Spain: State loan for R&D to AERNNOVA
Description
On 26 May 2009, the Spanish authorities pre-notified their plans to grant interest-free loans to AERNNOVA AEROSPACE S.A. (hereinafter "AERNNOVA") for development of the horizontal tail plane fixed parts and elevator for Airbus' new generation aircraft family A350 XWB.
The Spanish authorities intend to grant an interest-free loan without collateral to AERNNOVA. The nominal loan amount will correspond to 75 % of the total eligible costs, resulting in a loan of € 129.2 million.
The commission found that the measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107 (1) TFEU and gave the following assessment:
“The notified loan will be provided by the Spanish authorities and will result in foregone interest revenues and it is thus funded from State resources. The loan is provided to a single beneficiary, namely AERNNOVA, and is therefore selective. By relieving AERNNOVA from R&D costs which should otherwise have been borne by the company, the measure confers an advantage on AERNNOVA. The beneficiary is active in the sector of manufacture of air and spacecraft and related machinery, which is open for trade between Member States. The aid could improve the financial situation and enhance the market position of AERNNOVA and thereby distorts or threatens to distort competition and affects trade between the Member States.” (par. 35 of the letter from the EC to Spain - Brussels, 26.01.2011 C(2011)264 final)
The Commission considers the aid compatible with the TFEU on the basis of Article 107(3)(c) thereof and has accordingly decided not to raise objections to the notified measure.
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: 28 Dec 2009
Duration: 48 months
GTA Evaluation: Red
Source:
the letter from the EC to Spain - Brussels, 26.01.2011 C(2011)264 final. Available from : < http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/case_details.cfm?proc_code=... >
Government Response:
- 367 reads
