INHALT

2006/367/EC: Commission Decision of 20 October 2004 on the State aid partly implemented by France for the Sernam company (notified under document number C(2004)3940) (Text with EEA relevance)

COMMISSION DECISION
of 20 October 2004
on the State aid partly implemented by France for the ‘Sernam’ company
(notified under document number C(2004)3940)
(Only the French text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2006/367/EC)
1. PROCEDURE
2. DESCRIPTION
2.1. Sernam’s structure
2.2. Sernam’s activities
2.3. Sernam’s market capacity (expert study)
2.4. SNCF - Background
2.5. Commission Decision of 23 May 2001‘Sernam 1’ - Background
2.6. Initiation of the procedure - Background
2.7. Subsequent developments
3. OBSERVATIONS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
4. COMMENTS FROM FRANCE
4.1. The lapsing of SNCF’s agreements with Geodis and COGIP
4.2. Period of implementation of the plan
4.3. €41 million increase in aid
4.4. The €67 million expected from Geodis (under the decision of 23 May 2001)
4.5. Sernam’s prices
4.6. Trend in Sernam's performance
4.7. Sernam’s market shares
4.8. Drop in turnover
4.9. Staff reduction
4.10. Closure and reorganisation of sites
4.11. Relocation and modernisation of remaining sites
4.12. New computer systems
4.13. From ‘traditional mail’ to ‘express’
4.14. From ‘road’ to ‘rail’ (Train Bloc Express)
4.15. Competition in SNCF’s newspaper, baggage and supplies contracts
5. SUMMARY OF NEW DEVELOPMENTS FOLLOWING SERNAM 1
6. ASSESSMENT
6.1. Existence of aid
6.1.1. Public resources
6.1.2. Imputability to the State
6.1.3. The other criteria of Article 87(1)
6.2. Legal basis
6.3. Compatibility
6.3.1. Structure of the analysis
6.3.2. Misuse of aid authorised by the Sernam 1 decision
6.3.3. Elements in conformity with the Sernam 1 decision
6.3.4. Eligibility for restructuring aid
6.3.5. Restoring viability
6.3.6. Preventing distortion of competition - Reduction of capacity
6.3.7. Preventing distortion of competition – Specific compensatory measures
6.3.8. Aid limited to the minimum
6.3.9. Implementation and compliance with conditions
7. CONCLUSIONS
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Article 5
Article 6