Erhvervs-, Vækst- og Eksportudvalget 2015-16
ERU Alm.del Bilag 311
Offentligt
1646511_0001.png
HT.4691 The Danish government’s response to the Commissions con-
sultation on the targeted review of the general block exemption regu-
lation.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS
The Danish government welcomes the inclusion of airports and ports in
the GBER. The Danish government, however, must express its deep dis-
satisfaction with the proposal in 61a to set out thresholds for ”the closure
of the same or similar activity”, which has the direct effect of including in
the GBER regional investment aid for the relocation of undertakings and
workforce from a Member State to another, which has so far been subject
to notification. The Danish government cannot accept this proposal.
AID FOR RELOCATION
As preliminary stated the Danish Government cannot accept the Commis-
sion’s proposal in 61a to include regional investment aid for the reloca-
tion of undertakings and workforce in the GBER. This is a significant
change from past practice in which the Member State is obliged to notify
such aid pending approval from the Commission before aid could be im-
plemented. By maintaining this type of aid to be subject to the notification
process, it is possible to preserve the deterrent and preventive effect on
undertakings, given that they will have to provide detailed and in some
cases sensitive information to the Commission, as well as awaiting the
approval of the Commission. Including this type of very distortional aid
in the GBER will eliminate this deterrent effect and most definitely lead
to more unfair competition of state budgets and relocations, where aid is
involved, especially in countries where the occupation force is mostly
engaged in SMEs. The Commission can hardly agree that this effect will
further creation of growth and opportunity in the economy of the EU.
GBER ARTICLE 12 – MONITORING FISCAL STATE AID
The Danish government has noted that the Commission is proposing to
impose further monitoring obligations on Member States besides those
inserted in the recently adopted revision of the GBER. First of all we
must state that in Denmark, fiscal aid schemes are already subject to ex
post control on sample basis. In order for Member States to assess wheth-
er the control mechanisms they already have in place are adequate, the
Commission must provide guidance for Member States to determine to
which degree the ex post control Member States are obligated to carry out
will be sufficiently satisfying for the Commission. In that context it would
9. juni 2016
16/01843-5
ldi-dep
ERU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 311: Notat om regeringens høringssvar på Kommissionens foreslåede ændringer til den generelle gruppefritagelsesforordning, fra erhvervs- og vækstministeren
1646511_0002.png
2/5
be highly appreciated if the Commission could provide some explanatory
notes on the background and rationale behind this draft amendment.
If the Commission would require an additional monitoring exercise be-
sides the ones already in place I Denmark the estimated expenses to per-
form this monitoring exercise will amount considerably with the latest
estimations for DK reaching a number of at least EUR 500.000 a year.
AID FOR AIRPORTS
We are generally pleased with the Commission’s proposal to include air-
ports in the GBER as this will make the rules more employable when
granting aid.
Compatibility and the airport guidelines
We acknowledge that the proposed rules on airports in the GBER are very
much a reflection of the rules on airports in the airport guidelines with
some deviations. One substantial deviation is that the proposed rules in
the GBER contrary to the guidelines pinpoint some instances where aid is
considered to be incompatible. It is our understanding that the intention of
the Commission can’t be to deem this type of aid incompatible but simply
to exclude it from the GBER and make it subject to notification according
to the airport guidelines. This should be clarified as to prevent any misun-
derstandings. Otherwise the rules in the airport guidelines on moving ex-
isting airports and granting aid to airports with an annual number of pas-
sengers exceeding 3 million would become futile, as these two instances
are deemed incompatible in the GBER proposal.
Smaller airports in same catchment area
We welcome the Commission proposal to include smaller airports with
annual passenger traffic under 50.000 in the GBER, even though they are
located within another airports catchment area. This can have a specific
impact on the granting of aid to the Danish airport, Sønderborg airport, as
this airport located within the same catchment area as another Danish
airport, Hans Christian Andersen airport, would otherwise be subject to
notification. Even though we appreciate the Commission including a
threshold for this, we would very much like to see the threshold at
100.000 annual passengers instead of 50.000 passengers.
Definitions on airports
ERU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 311: Notat om regeringens høringssvar på Kommissionens foreslåede ændringer til den generelle gruppefritagelsesforordning, fra erhvervs- og vækstministeren
1646511_0003.png
3/5
We acknowledge that many of the proposed definitions regarding airports
stem from existing rules. We, however, note that the definition of ’cen-
tralised groundhandling infrastructure’ do not exist in the current Di-
rective 96/67/EC on access to the groundhandling market at Community
airports. The Commission proposed to include a definition in the directive
in a revision of the directive in 2011 but retracted it. Considering that the
Member states and the Commission have not yet come to an agreement
on the definition as regards the directive, it seems premature and detri-
mental to this process to include a definition in the GBER. If anything the
Commission should apply a definition closer to that in the groundhan-
dling-directive art. 8.
We also propose to include in the GBER a definition of investment aid
similar to the one in the airport guidelines.
Specific comments on commission proposals to airports
Threshold for the application of state aid rules
We support the proposal in the position paper by France and Germany to
exclude airports with 100,000 passengers annually or below from the state
aid rules. This would eliminate a relatively high administrative burden.
Airports with an annual number of passengers above 3 million
We propose that the GBER also include aid for airports with annual pas-
senger numbers of above 3 million just as this is possible in the airport
guidelines. This will ensure coherence between the GBER and the guide-
lines.
Operating aid
We propose to include operating aid for airports in the GBER to airports
with annual passangers up till 700.000. According to the guidelines oper-
ating aid will be dissolved towards 2024 (but with a revision clause for
airports with less than annual 700.000 passengers).
AID FOR PORTS
We are generally pleased with the Commission’s proposal to include
ports in the general block exemptions regulation (henceforth the GBER)
as this will make the rules more employable when granting aid.
ERU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 311: Notat om regeringens høringssvar på Kommissionens foreslåede ændringer til den generelle gruppefritagelsesforordning, fra erhvervs- og vækstministeren
1646511_0004.png
4/5
Notification thresholds
The large Member States have a history of large granting schemes for
ports and more specifically aid schemes for the expansion of infrastruc-
ture for ports. These schemes have so far had to be notified and the aid
recipients and authorities in question have had to provide the Commission
with a great deal of information in this context. This has allowed the
Commission to preserve the power to make an assessment fully informed
of the specificities of each case.
If ports are included in the GBER subject to such high thresholds as those
proposed, there will be a likelihood of a severe distortive effect on ports
located in smaller Member States, where there aren’t access to these types
of large granting schemes. We see a need for an impact assessment to
assure that these thresholds will not have substantial distortive effects on
the market. We do not consider it sufficient for the Commission to justify
these thresholds as a codification of jurisprudence.
Guarantees
We are very adamant that other types of aid than investment aid such as
guarantees are included in the GBER and more specifically in art. 56b. In
Denmark as in other Member States as well ports are financed through
municipal guarantees. It is therefore essential that this type of financing
will be made accessible in the GBER and that it is clearly stated that
Member States must adhere to the Commission Notice on the application
of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guaran-
tees 2008/C 155/02 in the use of these rules.
Definitions
It is essential that it be clarified whether the percentages for aid intensity
proposed in art. 56b (4) relates to the funding cap of the project or the
cost of the project.
There are a number of proposed definitions on ports in the GBER that do
not align with the Regulation on Trans-European transport network
(1315/2013). These definitions should be further clarified in the Commis-
sion’s proposal so they align with the regulation. It is paramount that
there is a reference to ports on the main network (core network) on the
Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) and not just to ports in the
core network corridor. As an illustrative example: Denmark has two ports
ERU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 311: Notat om regeringens høringssvar på Kommissionens foreslåede ændringer til den generelle gruppefritagelsesforordning, fra erhvervs- og vækstministeren
1646511_0005.png
5/5
on the core network, respectively. Aarhus and Copenhagen, but it only is
Copenhagen, located on the corridor. Not applying the right definition
will effectively lead to discrimination between the two ports, which is
probably not the intention of the Commission and should be rectified.
COHERENCE BETWEEN THE RULES ON STATE AID AND
STRUCTURAL FUNDS
We very much welcome the proposed addition to art. 7 in the GBER. We
consider the proposed changes in art. 7 the result of the dialog with the
Commission pursuant of the implementation of simplified cost options
under RFO nr. 1303/2013. The proposed addition in the GBER will en-
sure a greater coherence between the rules on state aid and the rules on
structural funds. A flat rate will make the rules much easier to handle and
ease the administrative burdens for recipients of EU-aid under the struc-
tural funds.
AID FOR CULTURE
We believe that the proposal to extend the quantitative limits for the cul-
tural clauses in Art. 53 will be very useful in the organization of support
schemes for cultural purposes. We also find it very positive that the
Commission proposes to include movie theaters in the GBER.
AID FOR ACCESS TO FINANCE FOR SMES
We do not find the amendment in article 22 (2a) clearly justified. It states
that eligible undertakings shall be unlisted small enterprises up to five
years following their registration, provided that the newly registered small
enterprise starts an activity that is new for this enterprise, This does not
seem reasonable since unlisted small enterprises (and up to five years
after their registration or start of economic acticity) is per se new. The
exclusion freom eligibility of new enterprises which have solely been
established to continue an activity of an “old enterprise” in order to be
eligible for aid for start-ups is however justified.
FINAL REMARKS
Please do not hesitate to contact the Danish authorities for clarification
and elaboration on any of the above stated comments.