INHALT

Commission Decision (EU) 2019/1127 of 4 October 2018 on the State aid SA.45359 — 2017/C (ex 2016/N) which Slovakia is planning to implement for Jaguar Land Rover Slovakia s.r.o. (notified under document C(2018) 6545) (Text with EEA relevance.)

COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2019/1127
of 4 October 2018
on the State aid SA.45359 — 2017/C (ex 2016/N) which Slovakia is planning to implement for Jaguar Land Rover Slovakia s.r.o.
(notified under document C(2018) 6545)
(Only the English version is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
1.
PROCEDURE
2.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID
2.1.
Objective of the aid
2.2.
The notified project
2.3.
The beneficiary
2.4.
Aid amount and aid intensity
2.4.1.
The notified aid
2.4.2.
The possible additional non-notified aid
2.5.
Duration
3.
GROUND FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
3.1.
The possible additional non-notified aid
3.1.1.
Possible aid in the form of infrastructural development, including the transfer of NSP land below market value
3.1.2.
Possible aid in the form of the exemption from a fee, the ALF fee, that is payable when agricultural land is transformed into industrial land
3.2.
Compatibility of the notified aid
3.2.1.
Introduction
3.2.2.
Eligibility of ‘provision costs’ as investment cost
3.2.3.
Lack of incentive effect of the notified regional aid grant
3.2.4.
Lack of proportionality
3.2.5.
Manifest negative effects — anti-cohesion effect
3.2.6.
Manifest negative effect on trade — maximum aid intensity ceiling exceeded
4.
COMMENTS FROM SLOVAKIA
4.1.
Comments from Slovakia on the possible additional non-notified aid
4.1.1.
Possible aid in the form of infrastructural development, including the transfer of NSP land below market value
4.1.2.
Possible aid in the form of the exemption from a fee, the ALF fee, that is payable when agricultural land is transformed into industrial land
4.2.
Comments from Slovakia on the compatibility of the notified aid
4.2.1.
Eligibility of ‘provision costs’ as investment cost
4.2.2.
Lack of incentive effect of the notified regional aid grant
4.2.3.
Lack of proportionality
4.2.4.
Manifest negative effects — anti-cohesion effect
4.2.5.
Manifest negative effect on trade — maximum aid intensity ceiling exceeded
5.
COMMENTS FROM JLR
5.1.
Introduction
5.2.
Comments from JLR on the possible additional non-notified aid
5.3.
Comments on the compatibility of the notified aid
6.
ASSESSMENT OF THE AID
6.1.
Introduction
6.2.
Existence of aid
6.2.1.
The notified direct grant
6.2.2.
The possible additional non-notified aid
6.2.2.1.
The question of whether the NSP can be regarded as an infrastructure dedicated to JLR
6.2.2.2.
The question of whether JLR paid the market price for the NSP land and infrastructure
6.2.2.3.
Exemption from the ALF fee
6.2.2.4.
Conclusion
6.3.
Legality of the State aid
6.4.
Compatibility of the aid
6.4.1.
Legal basis for the assessment of the compatibility of the aid
6.4.2.
Eligibility of the investment project
6.4.3.
Eligibility of expenditure
6.4.4.
Minimum requirements
6.4.4.1.
Contribution to regional objective and need for State intervention
6.4.4.2.
Appropriateness of regional aid and of the aid instrument
6.4.4.3.
Incentive effect
6.4.4.4.
Proportionality of the aid amount
6.4.4.5.
Conclusion as to the respect of the minimum requirements
6.4.5.
Avoidance of undue negative effects on competition and trade
6.4.5.1.
Manifest negative effect on trade: the adjusted aid intensity ceiling is exceeded
6.4.5.2.
Manifest negative effect: Counter-cohesion effect
6.4.5.3.
Manifest negative effect: closure of activities or relocation
6.4.5.4.
Conclusion as to the existence of manifest negative effects on competition and trade
6.4.6.
Balancing of positive and negative effects of the aid
6.5.
Transparency
7.
CONCLUSION
Article 1
Article 2