INHALT

Commission Decision (EU) 2025/1270 of 25 November 2024 on the measures on SA.39182 (2017/C) (ex 2017/NN) (ex 2014/CP) Alleged illegal aid to Tartu Agro AS implemented by Estonia (notified under document C(2024) 8047)

COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2025/1270
of 25 November 2024
on the measures on SA.39182 (2017/C) (ex 2017/NN) (ex 2014/CP) Alleged illegal aid to Tartu Agro AS implemented by Estonia
(notified under document C(2024) 8047)
Only the English text is authentic
1.
PROCEDURE
2.
DESCRIPTION
2.1.
The beneficiary
2.2.
The measures and scope of the decision
2.3.
Background and presentation of Tartu Agro AS
2.4.
Grounds for initiating the procedure
2.5.
Data on the market conformity of the lease contract and its enforcement
2.5.1.
The process to conclude the initial lease contract.
2.5.2.
The initial lease contract signed on 16 November 2000
2.5.3.
The sale of the shares of Tartu Agro AS in 2001 and its merger with the buyer in 2002
2.5.4.
The amendments of the lease contract
2.5.5.
The rental fee paid by Tartu Agro AS
2.5.6.
Land tax paid by Tartu Agro AS
2.5.7.
Investments in land improvement systems paid by Tartu Agro AS
2.5.8.
Market information: Rental fee data on land leases
2.5.8.1.
Market prices of rental fees. Data published by Statistics Estonia
2.5.8.2.
Market prices of rental fees. Data on the Land Board’s realised lease transactions
2.5.8.3.
Market prices of rental fees. Estimate based on the external expert Pindi Kinnisvara
2.5.8.4.
Market price of rental fees. Estimate based on the external expert Uus Maa
2.5.8.5.
Market prices of rental fees. Estimate based on external expert Domus Kinnisvara
2.5.9.
The quality of the land leased to Tartu Agro AS
2.5.9.1.
Information on land quality based on the Uus Maa report
2.5.9.2.
Information on land quality based on the Domus report
2.5.9.3.
Information on land quality based on the Land Board data
3.
COMMENTS FROM ESTONIA AND INTERESTED PARTIES BEFORE THE GENERAL COURT’S JUDGMENT
3.1.
Comments from Estonia before the General Court’s judgment
3.2.
Comments of Tartu Agro AS before the General Court’s judgment
3.3.
Comments of the complainant before the General Court’s judgment
4.
COMMENTS FROM ESTONIA AND INTERESTED PARTIES AFTER THE GENERAL COURT’S JUDGMENT
4.1.
Comments of Estonia after the General Court’s judgment
4.2.
Comments of Tartu Agro AS after the General Court’s judgment
5.
ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURES
5.1.
Relevant points of time and periods for assessing the existence of State aid
5.2.
Existence of aid – application of Article 107(1) TFEU
5.2.1.
State resources and imputability
5.2.2.
Undertaking
5.2.3.
Notion of advantage
5.2.3.1.
The lease of land and the tender procedure
5.2.3.2.
Market economy operator principle (MEOP)
5.2.3.3.
Assessment of the measures compared to the market conditions
5.2.3.3.1. General Observations
5.2.3.3.2. Market conformity of the rental fee
5.2.3.3.2.1. Assessment of the available market price of rental fees benchmarks
5.2.3.3.2.2. Selection of the appropriate market price of rental fee benchmark
5.2.3.3.2.3. Market price of rental fees benchmark at the time of the initial lease contract in 2000
5.2.3.3.2.4. Market price of rental fees benchmark at the time of the Estonia’s accession to the EU in 2004
5.2.3.3.2.5. Market price of rental fees benchmark since 2005
5.2.3.3.2.6. Area used to convert annual rent payments as hectare based values
5.2.3.3.2.6.1. Revenue from the leased land that is not eligible for the CAP support
5.2.3.3.2.6.2. The financial obligations – assessment of economic disadvantage and market conformity.
5.2.3.3.2.6.3. The lessee’s obligation to pay the land taxes
5.2.3.3.2.6.4. The lessee’s obligation to pay maintenance expenses
5.2.3.3.2.6.5. The lessee’s obligation for annual investments in land improvement systems
5.2.3.3.2.7. The duration and the provisions on price adjustments – assessment of economic impact and market conformity
5.2.3.3.2.8. The difference of the rental fee paid by Tartu Agro AS and the market price of rental fees benchmark on the date of Estonia’s accession to the European Union
5.2.3.3.2.9. The difference of the rental fee paid by Tartu Agro AS and the market price of rental fees benchmark at the time of the renegotiated rental fees since Estonia’s accession to the European Union
5.2.3.3.2.10. The difference of the rental fee paid by Tartu Agro AS and the market price of rental fees benchmark since 2005
5.2.3.3.2.10.1. Sensitivity analysis as regards the appropriate market price data
5.2.3.3.2.10.2. Sensitivity analysis as regards the other available market price sources
5.2.3.3.2.10.3. Sensitivity analysis as regards the duration
5.2.3.3.2.11. Tartu Agro AS’s secondary claim that the alleged advantage was eliminated when Estonia sold its shares in Tartu Agro AS
5.2.3.4.
Market conformity of the enforcement of the lease contract
5.2.3.5.
Conclusion on the presence of an advantage
5.2.4.
Selectivity
5.2.5.
Distortion of competition and trade between EU Member States
5.2.6.
Conclusion on existence of aid
5.3.
Lawfulness of the aid
5.4.
Compatibility of the aid
5.5.
Recovery
5.5.1.
Limitation period
5.5.2.
General principles of Union law
5.5.3.
Quantification of the advantage
5.5.4.
Methodology for the quantification of the recovery amount
6.
CONCLUSION
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Article 5
Article 6
Article 7
Article 8