2.3.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
L 64/57
(326) The Commission has already assessed under Altmark 3 that the 6,5 % flat rate return on capital that Moby/Toremar could expect from an ex ante perspective was in line with the risks it ran when operating the public services under the public service contract (see recitals (224) to (229)).
In addition, the Commission reiterates that Italy has used a flat rate return on capital (which was set at 6,9 % for the years 2010-2011) for calculation simplification purposes.
In fact, in the 2011 Decision, the Commission assumed that the rate of return on invested capital for 2010 was set at 9,95 % before taxes, but Italy explained that this was an estimated value for the purpose of the then forthcoming open tender procedures following the privatisation of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar (see recital (132)).
(327) The Commission notes that the submitted CIPE Directive takes into account certain market values applicable in the maritime cabotage sector.
It prescribes the eligible costs for the purposes of public service obligations, as well as the calculation principles concerning the rate of return on capital on the basis of the information, conditions and risks relevant for this particular sector.
(328) Further, the Commission notes that for the years 2010 and 2011, the Region of Tuscany has made use of its reserves to cover Toremar’s additional public service cost that could not be covered by the central State budget, as a result of a reduction of the number of passengers because of the economic and financial crisis and an increase of the fuel costs in that same period (see recital (40)).
Toremar was therefore exposed to the commercial risk of a substantial loss of income without having the certainty that this loss would be covered by the Region of Tuscany.
Indeed, the latter would only release the reserves after verifying in detail the actual costs and revenues incurred for the 2010-2011 period.
In view of this, the Commission finds that a 6,9 % return on capital is in line with the risks involved.
(329) In addition, as already explained in recital (227) in the context of assessing the new public service contract under Altmark 3, the Commission has found that in 2011 (as well as in 2010) the median return on capital generated by a benchmark group of selected ferry operators that offered maritime connections within Italy or between Italy and other Member States has been higher than 6,5 %, at instances in excess of 8 %.
Therefore, a 6,9 % return on capital is considered to be in line with the returns on capital observed for the benchmarking group.
(330) In view of the above, the Commission considers that the submitted 6,9 % return on capital remains at a reasonable level.
(331) Italy has lastly provided the necessary evidence showing that all regular checks were carried out to ensure that the amount of the compensation did not exceed the net cost of the service, In addition, the Commission recalls that the compensation is paid out in instalments (see recital (41)) and that the final pay-out is made on the basis of the actual costs and revenues of the year.
This ensures that the amount of compensation does not exceed the net costs of the service.
(332) In view of the above, the Commission concludes that the amount of compensation granted to Toremar during the prolongation of the initial Convention has not led to any overcompensation and the applicable requirements of Section 2.8 of the SGEI Framework are complied with.
6.3.1.7.
The berthing priority (333) Article 19-ter, paragraph 21, of the 2009 Law clearly specifies that the berthing priority was necessary to guarantee the territorial continuity with the islands and in light of the public service obligations of the companies of the former Tirrenia Group, including Toremar.
Indeed, if there were no priority berthing for companies entrusted with public service obligations, these may have to wait their turn before docking and thereby incur delays, which would defeat the purpose of ensuring reliable and convenient connectivity to the consumers.
A regular timetable is indeed necessary to satisfy mobility needs of the islands’ population and to contribute to the economic development of the islands concerned.
Furthermore, since the departure times for the public service routes are fixed by the Convention the berthing priority is necessary to ensure that ports allocate the berths and berthing times in such a way to enable the public service operator to respect its public service obligations.
(334) Against this background, the Commission considers that this measure was awarded to enable Toremar to perform its public service obligations, which constitute a genuine SGEI (see Section 6.3.1.2).
Furthermore, Italy has confirmed that the berthing priority is only applicable to services provided under the public service regime.