EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 222: Notat samt 2. høringssvar vedr. revision af gruppefritagelsesforordningen (havne og lufthavne)

Europaudvalget 2016-17
EUU Alm.del Bilag 222
Offentligt

NOTAT

8. December 2016

16/01843-61

HT.4691 The Danish government’s response to the Commissions sec-

ond consultation on the targeted review of the general block exemp-

tion regulation.

PRELIMINARY REMARKS

The Danish government supports and welcomes the inclusion of airports

and ports in the GBER. The Danish government, however, must once

again express our deep concern for the proposal in article 2, paragraph

61a to include in the GBER regional investment aid for the relocation of

undertakings and jobs from one Member State to another. In our view, the

Member States should not use state aid, i.e. tax payers’ money, to move

jobs around in the EEA. Thus the Danish government cannot support this

proposal.

AID FOR RELOCATION

The second draft of the GBER contains no alterations in respect to the

proposed definition in article 2, paragraph 61a of “closure of the same or

similar activity”. Only aid resulting in “substantial” job losses, i.e. losses

of at least 100 jobs in an establishment or a job reduction of at least 50%

of the workforce are to be notified to the Commission. In the Danish

Government’s view any job losses can in principle be “substantial.” It is

therefore our position that all aid which is granted for the purpose of relo-

cating jobs in the Union should undergo scrutiny of the Commission. We

are convinced that by maintaining this type of aid subject to notification,

it is possible to preserve the deterrent and preventive effect on undertak-

ings, given that they will have to provide detailed information to the

Commission, as well as await the approval of the Commission.

Including this type of very distortional aid in the GBER will eliminate the

deterrent of the notification process and Commission control, and lead to

unfair competition especially in countries where the workforce is mostly

engaged in SMEs.

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 222: Notat samt 2. høringssvar vedr. revision af gruppefritagelsesforordningen (havne og lufthavne)

2/7

Furthermore the Danish Government finds that the proposal to include

regional investment aid for relocation of jobs is out of line with the exist-

ing regional aid guidelines (RAG). According to these guidelines there is

a presumption of incompatibility of this type of aid and it is therefore sub-

ject to notification.

If a threshold for “substantial” job losses is inevitable we find that the

fixed threshold of 100 jobs should be set significantly lower, as should the

relative threshold of 50 % of the workforce. This will ensure that the

scope for exemption is kept at an absolute minimum and thereby mini-

mize the distortive effects.

GBER ARTICLE 12 – MONITORING FISCAL STATE AID

The Danish government has noted that the Commission has clarified that

no further monitoring obligations will be imposed on Member States than

already applicable under the current GBER, article 12.

In Denmark, fiscal aid schemes are already subject to ex post control on a

sample basis and as the GBER compatibility conditions is (among other

conditions) implemented in the relevant legal basis for declaring the tax,

the control of the GBER compatibility conditions is an integrated part of

the ex post control of the tax scheme. We therefore welcome the Com-

missions clarifications of the proposed article 12, i.e. that it will be suffi-

cient that Member States once per fiscal year, ex post and on a sample

basis, verify that all GBER compatibility conditions are met.

The Danish government has in this respect noted that it will not be neces-

sary to carry out separate “ex post compatibility controls” if the control of

the GBER compatibility conditions is carried out as an integrated part of

the ex post control of the tax declarations submitted with reference to the

specific fiscal aid scheme. The Danish tax authorities will, however, need

to ensure that an ex post control is carried out for each fiscal aid scheme

once per fiscal year. The Danish government has further noted that the

Danish tax authorities has the discretionary power to decide the exact

number of tax declarations to be included in each yearly ex post control.

As set out in the proposed article 12, the Danish tax authorities will have

to draft detailed records of the ex post controls where it is explained spe-

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 222: Notat samt 2. høringssvar vedr. revision af gruppefritagelsesforordningen (havne og lufthavne)

3/7

cifically how the GBER compatibility conditions are complied with.

However, the Danish government understands that it is not necessary to

draft separate GBER compatibility control records if the tax authorities’

conclusions in this respect is included in the records drafted as part of the

ex post control of the tax declarations.

AID FOR AIRPORTS

We are generally pleased with the Commission’s proposal to include aid

for airports in the GBER.

Smaller airports in same catchment area

We welcome that the Commission has taken on board the proposal to

increase the threshold for block exemption of aid to smaller airports. The

Danish Government is positive towards the proposal on including aid to

airports with annual passenger traffic under 150.000 in the GBER, despite

being located within another airports catchment area and despite invest-

ment exceeding what is necessary to accommodate the medium-term ex-

pected traffic on the basis of reasonable traffic forecasts.

Definitions on airports

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 article 8.

We also propose to include in the GBER a definition of investment aid

similar to the one in the airport guidelines.

Investment aid to airports with an annual number of passengers of 3-5

million

We propose that the GBER also include aid for airports with annual pas-

senger numbers of 3 – 5 million passengers with a maximum aid intensity

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 222: Notat samt 2. høringssvar vedr. revision af gruppefritagelsesforordningen (havne og lufthavne)

4/7

on 25 %. This will ensure coherence between the GBER and the aviation

guidelines.

Operating aid

According to the airport guidelines, under the current market conditions,

airports with annual passenger traffic of up to 700 000 may face increased

difficulties in achieving the full cost coverage during the 10-year transi-

tional period allowed for operating aid. The Commission will therefore

reassess the need for continued specific treatment and the future prospects

for full operating cost coverage for this category of airports. We propose

to include operating aid for airports in the GBER to airports with annual

passengers up to 700.000.

AID FOR PORTS

We are generally pleased with the Commission’s proposal to include aid

for ports in the GBER.

Notification thresholds

The Commission underlines in the draft that the proposed conditions for

exempting aid to ports should aim at limiting competition distortions that

would undermine a level playing field in the internal market in particular

by ensuring the proportionality of the aid amount.

Even though the Danish Government finds it positive that aid to ports is

included in the GBER we find that the proposed thresholds for aid subject

to notification are too high. The Danish Government is convinced that the

thresholds should be lowered significantly to ensure proportionality of the

block exempted aid.

Notification thresholds on the currently proposed levels would in our

view require an impact assessment to assure that this level of thresholds

will not have substantial distortive effects on the market.

The Danish Government suggests that the thresholds in article 56b para-

graph 5 could be lowered to the following levels:

“The maximum aid amount for the investments defined in paragraph 2 (a)

shall not exceed:

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 222: Notat samt 2. høringssvar vedr. revision af gruppefritagelsesforordningen (havne og lufthavne)

5/7

(a) 50% of the eligible costs where eligible costs are up to EUR 10 mil-

lion;

(b) 35% of the eligible costs where eligible costs are above EUR 10 mil-

lion and up to EUR 25 million;

lion and up to EUR 50 million;

(d) 20 % of the eligible costs where eligible costs are up to EUR 60 mil-

lion for the maritime ports included on the core network of the trans-

European transport network as referred to in Regulation (EU) No

1315/2013”.

In our view aid granted above these thresholds should remain subject to

the notification requirement.

Article 56 b TEN-T Network

The Danish Government finds it important that article 56 b paragraph 5 d

does not discriminate between core network ports and ports included in

the work plan of a core network corridor on the Trans-European

Transport Network (TEN-T). As an illustrative example Denmark has two

ports on the core network, i.e. Aarhus and Copenhagen, but only Copen-

hagen is located on the corridor. A reference to maritime ports on the core

network would clarify that the Commission does not intend any discrimi-

nation between such two ports in respect to article 56 b.

We refer to our proposal on redrafting article 56b, paragraph 5, above.

Definitions

The Danish government finds that there should be consistency in the way

definitions are used in EU regulations for ports, as to obtain legal clarity

across EU regulation in the maritime sector.

We also find in general that the proposed definitions on ports in the

GBER should align with the Regulation on Trans-European transport

network (1315/2013).

Definition of vessel:

The definition of a

‘vessel’

is too broad as it will also cover e.g. tunnel

elements, wind turbine foundations and trout farm.

We suggest the following definition instead:

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 222: Notat samt 2. høringssvar vedr. revision af gruppefritagelsesforordningen (havne og lufthavne)

6/7

“‘Vessel’ means a ship or craft designed for transportation on water

whether self-propelled or not.”

Definition of sea-going vessel:

As regards

‘sea-going vessel’

the term

‘sheltered waters’

is, in our view,

problematic. Using this term in the definition will cause a gap between

‘sea going vessel’

and

‘inland water vessel’

in the way that the Commis-

sion has defined it in its proposal.

We suggest the following definition instead:

“‘Sea-going vessel’ means vessels other than those which navigate exclu-

sively in inland waters;”

Definition of inland water vessels:

We suggest deleting

‘mainly’

as it does not seem to add any value to clar-

ifying the definition. E.g. a sea going vessel may sail in inland water, but

not the other way around.

We suggest the following definition instead:

“Inland water vessels' means vessels intended solely for navigation on

inland waterways.”

Definition of (martime) port:

The definition of a ‘port’ in the GBER is the exact same as the definition

of a ‘maritime port’ in the port regulation. Furthermore, there is a specific

definition for a ‘maritime port’ in the GBER.

This inconsistency in the two set of rules does not constitute legal clarity.

We propose that the Commission maintain the definition of a maritime

port in accordance with the port regulation and draw up a new definition

of an inland port.

Inland ports

Regarding inland ports, it seems unclear whether an inland port is defined

in terms of being geographically situated along an inland waterway. An

‘inland waterway’

is e.g. defined as

‘a stretch of water not part of the sea,

open to navigation’

in the Directive on the recognition of professional

qualifications in inland navigation regulation.

Denmark does not have inland waterways. However, by applying the pro-

posed definitions it is unclear whether for example the Danish port of

Aalborg is a maritime port or an inland port. In terms of the TEN-T regu-

lation the port is a maritime port (on the comprehensive network).

EUU, Alm.del - 2016-17 - Bilag 222: Notat samt 2. høringssvar vedr. revision af gruppefritagelsesforordningen (havne og lufthavne)

7/7

COHERENCE BETWEEN THE RULES ON STATE AID AND

STRUCTURAL FUNDS

We very much welcome the proposed addition to art. 7(1) a in the GBER.

We consider the proposed changes to be the result a dialog with the

Commission pursuant of the implementation of simplified cost options

under Regulation 1303/2013. We appreciate the Commission’s effort to

ensure a greater coherence between the rules on state aid and the rules on

structural funds.

AID FOR CULTURE

The Danish Government continuously supports the proposal to extend the

quantitative limits for the cultural clauses in Art. 53 and find it very posi-

tive that the Commission proposes to include aid to cinemas in the GBER.

FINAL REMARKS

Please do not hesitate to contact the Danish authorities for clarification

and elaboration on any of the above stated comments.