52002XC0718(01)

State aid - Italy

Commission communication to the Member States and other interested parties concerning State aid N 376/01 - Aid scheme for cableways

Authorisation of State aid under Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

(Proposal to which the Commission has no objection)

(2002/C 172/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By letter of 27 February 2002 the Commission informed Italy of its decision to raise no objection to the above aid scheme

"I. Procedure

1. By letter of 3 May 2001, the Italian authorities notified the Commission, under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty, of the aid scheme introduced by Article 8 of Law 140/1999, as amended by Article 145(45) of Law 388/2000, concerning the fund for the renewal of cableway installations. By letter of 15 June 2001, the region of Tuscany also provided information on the same scheme.

2. By letter of 9 July 2001, the Commission informed Italy that, after an initial examination, it had found the notification to be incomplete. In particular, the notification indicated that the range of potential beneficiaries of the aid was very wide. It included cableway installations designed for transport within cities and winter sports installations in tourist resorts. As to size, the beneficiaries could be small, medium or large undertakings. Accordingly, the Commission wished to know if the Italian authorities could classify the potential beneficiaries into different categories of installations (e.g. transport installations, sport facilities for local or non-local use) for the purpose of the assessment.

3. By letter of 6 August 2001, the Italian authorities asked to have the deadline for their reply put back to 10 December. The Commission agreed. By letter of 5 October 2001, the Italian authorities explained that the evidence provided by the Region of Tuscany was to be considered as an integral part of the original notification.

4. By letter of 25 October 2001, part of the additional information requested on 9 July 2001 was received. The list of potential beneficiaries selected in the first competition for access to funding was submitted. The applicants had been divided into three categories: (i) cableway installations designed mainly to transport people and goods as an alternative to other means of transport; (ii) installations designed for winter sports resorts; and (iii) isolated installations designed for sporting activities at local level. An indication was also given of how successful applicants were defined as small or medium-sized undertakings.

5. By fax of 16 November 2001, the Italian authorities requested a meeting with the Commission in order to clarify further the information provided. The meeting was held on 21 November. By letter of 14 January 2002 the Italian authorities agreed to postpone the deadline for the Commission's scrutiny of the case by one month.

6. By letter of 28 January 2002, received on 1 February 2002, the Italian authorities undertook to modify future procedures for allocating the aid under the scheme so as to comply with the conditions for compatibility as described in this decision. They also provided additional information on the scheme. In view of the additional information provided, the Commission informed Italy that the two-month period allowed for scrutiny began on the day following the date the letter was received. By letter of 19 February 2002, the Italian authorities undertook to re-notify the scheme by the end of 2006.

II. Description of the measure

7. Article 8 of Law 140/99, as amended by Article 145(45) of Law 388/2000, established a fund for the technical improvement, modernisation and safety upgrading of cableway installations in the non-autonomous regions of Italy.

8. Operators of cableway installations can apply for a contribution from the fund. The scheme has no time limit - open competitions for access to the aid will be published at intervals. The Regions are responsible for processing applications. The overall resources of the fund are distributed among the Regions on the basis of the applications received. Applications are accepted in the chronological order in which they are submitted until available resources are used up. In the first competition 82 projects were selected and were then submitted, by 21 August 1999, to the Ministry of Industry. As the aid cannot be granted unless it is compatible with EU State aid rules, none has yet been disbursed.

9. The fund has an initial EUR 5,16 million available for 20 years as of 1999, plus an additional EUR 2,58 million per year for 15 years as of 2001. Successful applicants may obtain a yearly contribution of up to 3,5 % of the total amount of the eligible expenditure for a period of 20 years, provided the investment project is completed within two years of the start of works. If the reference/discount rate of 5,02 %(1) is applied, the gross grant equivalent is 39,3 % of the investment.

10. The law specifies that the same investments cannot benefit from any other aid measure.

11. Eligible expenditure is any investment in material for the technological innovation, modernisation or safety upgrading of cableway installations. Investment which is not exclusively related to the transport function of the installation - such as the acquisition of snow cannons or vehicles for the care and preparation of the ski-runs - is not considered eligible expenditure.

12. The Italian authorities have undertaken to bring the scheme into line with the conditions for compatibility with the common market as described in this decision in future competitions for access to funding.

III. General remarks on cableways installations

Existence of State aid

13. State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty is deemed to exist where certain undertakings are favoured by any form of support granted through State resources which distorts or threatens to distort competition and affects trade between Member States.

14. It is sometimes argued that certain cableway installations, being transport infrastructures, are not subject to State aid rules. This reasoning cannot be accepted without qualification. State financing of infrastructure open to all potential users in a non-discriminatory way and managed by the State does not normally fall within Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty(2), as in this case no advantage is conferred on an undertaking within the meaning of Article 87(1), competing with other undertakings. Most transport infrastructure funding takes the form of this type of investment, for example a toll-free public road.

15. In the case of cableway installations, however, operators have effective control over access to their facilities and customers normally pay for the use of the installation. A cableway is typically managed by a single operator and cableway transport can, at least in principle, be an economically viable activity carried out for profit purposes by private operators.

16. Transport operators and any other commercial users of transport infrastructure meet the definition of an undertaking within the meaning of Article 87(1). It is clear from the case law of the Court on the concept of 'undertaking' that the central issue is whether an economic activity is being carried out. The organisational form is less important. In its judgment in Case T-128/98(3) the Court of First Instance ruled that the management and provision of facilities for the supply of services constitute an economic activity for the purposes of Article 87(1) of the Treaty. A private or public transport infrastructure manager, separate from the State administration, will always meet the definition of 'undertaking'. From the point of view of existing or potential competitors any financial advantage provided to such undertakings may, in principle, distort competition.

17. Moreover, not all cableway installations are used for general mobility needs; many are designed for a specific economic category of users, i.e. the consumers of a service which is not transport in itself. This is the case of cableways that mainly service skiers. Those installations are not providing a general transport service, but rather the services of a facility for the practice of a sport.

Distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States

18. For a measure to constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) the basic condition is that it distorts competition and affects trade between Member States. In the case of cableway installations, possible distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States has to be assessed with respect to their location, destination and dimension.

19. Cableway installations provide a service only at a certain location. The service cannot be rendered somewhere else. This circumstance, however, does not rule out an effect on trade between Member States. Indeed, there might be operators that are active internationally and State funding could afford advantages to the beneficiary or could discourage other, possibly foreign, operators from providing an alternative service in loco(4). State funding may help attract users - e.g. skiers from the same or a different State - diverting them from other destinations with cableways, including those in other Member States.

20. In assessing these elements, it is useful to draw a distinction between cableway installations supporting sport activities and cableways designed to satisfy the general transport needs of the population.

Cableway installations supporting sports activities

21. The number, price and quality of cableways designed for sports activities can influence the choice of customers who may opt for other cableways in other Member States as an alternative. Cableways affect all users in a similar way and can be readily compared across different resorts. Ski passes form a significant part of the total cost of a winter holiday and are often included in package holidays sold by international operators. The funding of cableways in mountain resorts does, therefore, have an impact on the provision of services for winter sports, which is an international business featuring a high degree of intra-Community trade and strong competition.

22. In addition, there are examples of companies that operate cableways in resorts in different Member States. State funding affords advantages that could be exploited in a market where there is cross-border competition also in the supply of the service.

23. It can be argued, however, that installations supporting sport activities in areas with a small number of winter sports facilities and with limited tourism capability, tend to have a purely local use and are not capable of attracting users who have the option of destinations in other Member States as an alternative. In those cases there would not be any distortion of competition and effect on trade on the demand side. However, on the supply side, it would have to be assessed whether the beneficiaries operated only at local level and whether State support for this activity harmed or discouraged the supply in loco of other facilities by operators of other Member States. The latter circumstance would seem rather remote in cases where the number of local users is limited; the service might not be economically viable and State funding might be the only way of providing it.

24. Accordingly, State support for cableway installations designed for sporting activities in tourist resorts would normally distort competition and affect trade between Member States. It is accepted, however, that there might be cases of cableways with purely local users where State funding would not distort competition and affect trade between Member States and therefore would not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1).

Cableway installations meeting general transport needs

25. Cableways that are mainly designed to meet the general transport needs of the public would normally not influence the choice of users that might have the option of destinations in other Member States as an alternative. However, State support could benefit an operator active internationally or negatively affect the actual or potential supply in loco of an alternative transport means by an operator from another Member State. It may be that in some cases the beneficiary is active only locally and an alternative transport activity would not be economically or technically viable: in those circumstances the measure would not distort competition and affect trade between Member States. In other cases, the transport activity - by cableway or other means - is technically or economically viable and capable of attracting commercial operators who carry out an economic activity within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty. In view of the progressive liberalisation of the transport sector, the possibility of this transport being provided by operators of other Member States is not to be excluded. In those latter cases the measures would distort or threaten to distort competition and affect trade between Member States and therefore constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1).

Conclusions

26. To summarise, an installation supporting an activity capable of attracting non-local users will generally be considered to have an effect on trade between Member States. This however, might not be the case for sport-related installations in areas with few facilities and limited tourism capability. However, installations mainly catering for the general mobility needs of the population would have an effect on intra-Community trade only if there were cross-border competition in the supply of the transport service.

Criteria for distinction

27. In drawing a distinction between these types of installations the following factors should typically be taken into account:

- the location of the installation (e.g. within cities or linking villages),

- its operating time (e.g. seasonal rather than year-round; during daylight hours or longer),

- predominantly local users (number of daily as opposed to weekly passes),

- the total number and capacity of installations with respect to the number of resident users,

- the presence of other tourism-related facilities in the area.

28. An aid scheme addressed to a specific type of installation or granting benefits which vary according to different types of installation should set out objective criteria on the basis of which the categories of beneficiary are established.

Compatibility of aid for cableway installations

29. Wherever cableway installations are beneficiaries(5) of State resources which distort or threaten to distort competition and affect trade between Member States, the funding would come under the State aid rules of the EC Treaty. The aid has to be notified in line with Article 88(3) of the Treaty and the procedural Regulation(6). Also, the general rules on compatibility apply.

30. This is also true for installations that are established or managed by public entities, in which case the general principle that funding by the State has to be provided according to the Market Economy Investor Principle (MEIP) continues to apply. In other words, public funds in excess of or at better conditions than those that a private investor would provide in the same circumstances constitute State aid, which has to be notified under Article 88(3). This would concern all forms of economic assistance, including capital injections, loans and guarantees.

31. Once the presence of State aid has been established, the Commission must examine whether the aid in question is compatible with the common market by virtue of one of the exemption clauses contained in Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty. These considerations are without prejudice to application of the de-minimis rule as explained in the relevant Commission Regulation(7).

32. A specific State aid approach is needed in the transport sector because the State is required to intervene to guarantee transport services which meet social and environmental needs. Article 73 of the Treaty provides for an exemption to cover these concerns.

33. Finally, under Article 86(2) of the Treaty, undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest can be excluded from application of competition rules, where this would obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them.

Article 87

34. While the conditions for application of the exemption clauses provided for in Article 87(2)(b) ('aid to make good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences') and (c) ('aid granted to the economy of certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected by the division of Germany') obviously have to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, the derogation under Article 87(2)(a) ('aid having a social character, granted to individual consumers') does not appear to be relevant in the case of aid to cableway operators.

35. The application of Article 87(3)(d) ('aid to promote culture and heritage conservation') to the case of cableways would, in normal circumstances, be excluded, while the relevance of Article 87(3)(a) ('aid to promote the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment') and Article 87(3)(b) ('aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest or to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of a Member State') need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. This assessment should not deviate from the normal rules that are established for all economic activities.

36. Under Article 87(3)(c), State aid may be found compatible with the common market if it facilitates 'the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest'. In the past those requirements for exemptions were deemed to be met, in view of the lesser mobility of skiers. It is now considered that the provision of services for winter sports has reached such a level of economic development and cross-border competition, that departure from the set of rules established for the generality of economic activities would no longer be justified; see however the points made in points 44 to 49 below.

37. Aid to cableways might - depending on the particular case - be found compatible under the rules governing regional investment aid, or aid to SMEs or restructuring aid to restore the viability of a company(8). Generally speaking, however, it cannot be assumed that such aid would not 'adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest' since it would have the effect of improving the competitiveness of the beneficiaries in a sector where international competition is strong.

Article 73

38. In contrast to Article 87(3)(c), the notion of coordination in Article 73 involves more than facilitating the development of an industry; it involves some form of planning by the State. In a liberalised market, coordination may be achieved by the market itself as the free interplay of market forces is not hampered by market failures. Accordingly, the concept of aid meeting the needs of coordination of transport refers to the need for government intervention arising in the absence of competitive markets or in the presence of market failures.

39. According to the Commission's practice, three requirements must be met if the aid is to meet the needs of coordination of transport within the meaning of Article 73 of the EC Treaty(9):

- State contribution towards total financing of the project is necessary to enable the realisation of the project or activity in the interest of the Community,

- access to the aid is granted on non-discriminatory terms,

- the aid does not give rise to distortion of competition to an extent contrary to the common interest.

Article 86(2)

40. While the financing of transport cableways, where it constitutes State aid, would normally be assessed under Article 73, it is not clear whether the derogation provided for by Article 86(2) can apply to other types of installation.

41. In general, cableway installations that support a sporting activity do not provide a service of general economic interest and their financing cannot be justified under Article 86(2) of the Treaty. They do not satisfy general and basic needs of the population, but are aimed at making profits from winter sports. The actual price level of user fees shows that this service is not a basic good.

42. Clearly it is in principle up to the Member States to define which services they consider to be of general economic interest. However, the notion of services of general economic interest cannot be extended to services that are of a purely commercial nature and do not respond to the general and basic needs of the population for services that are regarded as an essential part of daily life.

43. These considerations still apply even where the construction and operation of cableway installations is subject to a concession which obliges the company actually to operate the installation and to transport all users at the current rates. It is quite usual for a number of professions and activities to be subject to a special permit and to certain requirements. In this respect the situation of cableway operators does not differ substantially from that of companies in other sectors and does not mean that it should be assessed under Article 86(2).

Transitional period

44. The Commission considers that State aid to cableways could play an important role in assisting balanced economic development of an area. In particular, with regard to mountain regions, State aid has in the past allowed the development of one of the few possible local economic activities, with beneficial effects on employment and ultimately on the stability of the local population and care of the land.

45. However, the provision of services for winter sports has become subject to increasing cross-border competition. This changes the nature of the problems and increases the distortion caused by the existence of aid to the cableway sector. As the sector comes to maturity there is a greater risk of outbidding between different areas of the Community. For these reasons the Commission's policy in future in the sector needs to be more clearly defined, strictly interpreted and uniformly applied.

46. The Commission recognises that undertakings in the sector have largely benefited in the past from several forms of economic support from the national, regional and local authorities. Some of these were considered compatible aid under Article 87(3)(c). A change in policy setting stricter limits to compatibility would probably lead to an adjustment of the price of the various services offered for winter sports, with prices for the use of cableway installations possibly increasing to compensate for the reduction in subsidies. This change cannot be too abrupt and the rules must be applied gradually.

47. Accordingly, the Commission identifies a transition period of five years - from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2006 - during which higher aid intensities would temporarily be accepted for State aid to cableway installations. Aid granted before the described period will be assessed on a case-by-case basis without reference to thresholds for compatibility fixed a priori.

48. During the transition period, the Commission will assess aid projects in the cableway installations sector by referring to the normal set of rules as clarified, inter alia, in the Commission Regulation on State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises, in the Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty and in the guidelines on national regional aid(10). However, it will accept a temporary increase in the aid intensity otherwise justified under the existing legislation and guidelines, quantified as below:

- 25 additional percentage points for aid granted in the year 2002,

- 20 additional percentage points for aid granted in the year 2003,

- 15 additional percentage points for aid granted in the year 2004,

- 10 additional percentage points for aid granted in the year 2005,

- 5 additional percentage points for aid granted in the year 2006(11).

From 2007 onwards, aid not eligible for any of the derogations provided for by the Treaty and the various existing exemption regulations and frameworks will be declared incompatible. The analysis set out in points 13 to 28 and in particular the explanations given in point 23 will still apply.

49. On the basis of the information available to the Commission, the figures indicated, chosen as temporary top-up on aid ceilings, and the five-year duration of the transition period, seem to balance, on the one hand, the need to allow sufficient time for different areas to benefit from the temporary rules and for beneficiaries to adjust to the new approach, and, on the other hand, the need to bring the treatment of this sector in line with that of other economic activities within a reasonable period of time.

Related activities

50. When the cableway infrastructure in question is mainly for servicing skiers, it can be described as providing the service of the basic installation for skiing. It is not unusual for the undertaking concerned also to offer other directly related services which are equally indispensable for skiing, such as the care of the ski-runs or the supply of artificial snow. Accordingly, the investment eligible for aid under the conditions described above can also include, for example, the purchase of snow-cannons or snow compactor vehicles as well as the initial costs of preparing the ski-runs. However, investment that is not functional to providing the service of the basic installation, such as investment in skiing equipment for hire or in facilities for ski-schools, cannot be eligible for aid under the above conditions.

IV. Assessment of the measures introduced by Law 140/99

51. The aid scheme introduced under Law 140/99 has no time limit - open competitions for access to State funding will be published at intervals. A list of 82 potential beneficiaries has already been drawn up in the first of these open competitions. The Italian authorities have provided a breakdown dividing the first 82 successful applicants to the scheme into three categories: transport installations, sport installations in tourist resorts and sport installations for purely local use. This, however, was done ex-post for description purposes. Law 140/99 does not make any distinction between installations and applies the same procedure in all cases.

52. As regards future application of the scheme, the Italian authorities have formally undertaken to revise the terms and conditions of future competitions for access to the assistance under Law 140/99, in line with the requirements for compatibility with the common market laid down in this decision. They have also promised to re-notify the scheme in 2006. Accordingly, the Commission considers future application of the scheme up to the year 2006 to be compatible with the common market, provided it is consistent with the requirements laid down in this decision, in particular in Part III, points 27, 28 and 48.

53. The Commission, however, also needs to assess the first application of the scheme in the case of the 82 individual beneficiaries referred to above. In this regard, the Commission considers that the information provided by the Italian authorities is sufficient to allow it to endorse their classification of cableways into the three categories mentioned above. Accordingly, both on the question of aid and on the question of compatibility, the Commission's assessment of State aid to those installations varies according to the nature of the beneficiaries, in line with the considerations set out in Part III of this decision.

54. The measures are funded via the State budget, i.e. through State resources. They represent an economic advantage for the beneficiary, relieving it of part of the expenditure linked to the investment needed for its activity.

55. On the issue of the distortion of competition and effect on trade between Member States, the Commission takes the view that State support to installations in tourist resorts which are capable of attracting users who have foreign destinations as an alternative, distorts competition and affects trade between Member States.

56. Similarly, cableway installations catering for the general mobility needs of the population are deemed to operate in a sector where there is cross-border trade. Among the beneficiaries identified by the Italian authorities as transport installations, some are located in areas (e.g. Naples) where alternative transport means would be technically and economically viable and capable of being provided by commercial operators of other Member States. Accordingly, State funding to cableways belonging to the category of transport installations is also considered to distort competition and affect trade between Member States.

57. Finally, the cableways identified as sport installations for purely local use are located in areas with little or no tourism capability and a limited number of winter sports facilities. Users would mainly be residents and typically would not have a destination in another Member State as an alternative. Because of the small number of users, the service would not be provided in the absence of State support. It can then be accepted that in this latter case, State financing does not distort competition and affect trade between Member States and therefore does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.

58. On the basis of the above considerations, the Commission will assess the compatibility of the aid planned in the first application of Law 140/99 in the case of 17 sport installations for the practice of winter sports in tourist resorts and of 23 installations catering for the general mobility needs of the population. On the basis of the information supplied by Italy, it does not regard the State aid to the 42 installations identified as local by the Italian authorities as State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.

Cableway installations for sporting activity in tourist resorts

59. The measures introduced under Law 140/99 do not fall within the cases provided for in Article 87(2), nor do they meet the conditions laid down in Article 87(3)(b),(d) or (e). Moreover, the measures are not specifically directed at promoting 'the economic development of areas where the standard of living is abnormally low or where there is serious underemployment' as required by Article 87(3)(a), but apply without distinction to all non-autonomous regions of Italy, some of which are economically prosperous.

60. The Commission also notes that the aid covers most of the country, across areas with dissimilar economic conditions, so that a general compatibility assessment would not be possible under Article 87(3)(c), as far as the development of certain regions is concerned.

61. As for compatibility under Article 87(3)(c) in relation to the development of certain economic activities, the conditions for applying the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty(12) are not met. The aid was not notified individually to the Commission and no restructuring plan was submitted to it. The installations that benefit from the aid are not necessarily in difficulty nor is the aid intended to restore the firms' long-term viability. The guidelines require that measures must be taken to mitigate as far as possible any adverse effects of the aid on competitors, which is not provided for in Law 140/99.

62. The Italian authorities point out, however, that all the beneficiaries in this category are small firms entitled to receive aid up to the intensity laid down in the Commission Regulation on aid to small and medium-sized enterprises(13). This amounts to a gross aid intensity of 15 % for investment in tangible and intangible assets as defined by Article 2(c) and (d) of the Regulation.

63. After adding to the 15 % figure so determined the temporary increase in the aid intensity as explained in point 48 - equal to 25 percentage points in the year 2002 - the permitted gross aid intensity aid would be 40 %, which is the maximum theoretical amount of aid granted by Law 140/99.

64. It should be pointed out that under Law 140/99 expenditure for the purchase of snow-cannons or snow compactor vehicles or the initial costs of preparing ski-runs is not considered an investment eligible for the aid. According to the Commission's assessment, such investments, which operators frequently have to make, would also be eligible for aid. Accordingly, in many cases the overall investment in the skiing facility would in fact receive a smaller amount of aid.

65. The Commission therefore concludes that aid planned for 2002, within the framework of Law 140/99, to operators of cableways servicing a sporting activity in tourist resorts is compatible under the State aid rules of the Treaty(14).

66. As for the future application of the scheme, the Commission takes account of the Member State's formal commitment to reduce aid intensities to bring them into line with the compatibility requirements set out in Part III of this decision. The Commission also takes note of Italy's commitment to re-notify the scheme by the end of 2006.

Cableway installations for general transport purposes

67. The Commission accepts that the funding of a transport installation which, for economic or technical reasons, has no viable alternative would not distort competition and therefore not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1). However, no such case was pointed out to the Commission.

68. In any event, in the case of cableway installations designed mainly to satisfy the general transport needs of the population, the Commission considers that there may be a need for State intervention, since markets forces are unlikely to provide the necessary investments on a pure commercial basis. Therefore, aid to the sector has to be assessed under Article 73 of the Treaty.

69. The amount of aid - a grant equivalent before taxes of around 40 % of the investment - represents an amount which would seem both necessary and proportionate to enable the project to be carried out. Similar aid intensities are normally considered acceptable in the field of transport(15).

70. Moreover, the Commission considers that the development of activities which shift traffic from road to other modes of transport is in the interest of the Community. Also, where installations are located in mountain regions, the fact that they encourage a stable local population and care of the land is also in the common interest. Finally, it is considered that aid to these installations does not give rise to a distortion of competition to an extent contrary to the common interest. The Commission therefore concludes that the conditions for granting the exemption under Article 73 are met and that aid granted within the framework of Law 140/99 to operators of cableways catering for the general mobility needs of the resident population is compatible with the State aid rules of the Treaty(16).

71. The Commission also takes note of the commitment to re-notify the scheme by the end of 2006.

V. Decision

72. The Commission has accordingly decided to consider the aid to be compatible with the common market."

(1) Aid payable in several instalments must be discounted to its value at the time it was granted. The interest rate to be used for discounting purposes is the reference rate applicable at the time the aid was granted. Accordingly, the discount rate indicated here, i.e. the one applicable as of 1 January 2002, is valid only for aid disbursed in 2002. See also Commission notice on technical adaptations to the method for setting the reference and discount rates (OJ C 241, 26.8.1999).

(2) See Commission Decision of 14.9.2000 in Case N 208/2000, SOIT (NL). See also the Commission White Paper 'Fair payment for infrastructure use: A phased approach to a common transport infrastructure charging framework in the EU', COM(1998) 466 final of 22.7.1998, Chapter 5, paragraph 43, and the Commission communication 'Reinforcing quality in sea ports: A key for European transport', COM(2001) 35 final of 13.2.2001, p. 11.

(3) Aéroports de Paris v Commission [2000] ECR II-3929.

(4) An alternative service might also be provided via means other than cableways.

(5) Naturally, if cableways are beneficiaries of a measure of general nature this would not qualify as State aid because there is no selectivity.

(6) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1).

(7) Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de-minimis aid (OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 30).

(8) Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 33). Guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (OJ C 288, 9.10.1999). Guidelines on national regional aid (OJ C 74, 10.3.1998, p. 9).

(9) See Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the granting of aid for the coordination of transport by rail, road and inland waterway, COM(2000) 5 final of 26.7.2000.

(10) See footnote 8.

(11) Aid that is disbursed in instalments to the beneficiary will be assessed as a whole with reference to the intensity that can be accepted at the time of granting. In the case of schemes that grant aid at different points in time, the reference is the aid intensity at the time of granting. In other words, if the same aid scheme grants aid in 2003 and in 2004, the accepted aid intensity, all else being equal, would be 5 percentage points lower for the aid granted in 2004.

(12) OJ C 288, 9.10.1999.

(13) See footnote 8.

(14) This decision is without prejudice to the application of other relevant Community legislation. In particular, the Commission reminds the Italian authorities of their obligations under Directive 2000/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 relating to cableway installations designed to carry persons (OJ L 106, 3.5.2000, p. 21).

(15) Commission Decision of 31 January 2001, N 597/2000, NL - Subsidy scheme for private industrial links with inland waterways (SBV); Commission Decision of 14 September 2001, N 208/2000, NL - Subsidy scheme for public inland terminals (SOIT); Commission Decision of 15 November 2000, N 755/1999, IT-Bolzano.

(16) See footnote 14.