Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1428 of 24 February 2020 ON THE STATE AID SA.31662 ... (32021D1428)
Commission Decision (EU) 2021/1428 of 24 February 2020 ON THE STATE AID SA.31662 – C/2011 (ex NN/2011) implemented by Romania for Timișoara International Airport – Wizz Air (notified under document C(2021) 1065) (Only the Romanian version is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance)
- COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2021/1428
- of 24 February 2020
- ON THE STATE AID SA.31662 – C/2011 (ex NN/2011) implemented by Romania for Timișoara International Airport – Wizz Air
- (notified under document C(2021) 1065)
- (Only the Romanian version is authentic)
- (Text with EEA relevance)
- 1.
- PROCEDURE
- 2.
- TIMIȘOARA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
- 2.1.
- The Airport
- 2.2.
- The development plan of the Timișoara International Airport 2006 – 2015
- 3.
- DISPUTED MEASURES
- 3.1.
- Measure 1 – Annual financing granted to the Airport Manager
- 3.2.
- Measure 2 – The 2007, 2008 and 2010 AIP
- 3.2.1.
- The 2007 AIP and 2008 AIP
- 3.2.2.
- The 2010 AIP
- 3.3.
- Measure 3 – The 2008 Agreements between the Airport Manager and Wizz Air
- 3.3.1.
- The Memorandum of Understanding of 25 June 2008
- 3.3.2.
- The marketing agreement of 30 July 2008
- 3.3.3.
- Termination of the Marketing Agreement and payment of marketing fees by the Airport Manager
- 3.3.4.
- The operation agreement of 1 August 2008
- 3.3.5.
- The ground handling agreement of 1 August 2008
- 3.4.
- Measure 4 – Forbearance of invoiced airport charges to Wizz Air for the period October 2009 – February 2010
- 4.
- GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
- 4.1.
- Measure 1 – Annual operating financing granted to the Airport Manager 2007 – 2009
- 4.2.
- Measure 2 – Discounts and rebates according to the 2007 AIP, 2008 AIP and 2010 AIP
- 4.3.
- Measure 3 – 2008 Agreements between Wizz Air and the Airport Manager
- 4.4.
- Measure 4 – Forbearance of invoiced airport charges to Wizz Air for the period October 2009 – February 2010
- 5.
- COMMENTS FROM ROMANIA
- 5.1.
- Measure 1 – Annual financing granted to the Airport Manager 2007 – 2009
- 5.2.
- Measure 2 – Discounts and Rebates according to the 2007 AIP, 2008 AIP and 2010 AIP
- 5.2.1.
- The 2007 AIP and the 2008 AIP
- 5.2.2.
- The 2010 AIP
- 5.3.
- Measure 3 – 2008 Agreements between Wizz Air and the Airport Manager
- 5.4.
- Measure 4 – Forebearance of invoiced airport charges to Wizz Air for the period October 2009 – February 2010
- 6.
- OBSERVATION FROM THIRD PARTIES
- 6.1.
- Carpatair
- 6.1.1.
- Measure 3 – 2008 Agreements between Wizz Air and the Airport Manager
- 6.1.2.
- The 2014 Aviation Guidelines
- 6.2.
- Wizz Air
- 6.2.1.
- Measure 2 – Discounts and Rebates according to the 2007 AIP, 2008 AIP and 2010 AIP
- 6.2.2.
- Measure 3 – 2008 Agreements between Wizz Air and the Airport Manager
- 6.2.3.
- Measure 4 – Forebearance of invoiced airport charges to Wizz Air for the period October 2009 – February 2010
- 6.2.4.
- The 2014 Aviation Guidelines
- 6.3.
- The Airport Manager
- 6.3.1.
- Measure 3 – 2008 Agreements between Wizz Air and the Airport Manager
- 6.3.2.
- The 2014 Aviation Guidelines (Measure 1 and Measure 3)
- 6.4.
- The European Regions Airline Association (ERA)
- 6.4.1.
- Measure 3 – 2008 Agreements between Wizz Air and the Airport Manager
- 6.5.
- Eurojet
- 6.5.1.
- Measure 2 – Discounts and Rebates according to the 2007 AIP, 2008 AIP and 2010 AIP
- 7.
- ASSESMENT OF MEASURE 1 – ANNUAL OPERATING FINANCING GRANTED TO THE AIRPORT MANAGER
- 7.1.
- Existence of Aid
- 7.1.1.
- Economic activity and notion of undertaking
- 7.1.1.1. Principles
- 7.1.1.2. Application to the present case
- 7.1.2.
- State resources and imputability to the State
- 7.1.2.1. Principles
- 7.1.2.2. Application to the present case
- 7.1.3.
- Selectivity
- 7.1.3.1. Principles
- 7.1.3.2. Application to the present case
- 7.1.4.
- Economic advantage
- 7.1.4.1. Principles
- 7.1.4.2. Application to the present case
- 7.1.4.3. Conclusion on economic advantage
- 7.1.5.
- Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States
- 7.1.5.1. Principles
- 7.1.5.2. Application to the present case
- 7.1.6.
- Conclusion on existence of State aid
- 7.2.
- Type of aid: existing or new aid
- 7.3.
- Lawfulness of the aid
- 7.4.
- Compatibility with the internal market
- 7.4.1.
- Eligible costs
- 7.4.2.
- Clearly defined objective of general interest
- 7.4.3.
- Necessity and proportionality of the aid
- 7.4.4.
- The infrastructure has satisfactory medium-term prospects for use
- 7.4.5.
- Access to the infrastructure in an equal and non-discriminatory manner
- 7.4.6.
- Development of trade not affected to an extent contrary to the Union’s interest
- 7.4.7.
- Conclusion on Measure 1
- 8.
- ASSESSMENT OF MEASURE 2 – THE 2007 AIP, 2008 AIP AND 2010 AIP
- 8.1.
- Existence of Aid
- 8.1.1.
- Economic activity and notion of undertaking
- 8.1.1.1. Principles
- 8.1.1.2. Application to the present case
- 8.1.2.
- State resources and imputability to the State
- 8.1.2.1. Principles
- 8.1.2.2. Application to the present case
- 8.1.3.
- Selectivity
- 8.1.3.1. Principles
- 8.1.3.2. Application to the present case
- 8.1.3.3. Conclusion on selectivity
- 9.
- ASSESSMENT OF MEASURE 3 – 2008 AGREEMENTS WITH WIZZ AIR
- 9.1.
- Existence of Aid
- 9.1.1.
- Economic activity and notion of undertaking
- 9.1.2.
- State resources and imputability to the State
- 9.1.2.1. Principles
- 9.1.2.2. Application to the present case
- 9.1.3.
- Selectivity
- 9.1.3.1. Principles
- 9.1.3.2. Application to the present case
- 9.1.4.
- Economic advantage
- 9.1.4.1. Principles
- 9.1.4.2. Joint assessment of the 2008 Agreements
- 9.1.4.3. Application of the principles to the present case
- 9.1.4.4. Timeframe for assessing the profitability of the 2008 Agreements
- 9.1.4.5. Profitability analysis of the 2008 Agreements
- 9.1.4.6. Profitability analysis of the 2010 Amendment Agreements
- 9.1.5.
- Conclusion on Measure 3
- 10.
- MEASURE 4 – FOREBEARANCE OF INVOICED AIRPORT CHARGES TO WIZZ AIR FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 2009 – FEBRUARY 2010
- 11.
- CONCLUSION
- Article 1
- Article 2
- Article 3
Feedback