INHALT

Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1586 of 26 February 2015 on measure SA.35388 (13/C) (ex 13/NN and ex 12/N) — Poland — Setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo airport (notified under document C(2015) 1281) (Text with EEA relevance)

COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2015/1586
of 26 February 2015
on measure SA.35388 (13/C) (ex 13/NN and ex 12/N) — Poland — Setting up the Gdynia-Kosakowo airport
(notified under document C(2015) 1281)
(Only the Polish text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
1.
PROCEDURE
1.1.
Proceedings before the Commission
1.2.
Proceedings before the General Court and the recovery process
1.3.
Withdrawal
2.
DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURES AND GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE
2.1.
Background to the investigation
2.2.
Grounds for initiating the formal investigation procedure and the initial assessment
2.2.1.
Conclusion
2.2.2.
Application of the MEIP
2.2.3.
Compatibility of the aid
3.
POLAND'S COMMENTS
3.1.
Application of the MEIP and the existence of aid
3.1.1.
The decision-making process and the methodological soundness of the MEIP study
i.
The first stage (2007-2009) covered the preparatory works and feasibility studies for the purpose of setting up the new airport (this relates to Phase 1, as described in Table 1):
ii.
The second phase (from 2010 onwards) concerned the actual conversion of the airport (this relates to Phases II to IV, as described in Table 1):
3.1.2.
Reliability of the key assumptions for the 2012 MEIP study
3.2.
Compatibility assessment
3.2.1.
Investment aid
3.2.2.
Operating aid
4.
OBSERVATIONS BY THIRD PARTIES
5.
ASSESSMENT
5.1.
Existence of State aid
5.1.1.
Economic activity and notion of undertaking
5.1.2.
State resources and imputability to the State
5.1.3.
Economic advantage
5.1.3.1.
Conclusion
5.1.3.2.
The relevance of the 2010 MEIP study for the assessment of economic advantage
Figure 1
Annual capex (2012 MEIP study, excluding expenditure falling within the remit of public policy)
Figure 2
Capex (PLN '000 ) as projected in the 2010, 2011 and 2012 MEIP studies (excluding expenditure falling within the remit of public policy)
5.1.3.3.
Application of the MEIP on the basis of the 2010 MEIP study
Figure 3
Cumulative DCF in PLN '000 (2010 MEIP study)
5.1.3.4.
Application of the MEIP on the basis of the 2011 MEIP study and the 2012 MEIP study
Figure 4
Cumulative DCF (in PLN) 2012 MEIP study (excluding expenditure falling within the remit of public policy)
5.1.4.
Selectivity
5.1.5.
Distortion of competition and effect on trade
5.1.6.
Conclusion
5.2.
Compatibility of the aid
5.2.1.
Applicability of the 2014 and 2005 Aviation Guidelines
5.2.2.
Distinction between investment and operating aid
5.2.3.
Investment aid
(i)
Construction and operation of the infrastructure meets a clearly defined objective of common interest (regional development, accessibility, etc.)
(ii)
The infrastructure is necessary and proportional to the objective which has been set
(iii)
The infrastructure has satisfactory medium-term prospects for use, in particular as regards the use of existing infrastructure
(iv)
All potential users of the infrastructure have access to it in an equal and non-discriminatory manner
(v)
The development of trade is not affected to an extent contrary to the common interest
(vi)
Necessity of aid and incentive effect
5.2.4.
Operating aid
5.2.5.
Conclusion on compatibility
6.
RECOVERY
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Article 5
Article 6
ANNEX
INFORMATION ABOUT THE AMOUNTS OF AID RECEIVED, TO BE RECOVERED AND ALREADY RECOVERED