2008/878/EC: Commission Decision of 2 July 2008 on State aid C 18/07 (ex N 874/06) which Germany is planning to implement for DHL (notified under document number C(2008) 3178) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2008-07-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, State aid, air transport, delivery, freight rate, vocational training

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 312/31

(Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is not obligatory)

II

DECISIONS

COMMISSION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 2 July 2008

on State aid C 18/07 (ex N 874/06) which Germany is planning to implement for DHL

(notified under document number C(2008) 3178)

(Only the German text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/878/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

European Union (2). Germany submitted its comments by
letter dated 26 September 2007.

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,
and in particular
Article 88(2) thereof,

establishing the European
subparagraph of
the

first

(3)

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic
Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,

Having called on interested parties to submit their comments
pursuant to those provisions (1),

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

1. PROCEDURE

By letter dated 21 December 2006, Germany notified the
Commission of training aid for DHL.

By letter dated 27 June 2007, the Commission informed
Germany that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid
down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the
aid for DHL. The Commission decision to initiate the
procedure was published in the Official
the

Journal of

The Commission called on interested parties to submit
their comments. DHL and UPS Germany submitted their
comments by letters dated 15 October and 26 October
2007 respectively. The observations of the third parties
were submitted to Germany for comment by letters
dated 16 November and 20 November 2007. Germany
letter dated 14 December 2007. The
replied by
information by e-
Commission requested additional
to which
mails of 12 February and 5 June 2008,
Germany
February,
14
by
replied
31 March and 17 June 2008.

letters

dated

(4)

(5)

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

2.1. The beneficiary

DHL is one of the largest express parcel operators, with a
worldwide turnover of EUR 18,2 billion in 2005. It is
wholly owned by Deutsche Post AG.

DHL has built a new air logistics centre for delivery and
airfreight in Leipzig-Halle, Germany, which was expected
to become operational by the end of October 2007. The
entire investment costs of this project amounted to EUR
250 million. In April 2004 DHL was granted some EUR
70 million in regional
investment aid, which was
approved by the Commission as State aid N 608/2003
with a maximum aid intensity of 28 %.

(1) OJ C 213, 12.9.2007, p. 28.

(2) See footnote 1.

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

L 312/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

(6)

The delivery and airfreight centre is operated by the two
beneficiary companies, DHL Hub Leipzig GmbH (DHL
Hub) and European Air Transport Leipzig GmbH (DHL
EAT), which are wholly owned by Deutsche Post AG
subsidiaries. DHL Hub will provide
through other
ground handling services for the airfreight operation,
whereas DHL EAT will be responsible for inspections
of the DHL air fleet.

(7)

Both DHL Hub and DHL EAT are located in an area
assisted under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty.

(12)

(13)

2.2. The training project

the logistics centre. For this purpose,

DHL provides all ground handling services as well as the
pre-flight and ramp checks for arriving and departing
the
aircraft at
company plans gradually to employ around 1 500
people and to provide them with appropriate training.
However,
the notified aid relates only to training
measures for 485 employees.

(a) Ramp Agents II

The main activities of Ramp Agents are the loading and
unloading of aircraft on the basis of a strict schedule.
They also have to be able to manage the ground
service equipment, to pass on flight documentation, to
draw up reports and to communicate with pilots and the
airport authorities.

The training of Ramp Agents comprises 19 courses plus
practical on-the-job training for a total of 77 days, of
which 47 days are for on-the-job training. The training is
for workers with previous unrelated training. The theo­
retical training is to be provided before the hub becomes
operational. The training includes one course, ‘Unit load
device build up’, which is considered to be specific
training as it deals with the building up of specific
containers used only by DHL. The general
training
courses also concern:

Germany notified a direct grant for the training measures
from the Free State of Saxony (50 %) and the Land of
Saxony-Anhalt (50 %) amounting to EUR 7 753 307.

(a) general security training such as fire protection, cargo
first aid, hazardous goods recog­

door operation,
nition and ramp safety;

The training which DHL is planning will be provided by
DHL Hub (320 persons) and by DHL EAT (165
persons) (3).

2.2.1. DHL Hub

The training to be provided by DHL Hub is mainly
general training intended to provide workers with the
knowledge and ability to perform specific activities.
It
consists of theoretical training and practical on-the-job
to the
training. The training at DHL Hub relates
for 320
following more detailed job descriptions
employees:

Table 1

Job description

Number of
employees

Tasks

Ramp Agent II

Security Agent

Managers
(operations)

210

110

Loading and unloading of
aircraft

Checks on individuals and
freight

(110) (*) Middle management tasks;
personnel management and
planning; leadership

(*) DHL will provide additional management training for 110 employees
who have already participated in other training courses, i.e. Ramp
Agent II, Security Agent or Technician/Mechanic.

(3) For further details of the training project, see the decision initiating

the procedure.

(b) general technical training leading to the award of
licences for activities such as apron driving, ground
service equipment and forklift driving;

(c) other general

technical

training such as aircraft

towing, aircraft de-icing and airside supervision;

(d) some

general

training

environment
management (ISO/DIN Standard 14001) or quality
management
(ISO/DIN Standard
9001).

and processes

such

as

(14) National and European legislation do not,

in principle,
set a minimum number of employees or provide for
specific training requirements or licences for the activity
of Ramp Agent II. However, Germany indicated that five
of the planned courses (including fire protection, first aid,
recognition and ramp safety) are
dangerous goods
for
compulsory
all
rules
employees (4) and that additional courses,
including

existing

under

the

(4) Personnel in direct contact with freight must, under the law, hold an
accredited certificate for handling freight; all personnel employed in
the non-public area of the airport must attend security training;
in contact with the aircraft must attend cargo door
personnel
operation training;
in addition, depending on the specific activity,
the personnel must have qualifications for operating machines and
vehicles.

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 312/33

relevant on-the-job training, must be attended by a
i.e. cargo
minimum number of persons (around 70),
door operation and the general
training for which
licences are required. These persons could then transfer
their knowledge to their colleagues at short instruction
sessions.

(18) Here too, Germany presented subcontracting as an alter­
native solution the costs of which would be some [(15-
30 %)] (*) lower than DHL's personnel costs.

(15) Germany indicated that

subcontracting was another

possibility and provided a cost analysis.

(b) Security Agents

(16)

The activity of Security Agent
involves carrying out
checks on individuals and freight with the aim of
preventing any disruption of operations. The training of
Security Agents involves only general training:

(a) general security training such as fire protection, first

aid and hazardous goods recognition;

(b) general technical security training required by law for
security agents such as danger of terrorism, access
security, control and searches, security of
luggage
and freight, weapons and secure areas;

(c) other general technical training involving the award

of licences, such as apron driving;

(d) other general technical security training in fields such
as law, the science of weapons and explosives, basics
of control and reading of X-rays;

(e) some general training such as quality management

and processes (ISO/DIN standard 9001).

(17)

and European legislation. DHL plans

The training measures are consistent with the relevant
national
to
provide all Security Agents with comprehensive training
in the
regarding safety aspects which will, however,
absence of the State aid, be restricted to the minimum,
i.e. general
the
other general technical security training will again be
provided for a limited number of employees who will
then pass on their knowledge to the other employees.

technical security training. Moreover,

(c) Middle management training

(19)

training of operations middle management

is
The
the logistics centre. The
intended for personnel at
Commission is given to understand that
they will
undergo the above training before acquiring more in-
depth knowledge of
the areas they are supposed to
manage. They will also be trained in subjects such as
law, basic communications, human resource
labour
management and conflict management,
languages and
team building.

2.2.2. DHL EAT

(20)

The tasks performed by DHL EAT concern essentially
is released to
aircraft maintenance before an aircraft
service,
to the
training provided relates
following job descriptions for 165 employees:

and the

Table 2

Job description

Number of
employees

Tasks

Maintenance
mechanic
authorising release
CAT A

Maintenance tech­
nician – mechanic
authorising release
CAT B 1

97

68

Simple scheduled main­
tenance or simple defect
rectification before release
to service

Maintenance including
airframe structure, power
plant and electrical systems
before release to service

2.3. Eligible training costs and planned aid

(21)

In the notification Germany provided an overview of
eligible costs which was reproduced in the decision
initiating the procedure. The total eligible costs were
EUR [(10-15)] million for the training project and EUR
7 753 000 for the planned training aid.

3. DECISION TO INITIATE THE FORMAL
INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE

(22)

The formal investigation procedure was initiated because
the Commission had doubts as to whether the training
aid was compatible with the common market.

(*) Confidential information.

L 312/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

(23)

The Commission doubted in particular whether the aid
was actually necessary for the implementation of
the
training project.
training aid can be
It noted that
regarded as being compatible with the common market
pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty only where
it is not directly required for the operational l activities of
the beneficiary.
In this respect the Commission made
reference to its previous decision-making practice (5). It
had reason to assume that the beneficiary would need to
provide, at least up to a certain extent, similar training to
its employees even in the absence of aid.

(24)

First, it was clear that DHL had invested massively in the
logistics centre and wanted it to become operational.
Germany confirmed that the workers in Belgium were,
in principle, unwilling to move to Germany. Therefore
DHL had to recruit new workers before it could start
operations.

(25)

Second, it seemed that, in order to operate the logistics
centre,
largely
the workforce required an amount of
technical training in the following areas:

(a) Transmission of

required for the operation of the business,
knowledge
systems of DHL.

company-specific knowledge
i.e.
freight

tailor-made

specific,

about

(b) Acquisition of certain qualifications required by
law for the operation of the business. In other
words, a certain number of workers need to be
acquainted with security concerns. This is required
by law and needs some formal certification. This
follows from the fact that the services provided by
DHL intrinsically involve considerable safety and
security risks.

(c) Provision of general technical training directly
required to operate the logistics centre. This
involves
II
training for aircraft towing, aircraft de-icing, apron
driving, forklift driving and ramp safety.

the Ramp Agent

such as

courses

a strict timetable, since a single mistake can cause
huge delays.

(e) Provision of other general knowledge not covered

by points (b) to (d).

(26)

Third, the Commission doubted whether DHL would be
able to attract
in sufficient numbers on the local or
European labour market workers who had the above
mentioned skills.

(27)

(28)

(29)

Fourth, the Commission had doubts whether the hiring
of skilled workers would be an adequate alternative to in-
house training.
the specific
It assumed that at
training and the security training have to be provided
by DHL in any event as the former cannot be provided
its
by outside trainers and as DHL must show that
security training is adequate.

least

Fifth, the Commission had doubts whether DHL would
be able to dispense with some of the courses in the
training package,
in particular as regards Ramp Agent
II, for which it was planned, as indicated in the notifi­
that even workers already in possession of a
cation,
licence
again.
should undergo the
it was doubtful whether only a limited
Moreover,
this might
number of people could be trained as
adversely affect
In
fact, DHL had intentionally already recruited the entire
personnel with a view to being trained so that it did not
make much sense to abandon the planned training and
pay employees who were not engaged in any activity.

the smooth operation of services.

training

entire

the Commission was not

sure about DHL's
Sixth,
assertion that,
in the absence of aid, various services
would be contracted out so as to avoid the planned
training given that, on the one hand, even then some
training under points (a),
(b) and (d) would also be
necessary and, on the other, the specific aim of DHL's
to provide all
entire investment
services related to express parcel delivery using its own
personnel and, as the Commission understood from the
meeting with the German authorities, even to offer these
services to competitors operating at the same airport.

in Leipzig-Halle is

(d) Provision of on-the-job training required for the
smooth operation of the hub. Trainees will be
something
acquainted with the work processes,
which
airfreight
for
operations as the loading of airplanes has to follow

particularly

important

is

(5) See Commission Decision 2007/612/EC of 4 April 2007, General
Motors Belgium in Antwerp (OJ L 243, 18.9.2007, p. 71) and
Commission Decision 2006/938/EC of 4 July 2006, Ford Genk (OJ
L 366, 21.12.2006, p. 32).

that

(30) However, the Commission had, with one exception, no
in principle, been
the training costs had,
doubt
calculated correctly. The only misgivings expressed by
the Commission concerned the observation that a large
part of the training was to be on-the-job training, with
the result that the training might have to be deducted
from trainee costs as productive hours.

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 312/35

4. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY

(31) Germany argues that the notified training aid fulfils all of
the criteria laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No
68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of
Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid (6).
Germany first supplied sufficient information to show
that no productive hours are involved in the on-the-job
training.

(32)

Second, Germany disputes the Commission's right
to
apply the necessity criterion in the present case as this
would be in breach of the principle of non-discrimi­
nation. This new approach does not have a legal basis
and is not in line with the relevant EC legislation or
Commission decision-making practice.

(33) Germany argues that recital 11 to Regulation (EC) No
68/2001 specifies the three criteria which need to be
assessed when determining whether aid is limited to
the minimum necessary: the type of training provided,
the size of the enterprise and its geographical location.
These three criteria make it possible to determine
whether the aid measures have an incentive effect and
are proportional. According to the Framework on
training aid (7), it is only in the case of specific training
measures for large undertakings outside areas assisted
under Article 87(3)(a) or (c) of the EC Treaty that the
incentive effect is not presumed to exist. Since more than
80 % of the notified training project consists of general
training measures and involves an undertaking in an area
assisted under Article 87(3)(a), the training aid has an
incentive effect. Also, since the notified aid does not
exceed the maximum aid intensities, the positive effects
of the assisted training measures are proportional to the
distortion of competition, thereby fulfilling the propor­
tionality criterion.

(35)

(36)

(37)

(34)

Third, Germany underlines the fact that the Commission
is required to apply the compatibility criteria specified in
recital 32 also for projects not caught by the notification
requirement. It argues that different compatibility criteria
should not be applied to aid exempted from notification
or to aid which exceeds the EUR 1 million threshold and
should therefore be notified; projects which need to be
notified must not be assessed in a more restrictive
exempted from notification.
manner
Therefore, training aid is compatible with the common
market if it fulfils all the conditions set out in Regulation

than projects

(6) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 20.
(7) OJ C 343, 11.11.1998, p. 10.

(EC) No 68/2001. Germany claims that this interpre­
tation has been borne out by the Commission in its
long-standing decision-making practice, e.g. in the Volvo
Gent case (8).
the Commission
the DHL
should also bear
training project
fulfils the criteria laid down in the
Webasto decision (9).

It expressly states that
in mind the fact

that

Fourth, the application of different assessment criteria
contravenes
and
equality of treatment.

the principles of

certainty

legal

from those of

Fifth, Germany argues that the Commission decisions in
the Ford Genk and GM Antwerp cases do not constitute
suitable precedents since the facts of
the cases were
different
the present case. Whereas in
the first two cases training aid was envisaged for the
introduction of a new model and for the continued
employment of personnel, the training aid for DHL is
to be used for training newly recruited employees to
operate a newly built logistics centre. The DHL project
also differs from the other two cases in the following
respects: general training makes up more than 80 % of
the project; the undertaking is based in an area assisted
under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty; DHL intends to
create new jobs at the logistics centre; and, unlike the car
sector, the air transport sector does not suffer from over­
capacity but is expanding rapidly.

they do not

Lastly, Germany provides additional
information as
regards the matters raised in the decision initiating the
procedure. It explains that the relevant legal provisions
lay down minimum standards for the level of training.
set a minimum number of
However,
qualified personnel which the undertaking has
to
recruit. On the other hand, Germany indicates how
many employees are necessary for the logistics centre
to start operating and concludes
the training
measures for the additional employees go beyond what
view.
is necessary
According to a study provided by Germany and drawn
up by an external
training consultant, DHL could
successfully start operating in Leipzig-Halle with a
smaller number of trained employees than envisaged in
the notified training project.

from an operational point of

that

(8) Commission Decision of 11 March 2008 on State aid C 35/07,

Volvo Cars Gent (not yet published).

(9) Commission Decision of 16 May 2006 on State aid N 635/05,

Webasto Portugal (OJ C 306, 15.12.2006, p. 12).

L 312/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

(38)

5. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES

that

like Germany, argues

Comments were also submitted by the beneficiary, DHL,
which,
the Commission
diverges in its compatibility assessment from its general
decision-making practice in earlier cases. In its view, the
notified aid fulfils all the criteria set out in Regulation
(EC) No 68/2001. The Commission's approach violates
the principles of legal certainty and equality of treatment,
which prohibit treatment different from that of previous
training aid decisions where the necessity issue was not
assessed in detail. Further, the Ford Genk and GM Antwerp
decisions do not reflect general decision-making practice
because the circumstances of these cases are different and
cannot be applied by analogy to the case of DHL Leipzig.
criteria set out by the
Instead, DHL invokes
Commission in its decision of
June 2006 approving
training aid for Webasto and according to which the
DHL training project must also be compatible with the
common market. Finally, DHL reiterates that differential
treatment of the notified training project leads to inad­
missible discrimination against it.

the

for

content of

training and qualifications

(39) DHL also provides additional information on the issues
the
raised in the Commission decision to initiate
the relevant provisions of national,
procedure. First,
legislation determine only
European and international
the
the
handling of
freight and aircraft but do not specify a
minimum number of employees. Second, the training
the existing legal
measures planned not only fulfil
go beyond what
requirements but
is mandatory.
Therefore,
the measures exceeding the legal
for all
requirements alternative scenarios could be envisaged
(e.g. outsourcing and subcontracting). However, since
these alternative scenarios are only possible variants,
DHL did not commission a detailed cost analysis which
would include the costs
the mandatory and/or
minimum training needed in any event and indicate
the extra costs of
recruiting
skilled employees. DHL does not have any information
on the degree of training normally provided in the sector.

subcontracting and/or

for

(40) UPS,

a

competitor of DHL,

submitted comments
supporting the Commission's position. First,
it explains
that the recruitment of new employees for DHL Hub and
DHL EAT entails in any event certain training and
instruction measures that should be carried out. Thus,
the training measures are, to a certain extent, necessary
and would need to be carried out by the undertaking
even in the absence of aid.

training for its employees, e.g.
minimum amount of
regulated agents. Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002 of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December
2002 establishing common rules in the field of civil
aviation security (10) provides that regulated agents must
be designated, approved and listed by the appropriate
authority, here the Federal Aviation Authority. To this
end, the Authority adopted guidelines and published a
model training course (Musterlehrplan) which lay down
the mandatory training measures to be provided. As
regards the employees of DHL EAT,
the mandatory
training measures are spelt out in Commission Regu­
lation (EC) No 2042/2003 of 20 November 2003 on
the continuing airworthiness of aircraft and aeronautical
products, parts and appliances, and on the approval of
organisations and personnel involved in these tasks (11).
Third, since DHL has received regional aid for
job
creation,
to be assumed that DHL would
dispense with the training measures and recruit fewer
people, and instead would subcontract or outsource.

is not

it

6. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID

6.1. Existence of State aid

(42)

The Commission considers that the measure constitutes
State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC
Treaty that has been made available in the form of a
financed by state resources. The measure is
grant
selective as it
is limited to DHL. The selective grant
threatens to distort competition by favouring DHL over
other competitors not receiving aid. Finally, the market
for express parcel delivery, on which DHL is a major
trade between
player,
Member States.

characterised by intensive

is

(43) Germany requests approval of the aid on the basis of

Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001.

(44) According to Article 5 of that Regulation, where the
amount of aid granted to one enterprise for a single
training project exceeds EUR 1 million, the aid is not
exempted from the notification requirement pursuant
the EC Treaty. The Commission
to Article 88(3) of
notes that the proposed aid in this case amounts to
EUR 7 753 307 and is to be paid to one enterprise
the training measures constitute a single
and that
the notification requirement
project.
therefore applies to the proposed aid and that it has
been complied with by Germany.

It considers that

(41)

Second, according to UPS, DHL is required under the
relevant national and European legislation to provide a

(10) OJ L 355, 30.12.2002, p. 1.
(11) OJ L 315, 28.11.2003, p. 1.

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 312/37

(45)

Recital 16 to Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 reiterates the
rationale of Article 5 and explains that such aid cannot
be exempted: ‘It is appropriate that large amounts of aid
remain subject
to an individual assessment by the
Commission before they are put into effect.’

costs were clearly limited to the total amount of the
other eligible costs. Germany furnished proof
that,
although a large part of
the training is on-the-job
training, no productive hours are involved.

(50)

(46)

Therefore, when assessing individual training aid which
does not qualify for the exemption laid down in Regu­
lation (EC) No 68/2001, the Commission must, in line
with its previous decisions (12), make an individual
assessment (13) on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) of the
EC Treaty before approving implementation of the aid.
For this individual assessment, it must, by analogy, base
itself on the fundamental principles laid down in Regu­
lation (EC) No 68/2001. This entails in particular verifi­
cation of compliance with the formal exemption criteria
laid down in Article 4 of that Regulation and of whether
the aid is necessary as an incentive for the beneficiary to
undertake the training activities.

6.2. Compatibility with the common market

(47)

In the decision initiating the procedure the Commission
assessed compliance of
the notified project with the
exemption criteria laid down in Article 4 of Regulation
(EC) No 68/2001.

6.3. Necessity of the aid

common market pursuant

in the decision initiating the
The main argument
procedure was that a training measure can be found
compatible with the
to
Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty only when it is not
directly required for the operational activities of the ben­
eficiary. The Commission noted that the necessity of the
aid is a general compatibility criterion and concluded
that, where the aid does not lead to more measures
being undertaken than would be the case with market
forces alone, the aid cannot be expected to have positive
trade and cannot,
effects offsetting the distortion of
therefore, be authorised.
the company would have
If
undertaken the assisted measures in any event, and
notably in the absence of aid,
the training aid in
question cannot be assumed to ‘promote’ economic devel­
opment within the meaning of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC
Treaty and, in accordance with recital 10 to Regulation
(EC) No 68/2001, to help correct the market imper­
fection that results in enterprises generally underinvesting
their workers (14). This is without
in the training of
prejudice
to aid exempted from the notification
requirement under Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 where
it is assumed prima facie that such aid serves to promote
economic development.

(48)

(49)

First, it is to be noted that the indicated aid intensity does
not exceed the ceilings laid down in Article 4(2) and (3)
of Regulation (EC) No 68/2001, namely 35 % for specific
training (35 % of […] = [(approximately 5-25 %)]) and
60 % for general training (60 % of […] = [(approximately
75-95 %)]). Germany may raise the ceilings of 25 % and
50 % by 10 percentage points given that the project is
located in an area assisted under Article 87(3)(a) of the
EC Treaty.

(51)

required by law is,

The fact that the Commission is assessing whether an
incentive effect exists and rejects the presence of such
in
an effect where training is
Germany's view, a novel approach that is not consistent
with the EC rules, arbitrarily deviates from existing
decision-making practice and prevents the granting of
The
regional
training
Commission cannot accept
the
reasons stated below.

these arguments

purposes.

policy

aid

for

for

the measure's

Second,
comply with
Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) No 68/2001. The inves­
tigation confirmed that the trainees’ eligible personnel

eligible

costs

(12) See Commission decisions in Ford Genk, General Motors Belgium,

Auto-Europa Portugal and Volvo Cars Gent.

(13) This follows also from recital 16 to Regulation (EC) No 68/2001.

(14) In the context of training aid, recital 10 to Regulation (EC) No
68/2001 states that ‘Training usually has positive external effects
for society as a whole since it increases the pool of skilled workers
from which other firms may draw, improves the competitiveness of
Community industry and plays an important role in employment
strategy. In view of the fact that enterprises in the Community
generally underinvest in the training of their workers, State aid
might help to correct this market imperfection and therefore can
be considered under certain conditions to be compatible with the
common market and therefore exempted from prior notification.’
Recital 11 adds that it must be ‘ensure(d) that State aid is limited to
the minimum necessary to obtain the Community objective which
market forces alone would not make possible […]’.

L 312/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

(52)

it should be recalled that training aid is assessed
First,
under Regulation (EC) No 68/2001, which states in
recital 4 that it is ‘without prejudice to the possibility
for Member States to notify training aid. Such notifi­
cations will be assessed by the Commission in particular
in the light of the criteria set out in this Regulation, or in
accordance with the applicable Community guidelines
and frameworks, if such guidelines and frameworks exist.’

precisely that the individual assessment is not limited
to the aid assessment provided for in Regulation (EC)
No 68/2001. Since recital 16 clearly indicates that such
aid remains subject to an individual assessment, there can
be no doubt that this assessment is not confined to the
criteria laid down in the aforementioned Regulation and
must be carried out directly on the basis of Article 87 of
the EC Treaty.

(53) Moreover, it is reiterated in recital 16 that ‘It is appro­
priate that large amounts of aid remain subject to an
individual assessment by the Commission before they
are put into effect. Accordingly, aid exceeding a fixed
amount, which should be set at EUR 1 million,
is
excluded from the exemption provided for in this Regulation
and remains subject to the requirements of Article 88(3)
of the Treaty.’

(58)

(54)

Finally, it is stipulated in recital 4 that ‘The framework on
training aid should be abolished from the date of entry
into force of
this Regulation, since its contents are
replaced by this Regulation.’

that

(55) As the planned aid exceeds EUR 1 million, there is no
it must be notified and approved by the
doubt
Commission. Moreover,
it is clear that such aid must,
in principle, comply with the exemption criteria laid
down in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 68/2001.

(56) However, Germany questions whether the Commission is
also empowered to scrutinise whether the aid has an
incentive effect. The Commission is of the opinion that
the concept of State aid and in particular the criterion of
the necessity of aid entail the existence of an incentive
effect of the aid for the beneficiary. It cannot serve the
common interest
supports measures
(including training measures) that a beneficiary would
undertake
recent
decisions have specifically included an assessment of
the incentive effect
for training measures (Ford Genk,
GM Antwerp),
in line with Regulation (EC) No
68/2001, the State Aid Action Plan and Court rulings
on the conditions for finding aid to be compatible with
the common market.

in any event. The Commission’s

State

the

if

(57)

In order to underline its position, Germany claims, first,
that compatibility with the common market needs to be
assessed in the light of the criteria laid down in the
Regulation and,
in this connection, cites recital 4 to
Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 to the effect that the aid
will ‘be assessed by the Commission in particular in the
light of the criteria set out in this Regulation’. Germany
disregards the fact that the words ‘in particular’ mean

it

aid.

(c). However,

In particular,

entry into force of

that Regulation (EC) No
Second, Germany argues
68/2001 should be interpreted in the light of the 1998
Framework on training aid, which was the predecessor of
that Regulation and laid down the criteria for assessing
in the case of
the existence of an incentive effect
the
that
states
substantial
Framework indicated that an incentive effect was to be
assumed in the case of training taking place in an area
assisted under Article 87(3)(a) or
the
Commission cannot accept this argument as recital 4
to Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 leaves no doubt that
the Framework on training aid was abolished on the
date of
the Regulation. The
intention of the Commission – and the effect of the
Regulation – was to replace the Framework with the
Regulation. On the one hand,
from
other language versions where recital 4 to Regulation
(EC) No 68/2001 makes it clear that the Framework is
‘abolished’ since its contents are ‘replaced’. On the other
this is clearly stated in previous Commission
hand,
decisions (15). What
the Regulation did not
is more,
take over the Framework's legal presumption of
the
existence of an incentive effect but instead deliberately
stipulated in more general
terms that, under certain
conditions, training aid can be found to be compatible
with the common market (16). However, if an enterprise
would have undertaken the assisted measures in any
event, and notably in the absence of aid,
the aid
cannot be considered to have an incentive effect.

this is apparent

(59)

Third, Germany and in particular the beneficiary argue
that an additional assessment of the necessity of the aid
based on Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty would mean
that Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 would, in its entirety,
be in breach of this provision of the Treaty. It is clearly
assumed here that the necessity of the aid is not being
assessed. The Commission cannot accept this argument
either since it obviously disregards the fact
the
in the
necessity criterion is also assumed to be met
case of aid not exceeding EUR 1 million that fulfils the
criteria laid down in that Regulation.

that

(15) See, for example, Commission Decision 2001/698/EC of 18 July
2001, Sabena (OJ L 249, 19.9.2001, p. 21), where recital 28 states
that: ‘… the Framework has been superseded by Commission Regu­
lation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of
Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid’.

(16) Recital 50 provides more detail on the observations made in Regu­

lation (EC) No 68/2001 regarding the incentive effect.

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 312/39

(60)

(61)

that

asserts

two cases, namely BMW Austria

the Commission is
Fourth, Germany
deviating from its practice in previous cases where it
did not assess the existence of an incentive effect. This
is correct. However, the Commission has indicated that it
changed its practice on the basis of the refined economic
approach. This change took place in the in-depth
assessment of the Ford Genk and GM Antwerp aid cases
and was explicitly acknowledged there. Nevertheless,
Germany indicates that the Commission's practice lacks
coherence since, after initiating the formal investigation
procedure in the Ford Genk case, it took a decision in at
least
(Case N
304/2005) (17)
(Case N 653/2005),
without undertaking a corresponding assessment or on
the
assessment. However,
the
Commission notes
these decisions were taken
without an in-depth assessment and before completion
of the first of the two in-depth assessments mentioned
above, in which the Commission refined its approach. It
is not disputed that
the Commission can refine and
change its approach if there are sufficient reasons to do
so. This was the case with Ford Genk and GM Antwerp but
not with earlier aid decisions. Hence the Commission
could, prior to the final decision of Ford Genk, still rely
on its previous decision-making practice.

another
that

and Webasto

basis

of

cannot be

justified either by considerations
event
underlying the granting of regional aid as regional disad­
vantages should be offset by regional investment aid and
not by training aid. In this connection, Germany claims
that the prospect of receiving State aid for necessary and
comprehensive training measures played a crucial role in
the final relocation decision taken by DHL. However, the
Commission maintains that it is usual in the European
Union for undertakings to take decisions in an attempt
to reduce costs and increase profitability. Undertakings
considering a relocation of
their production often
consider several competing sites in different Member
States. The decision on location is ultimately influenced
not only by expected operating costs (including training
costs for newly recruited, often unskilled employees) and
local
other economic advantages or disadvantages (e.g.
rules on operating schedules) but also,
to a certain
extent, by the possibility of
receiving government
regional aid). The Commission cannot
support
accept Germany’s
regional
investment aid, the objective of training aid is not to
influence the choice of location but to offset the under­
investment in training in the Community. Lower skill
levels in an assisted area are a regional problem which
is to be resolved by regional investment aid.

since, unlike

argument

(i.e.

(63) On the basis of

the

information provided,

the
Commission comes to the conclusion that DHL would
need to provide much of the training for its employees in
any event, i.e. even in the absence of aid. This follows
from two main observations which are elaborated on
below:
is necessary in
order to be able to start operating the logistics centre
and, second, the training measures are, to a large extent,
required by law.

training for employees

first,

that

challenge

two cases,

like the other

and the beneficiary

the
Fifth, Germany
argument
the Commission can rely on the Ford
Genk and GM Antwerp decisions because the facts of
these cases differ from those in the DHL case. Instead,
the Commission should have relied on the Webasto
decision. It can certainly not be argued that the aid for
DHL should be treated differently because it does not
concern,
the automotive
sector. The decision in Webasto, on which Germany
and the beneficiary base themselves, concerns the auto­
motive sector. The only difference might be that the first
two cases concern existing installations while DHL and
Webasto concern new installations. Nevertheless, while it
is not disputed that in the first two cases any support for
measures that would have been undertaken in any event
is operating aid, the Commission fails to see why no
operating aid is involved in training measures in a new
installation that would have been undertaken in any
for
support
event. Here too,
measures it would have to undertake in any event.

the company receives

(62) What is more, training measures in the case of a new
installation that would have been undertaken in any

(17) OJ C 87, 11.4.2006, p. 4.

(a) Training required for operation of the new instal­

lation

(64) As regards the necessity of training, the relocation of
DHL to Leipzig-Halle, Germany, is similar in its effects
to the establishment of a new undertaking in that DHL
must employ new workers in order to start operations.
Its operational needs can apparently be met in three
it could employ new workers who would need
ways:
training;
it could recruit skilled employees; or it could,
in the absence of skilled employees, subcontract certain
services.

L 312/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

For one thing, Germany has not provided any additional
information to allay the Commission's doubts as to
whether DHL would be able to recruit a sufficiently
trained workforce for its new location. Rather,
it has
confirmed that workers from Brussels, DHL's existing
location, are basically unwilling to move to Germany.
Moreover, DHL has not provided any proof
it
would be able to attract skilled workers from the local
or European labour market
in sufficient numbers to
satisfy its business needs. Apparently no such appro­
priately skilled workers exist on the local market and it
seems quite difficult
to find such workers on the
European market for air transport services.

that

mechanics and technicians. According to Regulation (EC)
No 2042/2003, the personnel involved in aircraft main­
tenance must be licensed to issue release certificates. The
conditions for obtaining such a licence are set out in the
above mentioned Regulation and relate to the scope and
content of the corresponding training measures.

(70)

The planned training measures
comply with the
mandatory requirements mentioned above and concern
two vocational categories: Line Maintenance Certifying
Mechanic (CAT A) and Maintenance Certifying Techni­
cian/Mechanic (CAT B1). The training for both careers
consists of the following modules:

(65)

(66)

that

to the effect

that, without

For another, Germany has not convincingly reinforced
DHL's argument
the aid,
several services would be subcontracted to local firms,
with the result
the planned training measures
could be dispensed with. Nor has it provided any proof
of the availability of such service providers at Leipzig
first, even with subcontracting,
airport. Given that,
some training measures would still be necessary and,
second, the entire investment by DHL in Leipzig-Halle
is intended precisely to provide all the services related
to express parcel delivery using its own personnel and
even to offer these services to competitors operating at
to the
the
conclusion that subcontracting does not
into the
business plan and would involve additional costs.

the Commission comes
fit

airport,

same

(67) Germany also argues that, since DHL will be creating
new jobs in an area assisted under Article 87(3) of the
EC Treaty, the aid is not simply operating aid as in the
Belgian car cases, but aid for a new installation for which
no trained workers are available. The Commission has to
reject
this argument as DHL would have had to
undertake the training measures for the new operation
elsewhere than in Brussels in any event and irrespective
of the new location.

(b) Training required by law

(68) According to the information at

the Commission's
disposal, most of the training measures are mandatory
under national and European legislation. Given the
specific nature of the services provided by DHL, which
involve a considerable risk for safety and security, there
are several minimum standards and safety requirements
under national or European legislation for the handling
of freight and the checks and technical
inspections of
aircraft.

(a) English courses, including technical English;

(b) Basic technical knowledge, such as electrics, elec­

tronics and aerodynamics;

(c) Practical

implementation of

the basic

technical

knowledge acquired;

(d) Further training for CAT B1.

(71) All DHL EAT training measures are followed by on-the-
job training days, which significantly outnumber the
working days devoted to theoretical training.

cannot operate

licensed personnel, DHL

(72) Germany is aware that, without the adequately skilled
and
its
business. As the entire training programme is required
by Regulation (EC) No 68/2001, the German authorities
the
accept
training measures. However,
in the
absence of aid, DHL would not provide any training at
all but instead would recruit licensed employees from
competitors or would have recourse to subcontracting.

that DHL may not dispense with any of

they claim that,

D H L E A T m e c h a n i c s a n d t e c h n i c i a n s

(69)

This is the case with training measures relating to pre-
flight and ramp checks to be carried out by DHL EAT

(73) According to the cost analysis provided by Germany,
than the personnel
lower
subcontracting costs are
costs,
including training (about [(5-20 %)] for CAT A
and about [(10-30 %)] for CAT B1). However, Germany
did not provide any evidence of the existence or availa­
bility of appropriate service providers.

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 312/41

(74) As regards the recruitment of skilled workers from
competitors, Germany did not provide any proof of the
availability of
trained and qualified personnel on the
European labour market who would be willing to
It itself has acknowledged that
move to Leipzig-Halle.
the European labour market for air transport services is
experiencing
and qualified
mechanics and technicians.

shortage of

trained

a

(75)

first,

Further, Germany has provided a cost analysis for the
the DHL EAT
English language courses planned for
these are
that
It argues
mechanics and technicians.
general measures and additional to mandatory training.
Therefore, for these courses it calculated eligible costs
the
amounting to EUR [(0,5-1)] million. However,
concern
Commission notes,
technical English. Second, it observes that the technical
checks on aircraft are standardised throughout Europe, so
that DHL EAT mechanics and technicians must have a
technical English. The Commission also
command of
these technical English courses are
understands
part
training
standardised, mandatory
the view therefore that DHL
programme.
would,
in
technical English, even in the absence of aid.

in any event, have to provide

that
the
It

courses

courses

takes

that

the

of

(78) Under German law, in order to be allowed to work on
the airport apron, Ramp Agents II must have been
trained in the handling of ground service equipment
(Arbeitsschutzgesetz) and in security (BGV C 10 FBO)
and must be licensed to operate apron vehicles (BGG
925 – Ausbildung und Beauftragung der Fahrer von Flurför­
derzeugen). They must also be trained in the handling of
hazardous goods and be aware of the potential associated
risks (Gefahrstoffeverordnung). Finally, they must undergo
in conformity with the
dangerous goods
provisions of the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulation.

training,

(79)

It will be seen from recitals 77 and 78 that the training
courses provided for in the notified project are, to a large
extent, mandatory aircraft towing and pushback; aircraft
de-icing (basic course); aircraft de-icing (refresher course);
apron driver licence; airside supervision; fire protection
instruction; cargo door operation; first aid; forklift certifi­
IATA PK 7/8; ground service equipment; ramp
cate;
safety; safety instruction; and security awareness. The
ULD build-up course is a specific training measure
designed for the handling of DHL containers.

(76)

The Commission accordingly concludes that the training
measures mentioned above are both mandatory and
necessary for the successful operation of DHL EAT and
would be undertaken by the company in any event, even
in the absence of aid. Consequently, it considers that the
training costs for DHL EAT mechanics and technicians
do not constitute eligible costs.

(80)

R a m p A g e n t s I I

(77)

following

II perform the

activities:
Ramp Agents
loading and
managing the ground service equipment;
unloading aircraft; passing on flight documentation;
drafting reports; and communicating with pilots and
the airport authorities. The notified project envisages
the training of 210 Ramp Agents II and eligible costs
are put at EUR [(2-3)] million.

The only courses that are not mandatory are G25/41
occupational health checks (4 out of a total of 240
training hours), DIN EN 9001:2000 quality
and
processes
environmental
and DIN EN 14001
management and organisational structure (8 out of a
total of 240 training hours). However, since Germany
has emphasised that DHL intends itself to provide all
hub-related services and even to offer them to compe­
titors operating at Leipzig-Halle airport and since it has
not established that, in the absence of aid, DHL would
not provide these training courses, the courses apparently
form part of the training package necessary for DHL
employees to successfully start operating the airfreight
centre, which,
and
alongside Hong Kong
In
Wilmington (USA),
particular, the course on occupational health appears to
be indispensable since it teaches staff to identify any
employees who might
their
working environment, as the smooth operation of DHL
depends on the prevention and elimination of any
unforeseen
information
provided, Ramp Agents II attending such training will
also be able to check the general professional aptitudes
assessment
of

is DHL's main worldwide hub.

delays. According

In line with its

employees.

represent

risk for

(China)

future

the

to

a

L 312/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

it

although not

required by law,

framework in recital 25, the Commission concludes that,
although the training is not
is
necessary for the smooth operation of the hub and so
would be provided in any event by DHL. The training
itself
standards,
course on quality
mandatory, has been imposed on DHL branches by the
general management of Deutsche Post. DHL has
announced that
the entire workforce of DHL would
receive specific training with a view to obtaining the
DIN EN 9001 certificate (18). Moreover, it has indicated
that the DIN EN 14001 standard is to be introduced as
from July 2008 (19). Therefore the training measures that
are the subject of the present decision are clearly required
to meet
imposed by the company's
the standards
in any event, have
business strategy and so would,
been implemented in the absence of aid. Moreover,
since DHL subsidiaries advertise the fact
they
operate to the highest standards as evidenced by the
relevant DIN certificates, DHL, as a leading service
provider, can include these costs in its pricing strategy.
Accordingly, the Commission considers that DHL would
have provided the above training measures even in the
absence of aid.

that

(81)

In view of this, the Commission concludes that, while
some of the training measures for Ramp Agents II are
mandatory, others form part of the company's quality
strategy, with the result that, without exception, they
are all necessary for the successful operation of
the
airfreight centre and would be undertaken by the
company in any event, even in the absence of aid. The
Commission considers therefore that the training costs
for Ramp Agents II do not constitute eligible costs.

(83)

To a large extent, the training courses for Security Agents
planned by DHL correspond as regards both content and
number of hours to the training measures provided for in
the national
legislation (Musterlehrplan für Luftsicherheits­
kontrollkäfte für Personal- und Warenkontrollen) implemen­
training
ting Regulation (EC) No 2320/2002. The
module IATA PK 7/8 is also mandatory under
the
IATA Dangerous Goods Regulation (IATA Gefahrgutvors­
chriften), which was transposed into German legislation
the first aid and fire
by NfL II-36/05.
protection courses are mandatory under the German
law on safety at work (Arbeitsschutzgesetz).

In addition,

(84) Only the training courses for the apron driver licence and
quality management (8 out of a total of more than 300
training hours in both cases) seem to be additional, i.e.
are not
required by law. Since, however, Germany
emphasised that DHL wished to provide all hub-related
services itself and did not demonstrate that,
in the
absence of aid, DHL would not provide these courses,
the Commission considers that they form part of the
overall training package. Also, the DIN EN 9001:2000
and DIN EN 14001 courses envisaged for Security
Agents are part of Deutsche Post's usual business
practice and hence indispensable for all DHL employees
(see recital 80). Similarly, the apron driver licence course
appears to be indispensable for Security Agents since
they need to have access at all
times to the airport
It would not make sense for the
taxiway and apron.
smooth operation of the hub to be endangered because
a Security Agent did not have access to the apron (as
the training can be
explained in recital 90 et seq.,
employees). As
restricted to a
framework in recital 25,
indicated in the assessment
the Commission concludes that, although the training
is not required by law,
it is necessary for the smooth
operation of the hub and would, therefore, be undertaken
in any event by DHL. Accordingly,
the Commission
these two training courses would remain
notes that
unaffected even in the absence of aid.

given number of

S e c u r i t y A g e n t s

(82)

The relevant legislation in this area is Regulation (EC) No
2320/2002. Sections 8 and 9 of the German air safety
law (Luftsicherheitsgesetz) require the airport operator and
airfreight operators to train their security personnel and
any other employees.

(18) http://www.dpwn.de/dpwn?skin=hi&check=yes&lang=de_DE&

xmlFile=2000910

(19) http://www.dpwn.de/dpwn%3Ftab%3D1 %26skin%3Dhi%26check%

3Dyes%26lang%3Dde_DE%26xmlFile%3D2008898

(85) Given the mandatory nature of the training courses for
Security Agents referred to in recitals 83 and 84, the
that
Commission cannot accept Germany's argument
DHL could employ only a minimum number of
qualified personnel who would then train the other
employees on the job.
It is the Commission's under­
standing, on the basis of the information provided, that
all Security Agents must complete the courses.

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 312/43

(86)

In view of the above, the Commission concludes that the
training costs for Security Agents do not constitute
eligible costs.

O p e r a t i o n s m a n a g e m e n t

successful operation of the hub. By replacing in a six-
person ground team the two Ramp Agents II acting as
drivers with two Ramp Agents I, the legal requirements
and operational needs would still be met. Germany
claims that, as a result, the additional 76 Ramp Agents
II would not need to be trained by DHL and would not
be trained in the absence of training aid. The eligible
costs for these additional 76 Ramp Agents II amount
to EUR [(0,5-1,5)] million for general training measures
and to EUR [(0,01-0,03)] million for specific training
measures.

(87)

(88)

(89)

a

different

conclusion.

It is only as regards operations management that the
reaches
Commission
The
this category of employees consists of
training for
English courses, basic
communication,
law,
labour
presentation techniques, human resources management,
basic coaching, conflict management,
team building,
interviewing of applicants and corporate behaviour. The
notified project envisages the training of 110 operations
managers, with the eligible costs amounting to EUR [(1-
2)] million. Middle managers are
supposed to be
recruited
employees who have
the
from among
completed the other training (i.e. Ramp Agents II and
Security Agents).

seem indispensable

This management training follows on from that other
to the
training and does not
smooth operation of the airfreight centre. It constitutes
a promotion opportunity for DHL's existing employees
with a view to developing their personal and social (soft)
skills. The training measures are also general measures
necessary in sectors besides the aviation sector and
conferring skills that can be easily used in other under­
takings, while
also contributing to improving the
working environment and interpersonal relations within
the undertaking.

concludes

Commission

In view of the observations made in recitals 87 and 88,
the
operations
management training is not required by law and goes
beyond what is necessary for the smooth operation of
the DHL airfreight centre in Leipzig-Halle. Therefore, the
costs of these training measures are eligible for training
aid.

that

the

(c) Scope of the necessary training

(90) According to the cost study provided by Germany (see
recital 37), 134 Ramp Agents II would ensure the

(91) However, if DHL did replace the Ramp Agents II acting
as drivers with Ramp Agents I, the latter would also need
to be trained to a certain extent, in particular as regards
the handling of ground service equipment
(especially
apron driving, airside supervision, forklift driving, ramp
etc.).
safety,
According to Germany, the training costs for these ad­
ditional Ramp Agents I amount
to EUR [(0,1-0,5)]
million for general
training measures and to EUR
[(0,01-0,03)] million for specific training measures.

fire protection instruction,

first

aid,

(92)

for

In the Commission's view, the training costs which DHL
would in any event have to cover for the additional
Ramp Agent I training need to be deducted, with the
eligible costs
the additional 76
the training of
Ramp Agents II amounting to EUR [(0,4-1,0) million].
Since only these training measures go beyond the
minimum necessary, which would in any event need to
be covered by DHL, the Commission concludes that only
this amount is eligible for aid.

(93) As regards Security Agents, Germany also explains that
the DHL airfreight centre could operate smoothly with
only 70 instead of 110 employees, as notified initially.
The difference of 40 employees could be easily offset by
increased camera surveillance without security at
the
airfreight centre being impaired. The corresponding
study adds up the absolute minimum number of
persons needed to operate the security checks on indi­
viduals and freight and multiplies it by the number of
shifts. The calculations also take into account the total
number of working days in a week and any extra
personnel needed to cover cases of holidays or illness,
in order to ensure uninterrupted operation. The study
concludes that eligible costs of EUR [(0,05-0,2)] million
would be incurred for this additional training.

L 312/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

22.11.2008

(94) However, Germany also explains that DHL envisages employing 110 Security Agents because, as a
worldwide undertaking with a high reputation, it needs to avoid any security-related incidents. Such
incidents could have an impact on the quality of the delivery services and could cause severe delays
and adversely affect relations with its clients. Hence, in order not to endanger the smooth operation
of the delivery services, DHL has deliberately opted for ‘oversecuring’ (Übersicherung) the hub. Conse­
quently, the Commission cannot accept Germany's argument that the hub could successfully operate
with 70 Security Agents instead of 110. In line with its assessment framework in recital 25, the
Commission concludes that, although the training is not required by law,
it is necessary for the
smooth operation of the hub and would therefore be undertaken in any event by DHL.

(95) Accordingly, it can be concluded that all the training measures aimed at providing the 110 Security
Agents with the skills necessary for the start-up of activities and successful operation of the airfreight
centre would have been undertaken in any event. Consequently, the Commission considers that these
costs are not eligible for training aid.

Table 3

Job description

Notified number

Mandatory training

Additional training

Ramp Agent II

Security Agent

Managers (operations)

Maintenance mechanicauthorising release CAT A

Maintenance technician – mechanic authorising
release CAT B 1

210

110

110

97

68

134

110

0

97

68

76

0

110

0

0

(96) On the basis of the cost analysis provided by Germany, the Commission calculated the training costs

for the additional training measures as follows (20):

Category of expenditure

Ramp Agent II (*)

Middle Managers

Total

Table 4

(EUR)

Trainer (theory and practice)

Administrative costs

Travel costs

Total costs: trainers

Personnel costs: trainees

Total eligible costs: […]

Maximum aid intensity: 60 %

Aid: 1 578 109

[…]

[…]

[…] (**)

[…]

[…]

[…]

[…]

[…]

[…]

[…]

[…]

[…]
(only partly
eligible)

(*) The amounts in the table are shown after deduction of the training costs for Ramp Agents I. These costs would be incurred
in any event, i.e. also in the alternative scenario presented by Germany (replacement of a certain number of Ramp Agents II
with less comprehensively trained Ramp Agents I).

(**) On the basis of the information provided by Germany, the travel costs shown do not take into consideration the travel costs
incurred for specific training and amounting to EUR […], which would be eligible for aid. It is the Commission's under­
standing that the German authorities have decided not to grant any aid in this respect.

(20) The additional training includes, to a large extent, general measures; only the training for Ramp Agents II includes
specific measures costing EUR […]. However, the training for Ramp Agents I, who — in the absence of aid — would
replace the better-trained agents, also includes specific measures costing EUR […], so that the two amounts cancel
each other out.

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 312/45

(97)

(98)

(99)

(d) Calculation of the admissible amount of aid

The notified measure (with EUR [(10-15)] million in
notified eligible costs)
includes costs of EUR [(8-12)]
million which would have to be covered by DHL in
training aid. This
any event, even in the absence of
part of
lead to additional
the notified aid does not
training measures but covers the company's normal
operating expenditure, thereby reducing costs normally
borne by the undertaking. Accordingly, the aid cannot
be approved.

The remaining measures represent eligible costs of EUR
[(2-3)] million. This corresponds to an aid amount of
EUR 1 578 109. Only this part of
the aid complies
with the criteria for determining compatibility with the
common market.

7. CONCLUSION

The Commission concludes that the notified aid for DHL
Leipzig relates, on the one hand, to costs amounting to
EUR [(8-12)] million which have to be covered by DHL
in any event, i.e. even in the absence of aid, and, on the
other hand,
to costs of EUR 2 630 182 for training
measures which go beyond what is required by law or
is necessary for operational reasons.

the company,

(100) Consequently, the Commission considers that the part of
the notified aid which is not necessary for implemen­
the training measures in question does not
tation of
lead to additional training but covers normal operating
thereby reducing costs
expenditure of
the aid would
normally borne by it.
In its view,
therefore,
trading
affect
and
common
contrary to the
conditions
interest. Accordingly, the aid cannot be justified on the
basis of Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty. Since none of
the other exemptions laid down in Article 87(2) and (3)
of the EC Treaty can be applied either, the aid of EUR

distort
to an extent

competition

6 175 198 does not comply with the criteria for deter­
mining compatibility with the common market.

(101) The remaining measures notified and representing eligible
for which aid of EUR
costs of EUR [(2-3)] million,
1 578 109 is planned, comply with the criteria for deter­
mining compatibility with the common market pursuant
to Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The State aid which Germany is planning to implement for
DHL is incompatible with the common market to the extent
of EUR 6 175 198.

The rest of the State aid, amounting to EUR 1 578 109, which
Germany is planning to implement for DHL is compatible with
the common market pursuant to Article 87 of the EC Treaty.

Article 2

Germany shall inform the Commission, within two months of
notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply
with it.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.

Done at Brussels, 2 July 2008.

For the Commission

Neelie KROES
Member of the Commission