rejeté les arguments de la requérante concernant la conclusion de la Commission selon laquelle les mesures accordées à A/S Femern Landanlaeg pour la planification, la construction et l’exploitation des connexions routières et ferroviaires vers l’arrière-pays danois ne constituent pas une aide d’État au sens de l’article 107, paragraphe 1, TFUE.

Procédure relative aux autres mesures présumées

Le 2 août 2016, Scandlines a envoyé à la Commission une lettre l’invitant à prendre des mesures à l’égard de certaines aides présumées en faveur de Femern A/S que la Commission n’avait, selon elle, pas traitées dans sa décision relative à la construction. Par lettre du 30 septembre 2016, les services de la Commission ont répondu à Scandlines. Le 12 décembre 2016, Scandlines a introduit un recours en annulation contre la lettre des services de la Commission du 30 septembre 2016 (5), ainsi qu’un recours en carence contre la Commission au cas où il serait conclu que la lettre des services de la Commission ne constitue pas une position au sens de l’article 265 TFUE (6).

Le 6 novembre 2017, Scandlines a déposé une plainte complémentaire concernant des aides illégales et incompatibles avec le marché intérieur présumées, utilisées pour financer les activités d’information et de promotion de Fehmern A/S.

Le 30 juillet 2018, Scandlines a adressé une deuxième lettre (7) à la Commission l’invitant à prendre position sur les aides d’État présumées accordées en violation de la décision que la Commission avait adoptée lors de la phase de planification du projet («décision relative à la planification») (8). Le 28 septembre 2018, la Commission a adopté une décision («décision de confirmation») concluant que les mesures d’aide présumées ne constituaient pas des aides d’État illégales et étaient autorisées dans la décision relative à la planification et la décision relative à la construction.

Le 13 décembre 2018, le Tribunal a déclaré les recours susmentionnés irrecevables (9). Scandlines a formé un pourvoi devant la Cour de justice contre l’ordonnance rendue dans l’affaire visant à obtenir l’annulation de la lettre des services de la Commission du 30 septembre 2016 (10).

2. DESCRIPTION DU PROJET ET DES MESURES

Le projet de liaison fixe du détroit de Fehmarn comprendra une infrastructure de côte à côte et des connexions rail-route vers l’arrière-pays. L’infrastructure de côte à côte («liaison fixe») consistera en un tunnel immergé, long de 19 km, comportant une double voie ferrée et une autoroute à quatre bandes reliant Rødby sur l’île de Lolland, au Danemark, à Puttgarden, en Allemagne.

En 2008, le Danemark et l’Allemagne ont signé un traité en vertu duquel le Danemark serait l’unique propriétaire et assumerait l’entière responsabilité du financement de la liaison fixe, ainsi que de l’amélioration des connexions vers l’arrière-pays danois. L’Allemagne serait responsable du financement et de l’amélioration des connexions vers l’arrière-pays allemand (qui ne font pas l’objet de la présente enquête formelle). L’exécution du projet a été confiée à deux entreprises publiques. La première, Femern A/S, est responsable de la liaison fixe. La deuxième, A/S Femern Landanlæg, est responsable des connexions vers l’arrière-pays danois.

La planification, la construction et l’exploitation de la liaison fixe et des connexions vers l’arrière-pays danois devraient être financées principalement par des prêts levés sur les marchés financiers internationaux et couverts par une garantie de l’État ou par des prêts garantis par l’État de la Banque centrale du Danemark. Le Danemark a également prévu des injections de capitaux et un traitement fiscal spécial en ce qui concerne l’amortissement des actifs de Femern A/S, des mesures permettant le report d’une perte fiscale et un régime fiscal commun. Les autres mesures d’aide présumées consistent en une utilisation gratuite des biens de l’État et en des taxes ferroviaires non conformes à la pratique du marché que l’État prend à sa charge par l’intermédiaire de l’opérateur ferroviaire Danske Statsbaner qu’il contrôle.

La présente enquête ne concerne que les mesures en faveur de Femern A/S, attendu que les mesures en faveur d’A/S Femern Landanlæg ne constituent pas une aide d’État.

3. APPRÉCIATION

Sur la base des informations disponibles, la Commission doute, à ce stade, que l’on puisse considérer que Femern A/S exerce une activité économique et représente donc une entreprise au sens des règles relatives aux aides d’État. Si Femern A/S devait être considérée comme une entreprise dans la décision finale, la Commission entend évaluer la nature des mesures en tant qu’aide individuelle ou que régime d’aides.

La Commission entend également recueillir l’avis des parties prenantes sur la compatibilité des mesures d’aide potentielles avec le marché intérieur. Bien que ces mesures puissent être considérées comme visant à promouvoir un projet important d’intérêt européen commun, la Commission souhaite, à ce stade, examiner de manière plus approfondie les éléments suivants: leur nature (aide à l’investissement et/ou au fonctionnement), leur nécessité et leur proportionnalité, ainsi que les conditions de mobilisation des mesures sous forme de garanties.

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

(2) Ces plaintes ont été enregistrées par les services de la Commission sous les numéros SA.38915 et SA.41640.

(3) Décision de la Commission du 23 juillet 2015 dans l’affaire SA.39078 (2014/N) — Danemark — Financement du projet de liaison fixe du détroit de Fehmarn (JO C 325 du 2.10.2015, p. 1).

(4) Arrêt du Tribunal du 13 décembre 2018, Stena Line Scandinavia AB e.a./Commission, T-631/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:944 et arrêt du Tribunal du 13 décembre 2018, Scandlines Danmark ApS, Scandlines Deutschland GmbH e.a./Commission, T-630/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:942.

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

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

(7) Cette lettre a été enregistrée sous la référence SA.51981.

(8) Décision de la Commission du 17 mars 2009, aide d’État N 157/2009 — Danemark — Financement de la phase de planification de la liaison fixe du détroit de Fehmarn (JO C 202 du 27.8.2009, p. 1).

(9) Ordonnances du Tribunal du 13 décembre 2018, Scandlines Danmark ApS et Scandlines Deutschland GmbH/Commission, T-890/16, ECLI:EU:T:2018:1004 et T-891/16, ECLI:EU:T:2018:1003.

(10) Affaire C-173/19 P, Scandlines Danmark et Scandlines Deutschland/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.