INHALT

Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1226 of 23 July 2014 on State aid SA.33963 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of Angoulême Chamber of Commerce and Industry, SNC-Lavalin, Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services (notified under document C(2014) 5080) (Only the French text is authentic)Text with EEA relevance

COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2015/1226
of 23 July 2014
on State aid SA.33963 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) implemented by France in favour of Angoulême Chamber of Commerce and Industry, SNC-Lavalin, Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services
(notified under document C(2014) 5080)
(Only the French text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
1.
PROCEDURE
2.
THE FACTS
2.1.
Operators and owners of the airport infrastructure
2.2.
Airport characteristics and traffic
3.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURES
3.1.
Financial support for the airport
3.1.1.
Contractual framework for subsidies to the airport
3.1.2.
Investments in infrastructure
3.1.3.
Financing of the costs associated with state tasks
3.1.4.
Operating subsidies
3.2.
Fee framework for Angoulême airport
3.3.
Relations with Ryanair
3.3.1.
Contracts concluded with Ryanair and Airport Marketing Services
3.3.2.
Airport Services Agreement
3.3.3.
Marketing Services Agreement
3.3.4.
Implementation of the agreement by SMAC, Angoulême CCI and Ryanair/AMS
4.
GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
5.
COMMENTS BY FRANCE
5.1.
Financial support for the airport
5.1.1.
On the classification as aid
5.1.1.1.
On the concept of economic activity
(a) Entities operating the airport
(b) Legal basis for assessing the public financing of infrastructure
(c) Prerogatives of a public authority
5.1.1.2.
Existence of a selective advantage
5.1.1.3.
Effect on competition and trade
5.1.2.
Compatibility with the internal market
5.1.2.1.
Compatibility under Article 106(2) TFEU
(a) Period under the management of Angoulême CCI and Angoulême CCI associated with SMAC
(i) Existence of entrustment
(ii) Amount of compensation
(b) Period under the management of SNC-Lavalin and SMAC
(i) Existence of entrustment
(ii) Amount of compensation
5.1.2.2.
Compatibility under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU
(a) Infrastructure investments
(i) Clearly defined objective of general interest (criterion 1)
(ii) The investments are necessary and proportional to the objective which has been set (criterion 2)
(iii) Satisfactory medium-term prospects for use (criterion 3)
(iv) Equal and non-discriminatory access to infrastructure (criterion 4)
(v) Absence of effect on trade contrary to the common interest (criterion 5)
(vi) Necessity and proportionality of the aid (criterion 6)
(b) Operational financing
5.2.
Relations with Ryanair
5.2.1.
On the classification as aid
5.2.2.
Compatibility with the internal market
5.3.
The new guidelines
6.
COMMENTS BY THIRD PARTIES
6.1.
Comments by Air France
6.2.
Comments by Ryanair
6.2.1.
State resources and imputability
6.2.1.1.
Presence of state resources
6.2.1.2.
Imputability of the measures to the state
6.2.2.
Selective advantage
6.2.2.1.
Joint assessment of an economic benefit granted to Ryanair and AMS
6.2.2.2.
Joint assessment of the Airport Services Agreement and the Marketing Services Agreement
6.2.2.3.
Principle of a prudent investor in a market economy
(a) Business plan
(b) Remarks on the conditions for applying the market economy investor principle (MEIP)
(c) Application of the market economy investor principle
(d) Comments relating to the payments to AMS
6.3.
Comments by AMS
6.3.1.
Joint assessment of an economic benefit granted to Ryanair and AMS
6.3.2.
Joint assessment of the Airport Services Agreement and the Marketing Services Agreement
6.3.3.
Criterion of a prudent investor in a market economy
6.3.3.1.
Existence of an advantage in favour of AMS
6.3.3.2.
The relationship between AMS services and the needs of its customers
6.3.3.3.
The price of services provided by AMS
6.4.
Comments by Transport & Environment
7.
COMMENTS BY FRANCE ON THE COMMENTS BY INTERESTED PARTIES
8.
ASSESSMENT OF THE AID MEASURES IN FAVOUR OF THE SUCCESSIVE AIRPORT MANAGERS
8.1.
Existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU
8.1.1.
Concepts of undertaking and economic activity
8.1.1.1.
Entities engaged in the economic activity of operating the airport
8.1.1.2.
Exercise of public powers
(a) National system for financing state tasks in French airports
(b) Evaluation of the general system for financing state tasks entrusted to French airports
8.1.2.
State resources and imputability to the state
8.1.2.1.
Presence of state resources
8.1.2.2.
Imputability of the measures to the state
8.1.3.
Selective advantage for the airport operators
8.1.3.1.
Definition of the service of general economic interest (first condition)
(a) Framework for analysis
(b) Scope of the SGEI
(c) Existence of entrustment
(i) The period 2002-06
(ii) The period 2007-2011
(iii) Period starting on 1 January 2012
8.1.3.2.
Selection of the service provider (fourth condition)
(a) First sub-criterion
(i) Periods 2002-06 and 2007-2011
(ii) Period starting on 1 January 2012
(b) Second sub-criterion
8.1.4.
Effect on intra-EU trade and competition
8.1.5.
Conclusion on the existence of aid
8.2.
Compatibility with the internal market of the measures in favour of the airport operators
8.2.1.
Compatibility of the aid granted to the airport operators
8.2.1.1.
Condition of scope
8.2.1.2.
Condition of entrustment (Article 4 of the 2011 SGEI Decision)
8.2.1.3.
Condition of compensation (Articles 5 and 6 of the 2011 SGEI Decision)
(a) Periods 2002-2006 and 2007-2011
(b) Period starting on 1 January 2012
8.2.2.
Conclusion on the compatibility of the aid between 2002 and 2017
9.
ASSESSMENT OF THE AID MEASURES IN FAVOUR OF RYANAIR AND AMS
9.1.
Existence of aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU
9.1.1.
Concepts of undertaking and economic activity
9.1.2.
State resources and imputability to the state
9.1.2.1.
Presence of state resources
9.1.2.2.
Imputability of the measures to the state
9.1.3.
Selective advantage
9.1.3.1.
Joint analysis of the Marketing Services Agreement and the Airport Services Agreement
9.1.3.2.
The benefits that an MEO could have expected to gain from the marketing services agreements and the price that it would have been willing to pay for these services
9.1.3.3.
The comparability of Angoulême airport to other European airports
9.1.3.4.
Conclusion on the method used for the application of the market economy investor principle
9.1.3.5.
Application of the market economy operator principle
(a) Time-frame
(b) Incremental traffic and forecast number of turnarounds
(c) Incremental revenues
(d) Incremental costs
(e) Presentation of the results regarding the agreements concluded with Ryanair and AMS
9.1.4.
Effect on trade and competition
9.1.5.
Conclusion on the existence of aid
9.2.
Compatibility with the internal market
9.3.
Conclusion
10.
GENERAL CONCLUSION
11.
RECOVERY
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Article 5
Article 6