DRŽAVNE POTPORE – DANSKA

Državna potpora SA.52162 (2019/C) (ex 2018/FC) – državna potpora u korist poduzetnika Øresund Bridge Consortium

Poziv na podnošenje primjedaba u skladu s člankom 108. stavkom 2. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije

(Tekst značajan za EGP)

(2019/C 109/03)

Dopisom od 28. veljače 2019., koji se navodi na izvornom jeziku u nastavku ovog sažetka, Komisija je obavijestila Dansku da je odlučila pokrenuti postupak utvrđen člankom 108. stavkom 2. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije u vezi s mjerama potpore koje su odobrene poduzetniku Øresundsbro Konsortiet („Konzorcij”).

Zainteresirane strane mogu u roku od mjesec dana od datuma objave ovog sažetka i dopisa u nastavku podnijeti primjedbe povezane s mjerama potpore koje su odobrene Konzorciju i u vezi s kojima Komisija pokreće postupak, na sljedeću adresu:

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

U tom roku potrebno je dostaviti obje verzije primjedbi, i povjerljivu verziju i verziju koja nije povjerljiva, a verzija koja nije povjerljiva proslijedit će se Danskoj i Švedskoj. Povjerljivo postupanje s identitetom zainteresirane strane koja podnosi primjedbe može se zatražiti u pisanom obliku, pri čemu je potrebno navesti razloge zahtjeva.

1. POSTUPAK

Poduzetnik Scandlines Øresund I/S (1)16. travnja 2013. Komisiji je podnio pritužbu u kojoj je tvrdio da državna jamstva koja su Danska i Švedska odobrile Konzorciju za potrebe financiranja projekta Øresund Fixed Link (projekt stalne veze preko Øresundskog tjesnaca) („Veza”) te određene porezne olakšice koje je odobrila Danska čine nezakonitu državnu potporu i da je ta potpora nespojiva s unutarnjim tržištem.

Nakon nekoliko razmjena informacija Komisija je 15. listopada 2014. donijela odluku o neulaganju prigovora jer je smatrala da državna jamstva za zajmove Konzorcija i određene porezne mjere (amortizacija imovine, prijenos poreznog gubitka u buduće razdoblje) čine državne potpore spojive s unutarnjim tržištem na temelju članka 107. stavka 3. točke (b) Ugovora. Podnositelj pritužbe pokrenuo je tužbu za poništenje i 19. rujna 2018. Opći sud djelomično je poništio odluku Komisije iz 2014. i utvrdio je da je Komisija trebala pokrenuti formalni istražni postupak kako bi detaljno ispitala taj predmet (2).

2. OPIS PROJEKTA I MJERA POTPORE

Danska i Švedska 1991. sklopile su međuvladin sporazum o partnerstvu za izgradnju Veze (čine je most duljine 16 km koji se financira naplaćivanjem cestarina, umjetni otok te tunel za cestovni i željeznički promet između Kopenhagena i Malmöa) i upravljanje njome. Za potrebe tog projekta svaka od njih osnovala je društvo s ograničenom odgovornošću – A/S Øresund i Svensk-Danske Broförbindelsen SVEDAB AB. Ta su društva pak osnovala Konzorcij, koji je nadležan za izradu projekta, planiranje i sve ostale pripreme potrebne za Vezu, kao i za njezino financiranje, izgradnju i rad.

Obje države pristale su izdati jamstva za sve zajmove koje Konzorcij ugovori za financiranje Veze. Danska je predvidjela i poseban porezni tretman kad je riječ o amortizaciji imovine Konzorcija te mjere kojima bi dopustila prijenos poreznog gubitka u buduće razdoblje.

Veza je izgrađena u razdoblju od 1995. do 2000., a u upotrebi je od lipnja 2000. U vrijeme planiranja i izgradnje Veze smatralo se da rad takve infrastrukture ne čini gospodarsku djelatnost i da se stoga na javno financiranje takvih projekata ne primjenjuju pravila o državnim potporama. Komisija je to viđenje potvrdila konkretno za Vezu u dopisima koje je 1995. poslala Danskoj i Švedskoj. Na temelju niza presuda Suda promijenilo se prevladavajuće viđenje i sad se smatra da financiranje infrastrukture koja se upotrebljava za pružanje usluga za koje se plaća naknada čini gospodarsku djelatnost i da se stoga na njega primjenjuje kontrola državnih potpora.

3. OCJENA

Na temelju dostupnih informacija preliminarno je stajalište Komisije da predmetne mjere čine državnu potporu u smislu članka 107. stavka 1. UFEU-a. Međutim, Komisija namjerava ocijeniti jesu li te mjere po svojoj prirodi pojedinačna potpora ili program potpore, kao i datum/datume odobravanja mjera i njihov broj. Komisija smatra da mjera povezana s prijenosom poreznog gubitka u buduće razdoblje koja se primjenjivala do 2001. čini postojeću potporu, a da ista mjera koja se primjenjivala od 1. siječnja 2013. čini novu potporu. Kad je riječ o mjeri povezanoj s amortizacijom imovine, s obzirom na to da je uvedena 1991. i da do ukidanja nije izmijenjena, može je se smatrati postojećom potporom. Komisija će ispitati i čine li jamstva postojeću ili novu potporu.

Osim toga, Komisija namjerava zatražiti mišljenja dionika o spojivosti predmetnih mjera s unutarnjim tržištem. Iako se može smatrati da se tim mjerama promiče važan projekt od zajedničkog interesa za cijelu Europu, Komisija sad želi dodatno razmotriti sljedeća pitanja: jesu li te mjere po svojoj prirodi ulaganja ili operativne potpore, jesu li one bile nužne i proporcionalne, uzrokuju li one neopravdano narušavanje tržišnog natjecanja koje se ne može nadoknaditi njihovim pozitivnim učincima te koji su uvjeti za mobilizaciju predmetnih jamstava. Naposljetku, Komisija smatra da se države i korisnik za razdoblje do donošenja presude u predmetu Aéroports de Pariz mogu pozvati na načelo zaštite legitimnih očekivanja (3), no namjerava ispitati za koje se točno razdoblje nakon donošenja te presude korisnik, Švedska i Danska mogu pozvati na isto to načelo ako se utvrdi da predmetne mjere čine nespojivu i nezakonitu državnu potporu.

TEKST DOPISA

(1) U studenome 2018. taj poduzetnik, koji upravlja linijom Helsingør-Helsingborg, promijenio je ime u FORSEA.

(2) Vidjeti presudu Općeg suda od 19. rujna 2018., HH Ferries i drugi protiv Komisije, T-68/15, ECLI:EU:T:2018:563.

(3) Presuda Općeg suda od 12. prosinca 2000., Aéroports de Pariz protiv Komisije, 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.