Spain: State guarantee for the construction of Murcia International Airport
Description
On 18 February 2010, the Spanish authorities notified the Commission, for reasons of legal certainty, of the intention of the Region of Murcia to grant a bank guarantee in connection with the construction of Murcia International Airport.
The European Commission gave the following assessment:
"The guarantee will be provided by the Region of Murcia and it is imputable to the State. Any public guarantee involves a loss of resources by the State, if the market price is not paid for the guarantee… On the basis of what precedes the economic advantage which SCAM receives from the guarantee on the outstanding loan of EUR 200 million to finance the development of the new Murcia International Airport into a category C airport will strengthen its position vis-à-vis its competitors on the European market of providers of airport services. Therefore, the public funding under examination distorts or threatens to distort competition and affects trade between the Member States." (par.27-46 of the letter from the EC to Spain - Brussels, 09/06/2010, C (2010) 3546 final)
The European Commission has accordingly decided not to raise any objections to the 100 % State guarantee for an outstanding loan with duration of 5 years amounting up to EUR 200 million granted by the Region of Murcia.
A state measure in the GTA database is assessed solely in terms of the extent to which its implementation affects the extent of discrimination against foreign commercial interests. On this metric, the state aid proposed here is discriminatory.
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
| Question | Result |
|---|---|
| Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations? | |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | |
| Was such evidence identified? | |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? |
Date Discovered:
Implemented: Yes
Date of inception: 1 Apr 2010
GTA Evaluation: Red
Source:
the letter from the EC to Spain - Brussels, 09/06/2010, C (2010) 3546 final
- http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=...
Government Response:
- 393 reads
