ERU, Alm.del - 2015-16 - Bilag 311: Notat om regeringens høringssvar på Kommissionens foreslåede ændringer til den generelle gruppefritagelsesforordning, fra erhvervs- og vækstministeren

Erhvervs-, Vækst- og Eksportudvalget 2015-16
ERU Alm.del Bilag 311
Offentligt

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

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

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

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

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.