HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"L 319/92
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
2.12.2011
COMMISSION DECISION
of 25 August 2011
on State aid C 39/09 (ex N 385/09) — Latvia — Public financing of port infrastructure in Ventspils
Port
(notified under document C(2011) 6043)
(Only the Latvian text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2011/784/EU)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
authorities provided the information requested by letters
dated 8 October 2010, 20 January 2011, 22 March
2011 and 31 March 2011.
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2)
thereof,
(6) Additionally,
several
meetings
took
place
between
the
Commission services and the Latvian authorities. These
meetings were preceded and followed by the dispatch of
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic
additional information by the Latvian authorities.
Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
2. DESCRIPTION
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments
2.1. THE PROJECT
pursuant to the provisions cited above ( 1 ),
(7)
The objective of the project is to upgrade the port infra
structure. The project consists of the following sub-
Whereas:
projects to be developed during 2010-2014:
1.
(a) construction of a dry cargo terminal;
PROCEDURE
(1) By
electronic
notification
of
26
June
2009,
Latvia
(b) construction of berth No 35;
notified, according to Article 108(3) of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), a
measure providing for public financing for the
(c) construction of berth No 12;
construction of port infrastructure in Ventspils Port.
(d) reconstruction of the northern breakwater;
(2) By
letter
dated
15
December
2009,
the
Commission
informed Latvia that it had decided to initiate the
(e) dredging of the port basin;
formal investigation procedure laid down in
Article 108(2) of the TFEU in respect of part of the
measure.
(f) construction of access railroads;
(3) The
Commission
decision
to
initiate
the
procedure
was
(g) renovation of mooring jetties for the port authority’s
published in the Official Journal of the European Union (
vessels;

2 )
(hereinafter ‘the opening decision’). The Commission
called on interested parties to submit their comments.
(h) fortification of the coast of the channel.
(4) The
Commission
received
no
comments
from
interested
2.2. SCOPE OF THE PRESENT DECISION
parties. With letters dated 16 March 2010, 7 April 2010,
12 April 2010 and 14 April 2010 the Latvian authorities
(8) In
its
decision
of
15
December
2009
( 3 ), the Commission
submitted their comments on the opening decision.
considered that it was not necessary to decide whether
the public financing of the breakwater, the fortification of
the coast of the channel and the renovation of the
(5) The
Commission
requested
additional
information
on
the
mooring jetties used by the ships of the port authority
measure by letters dated 21 September 2010,
involved State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1)
22 December 2010 and 18 March 2011. The Latvian
TFEU at the level of the port authority, since such aid
would be compatible with the internal market.
( 1 ) OJ C 62, 13.3.2010, p. 7.
( 2 ) See footnote 1.
( 3 ) See footnote 1.

---

EN
2.12.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
319/93
(9)
As regards the public financing of the dredging and the
(17) The
port
authority
decided
to
construct
a
new
terminal
access railroads, the Commission considered that it
and subsequently grant the concession to […], so that
involved State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1)
[…] can continue to operate in the port.
TFEU and declared the aid at the level of the port
authority as compatible with the internal market.
2.3.2. BERTH No 35 FOR LIQUID CARGO
(10) As regards the public financing of the new terminal and
(18) According to the Latvian authorities, the restoration of
the two berths, the Commission considered that it
the capacity of liquid cargoes in the port of Ventspils is
involved aid at the level of the port authority. The
linked to this particular location because of constraints
Commission concluded that the aid to the port
related to the required depth for accommodation of
authority was compatible with the internal market.
liquid cargo vessels of appropriate tonnage.
(11) The dry-bulk terminal and the two berths will be
operated by private parties. To that end, the port
(19) The
entire
adjacent
territory
is
currently
leased
to
[…].
authority will conclude concession contracts with port
The intention of the Latvian authorities is to grant the
service providers for a period of 35 years. No tender
concession contract for the operation of the new berth to
will be carried out in order to grant the concession
the […] since it has handled liquid cargoes in the port
contracts. The concession fee to be paid by the chosen
and therefore already owns the required equipment for
port services providers has been established beforehand
transhipment of liquid cargoes, including fire extin
on the basis of an evaluation carried out by an inde
guishing equipment.
pendent expert.
2.3.3. BERTH No 12 FOR GENERAL AND BULK CARGO
(12) In
its
decision
of
15
December
2009,
the
Commission
raised doubts as to whether the price of concession
(20) One of the users of the berth will be a subsidiary of […],
would not involve State aid. On the basis of the
which intends to establish a building modules factory on
information available at that stage, the Commission
the territory of the port on the basis of a long-term land
could not conclude on the aid character of the public
lease agreement with the port authority. The building
financing at the level of the three concession holders of
modules will be transported to export markets by ro-ro
the user-specific port infrastructure.
vessels.
(13) The
Commission
also
found
that
end-users
will
have
access to the newly built infrastructure on non-discrimi
(21) Transport
of
the
modules
from
the
factory
itself
to
the
natory conditions.
berth will be carried out by rail and road, along the
territory of Universal terminal No 2 operated by […].
To this end, a trilateral agreement between […], […]
and the port authority will be signed after the
(14) Consequently,
only potential
aid at
the
level
of the
construction of the berth.
concession holders has been subject to the formal inves
tigation procedure.
(22) According
to
the
Latvian
authorities,
[…]
and
[…]
are
2.3. CONCESSION CONTRACTS
the only potential operators of berth No 12. The port
authority initially intended to grant the concession to the
2.3.1. THE DRY BULK TERMINAL
[…].
(15) The
port authority intends to grant the concession
contract for the operation of the newly built terminal
to […] (*). Currently the operator is carrying out cargo
2.4. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTI
handling operations in the territory leased by the port
GATION PROCEDURE AS REGARDS THE AID CHARACTER
authority to […] on the basis of a sublease agreement
OF THE MEASURE AT THE LEVEL OF THE CONCESSION
concluded with […].
HOLDERS
2.4.1. EXISTENCE OF STATE AID
(16) According
to
the
Latvian
authorities,
[…]
intends
to
(23) In its opening decision, the Commission took the
extend its operations and use the leased territory in its
preliminarily view that the criteria required to conclude
entirety for its own operations, and therefore plans to
that the port authority behaved like a private investor
terminate the sublease agreement.
when establishing the concession fees to be charged to
the future concession holders were not fully complied
(*) Covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.
with.

---

L 319/94
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
2.12.2011
(24) The Commission expressed doubts both as to the
3. COMMENTS FROM LATVIA
methodology used to establish the concession fee itself,
as well as to the independent character of the expert’s
3.1.1. THE CONCESSION HOLDERS
valuation.
(31) The
Latvian
authorities
maintain
that
the
three
operators
have been chosen by the port authority on objective
2.4.1.1. Methodologies used by the port authority to
grounds and represent the most viable alternative as
establish the concession fees
operators of the newly built infrastructure.
(25) The
independent
expert
which
valuated
the
concession
fees has used two different methodologies, namely
benchmarking and income. With regard to the liquid
berth, the expert only used income.
3.1.1.1. Dry cargo terminal
(32) The
port
authority
intends
to
grant
the
concession
for
(26) With
regard
to benchmarking, the Commission observed
the operation of the dry bulk terminal to […], dealing
that it was mainly based on ongoing contracts in the
mainly with the transhipment of wood. The Latvian
same port. Therefore, the Commission raised doubts as
authorities explain that the presence of […] in the port
to its reliability. The Commission noted that such bench
is essential because of the particular significance of wood
marking could not be conclusive insofar as there was no
exports in the region.
indication that a market oriented concession fee is paid
pursuant to the contracts used as reference. In addition,
the Commission noted that the analysis has been carried
out in respect to the same three concession agreements
(33) As
explained
above,
[…]
is
currently
providing
cargo
for both the dry bulk terminal and berth No 12 for
handling services in the territory leased by the port
general and bulk cargo, despite the fact that those
authority to […] on the basis of a sublease agreement
terminals appear to differ substantially in their nature.
concluded with the […]. Given that […] intends to
extend its operations and use the leased territory in its
(27) With
regard
to
the income approach used in the evaluation,
entirety, the port board adopted in October 2005 a
the Commission observed that it did not appear to reflect
resolution to construct a new terminal and subse-
the entirety of the investment cost in the case of the dry
quently grant the concession for its operation to […]
bulk terminal and berth No 12.
(see Annex I).
2.4.1.2. Independent character of the expert’s
valuation
(34) The
Latvian
authorities
maintain
that
the
decision
to
(28) The
Commission
noted
that
a
decision
taken
by
the
port
award the concession contract to this particular
board already in March 2006 showed the commitment
operator is based on purely objective commercial
of the port to grant the concession for the operation of
grounds. In this sense the Latvian authorities underline
berth No 35 to […] after completion of the construction
that […] represents the most feasible solution for the
works. The methodology of calculation of the concession
operation of the terminal since it already owns the
fee, based on the same principles as the independent
equipment required for the handling of dry cargoes. In
evaluation, is detailed therein. Consequently, the
addition, no other potential concessionaire has expressed
Commission raised doubts as to the independent
an interest to operate the dry bulk terminal. The Latvian
character of the evaluation as such.
authorities underline that it is in the interest of the port
authority to initiate negotiations with all potentially
2.4.1.3. Conclusion
interested parties, in particular since a significant

portion of port land is still unused.
(29) The
Commission
considered
that
the
public
financing
of
the construction of the terminal and the two berths
appeared to provide a selective economic advantage to
the operators of the infrastructure in question and thus
(35) […]
has
already
transhipped
in
the
port
more
than
[…]
to constitute aid in the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
thousand m 3 per year and has thus already established a
solid business network. The port authority considers that
2.4.2.
the company would be able to maintain such cargo
COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID
turnover in the future and thus offer the required guar
(30) The
Commission
took
the
preliminary
view
that
any
aid
antees as regards the recovery of the investments carried
to the concession holders would constitute operating aid,
out by the port authority.
relieving them from costs they would normally have to
bear. According to the case law of the Court, such
operating aid is in principle incompatible with the
internal market ( 4 ).
3.1.1.2. Berth No 35
(36) The
berth
will
replace
jetty
No
1
for
the
transhipment
of
( 4 ) Case T-459/93 Siemens v Commission [1995] ECR II-1675, paragraph
liquid hazardous cargoes. The jetty is currently outdated
48. See in that sense also Judgment of 8 July 2010, T-396/08,
and cannot therefore be used for cargo handling. As
Freistaat Sachsen and Land Sachsen-Anhalt/Commission, paragraphs
46-48; case C-156/98, Germany v Commission, [1998] ECR I-6857,
explained above, the restoration of the capacity of
paragraph 30.
liquid cargoes in the port of Ventspils is linked to this

---

EN
2.12.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
319/95
particular location because of safety requirements and
(45) It
is
also
claimed
that,
considering
both
the
location
of
constraints related to the required depth for liquid
the berth as well as its technical parameters, the berth
cargo vessels of appropriate tonnage.
will serve freight forwarders located in an area up to
12 ha, irrespective of the type of cargo handled.
(37) The
Latvian
authorities
state
that
granting
the
concession
for the operation of berth No 35 to a different company
3.1.2. THE EXPERT VALUATION
is not possible in practice precisely due to the specific
location of the infrastructure at stake within the port.
(46) Separate
valuations
have
been
carried
out
for
each
of
the
Currently the entirety of the adjacent port territory is
concession contracts for the user specific infrastructure.
leased to […] (see Annex II).
The Latvian authorities maintain that these valuations
have been carried out in accordance with the Latvian
Valuation Standards and International Valuation
(38) Moreover,
it
is
argued
that,
similarly
to
[…],
since
[…]
Standards.
has already handled liquid cargoes in Ventspils port, the
operator owns all the equipment required for trans
hipment of liquid cargoes, which is essential to the
(47) As regards the methodology used, the Latvian authorities
underline that, given the location and characteristic of the
operation of the berth.
Riga and Liepaja ports, the benchmarking exercise (the
so-called ‘comparison approach’) is fully reliable. The
3.1.1.3. Berth No 12
concession fees paid by the service providers operating

in these ports have been provided by the port authorities
(39) The
project
aims
to
increase
the
discharge
capacity
of
themselves and should therefore be considered as trust
general cargo. The Latvian authorities explain that the
worthy.
decision to construct the berth is linked to the
conclusion by the port authority of a long-term land
lease agreement with a subsidiary of […]. The subsidiary
(48) According to the Latvian authorities, the reviewed
of […] intends to establish a building modules factory on
valuations, based on cash flow analysis, should also
the territory of the port. The building modules may only
allay the Commission’s doubts as regards their inde
be transported to export markets by ro-ro vessels.
pendent character.

(49) In
what
follows,
the
Commission
will
detail
in
turn
the
(40) The
Latvian
authorities
however
underline
that
prior
to
methodology used by the expert to establish the
the conclusion of the lease contract with […], the port
concession fees.
authority participated to various tenders organised by
freight forwarders and potential concessionaires of
berth No 12, such as […], but was unsuccessful.
3.1.2.1. Dry cargo terminal
(50) The assessment is based on two methods, as follows:
(41) According
to
the
Latvian
authorities,
transport
of
the
modules from the factory itself to the berth can only
be carried out by rail and road, alongside the territory
Comparable transaction approach
of Universal terminal No 2 operated by […]. To this end,
a trilateral agreement between […], […] and the port
authority will be signed after the construction of the
(51) The
benchmarking
exercise
is
carried
out
in
respect
of
berth.
three contracts considered as comparable in Ventspils

port. The expert used correction quotients in order to
establish an adequate concession fee. The following
factors were taken into account: time and conditions of
(42) Furthermore,
the
Latvian
authorities
state
that
there
are
only two potential operators of the berth, i.e. […] and
conclusion of the contract, location, description of the
[…]. By the comments submitted in the context of the
berths, rent area, technical conditions of terminals and
formal investigation procedure, the Latvian authorities
access to utilities.
have clarified that the concession contract for the
operation of the berth would be granted to […].
(52) The
calculated
concession
fee
equals
EUR
[…]
per
sm
per
year. The valuer set the concession fee at EUR […] per
sm per year.
(43) Given that the only way to deliver the building modules
from the factory to berth No 12 is through the territory
leased to the […] (see Annex III), the port authority
Income approach
considers […] as the most realistic alternative.
(53) The
income
approach
is
used
to
assess
whether
the
discounted values of future income allow full coverage
(44) In
addition,
the
Latvian
authorities
underline
that
the
of the total investment costs (including the loading area,
surface of the port plot adjacent to the berth does not
dredging and access railways costs) and provides for
allow storage of cargo. Therefore it is necessary to ensure
financial projections for a period of 25 years. Estimated
the reliable connections with other areas of the port
income and costs are corrected by a discount rate of
where storage is possible.
7,5 %, which reflects the investment risk level.

---

L 319/96
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
2.12.2011
(54) The
independent
appraisal
takes
into
account
income
(62) Based
on different
levels
of
cargo
turnover,
the
net
from port dues and fees and income resulting from the
present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR) and
use of port land and infrastructure. Total investment
benefit costs ratio (BCR) are forecasted for concession
costs are taken into account.
fees ranging from EUR […] to EUR […] per year. The
financial indicators justify an annual concession fee
above EUR […] per year for an expected cargo
turnover of […] tonnes per year and higher than EUR
(55) Based
on different
levels
of cargo
turnover,
the
net
[…] per year for an expected turnover of […] tonnes per
present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR) and
year. For higher cargo turnover the concession fee may
benefit costs ratio (BCR) are forecasted for concession
be minimal.
fees ranging from EUR […] per sm to EUR […] per
sm per year. The financial indicators justify a concession
fee of at least EUR […] per sm per year at an average
cargo turnover of […] tonnes per year and EUR […] per
(63) Considering
that
the
30-year
depreciation
period
of
deep
sm per year for an average cargo turnover of […] tonnes
water berths, the independent valuer established the value
per year. If the average turnover exceeds […] tonnes per
of the concession fee at EUR […] per year, i.e. 1/30 of
year, the concession fee can be minimal.
the berth investment costs, excluding dredging works.
(56) Given that the forecasted average cargo turnover is […]
(64) The table below indicates the financial results of the
tons per year, the independent valuer concludes that an
project for an annual cargo turnover of […] tonnes,
annual concession fee between EUR […] and EUR […]
taking into account a concession fee of EUR […] per
per sm per year is justified.
year. Total investment costs, including dredging works,
have been taken into account in the calculation.
(57) Taking
into
account
both
methods
detailed
above,
the
independent valuer set the concession fee at EUR […]
Cargo turnover […] tonnes, concession fee EUR […] per
per sm per year.
year, discount rate 7,5 %, growth rate 2,28 %

Indicator
Without Cohesion Fund
grant
With Cohesion Fund grant
(58) The table below provides the values of the financial
indicators of the project taking into account the
IRR […]
% […]
%
resulted concession fee:
NPV […] […]
Cargo turnover […] tonnes, concession fee EUR […] per
(65) Thus the valuer set the concession fee at EUR […] per
sm per year, discount rate 7,5 %, growth rate 2,28 %
year (instead of EUR […] per year, as initially foreseen).
Indicator
Without Cohesion Fund
grant
With Cohesion Fund grant
3.1.2.3. Berth No 12
IRR […]
% […]
%
(66) The valuation is based on two methods, i.e. the
comparable transaction approach and the income
NPV […] […]
approach.
(59) Thus the appraisal of the independent valuer confirmed
the appropriateness of the concession fee calculated as
Comparable transaction approach
detailed above, i.e. EUR […] per sm per year.
(67) First,
the
concession
contract
is
benchmarked
against
three contracts considered as comparable in Ventspils
port. Taking into consideration the specific features and
3.1.2.2. Berth No 35
characteristics of the infrastructure subject to these three
contracts, the valuer used correction quotients in order to
(60) The income approach provides for financial projections for
establish an adequate concession fee. The following
a period of 25 years. Estimated income and costs are
factors were taken into account: time and conditions of
corrected by the same discount rate of 7,5 %, which
conclusion of the deal, location, description of the berths,
reflects the investment risk level.
rent area, technical conditions of the infrastructure,
access to utilities.
(61) The
independent
appraisal
takes
into
account
income
from port dues and fees and income resulting from the
(68) The
calculated
concession
fee
equals
EUR
[…]
per
sm
per
use of port land and infrastructure. Total investment
year. The concession fee was set to EUR […] per sm per
costs are taken into account.
year.

---

EN
2.12.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
319/97
Income approach
Concession
Independent
Concession
holder
Infrastructure
valuation
fee
(69) The income approach, used to assess whether the
(per year)
(per year)
discounted values of future income enable the coverage
of the total investment costs (including dredging and
[…] Dry
cargo EUR […] EUR
[…]
terminal
access railways costs), provides for financial projections
for a period of 25 years. Forecasted income and costs are
[…] Berth
No
35 EUR
[…] EUR
[…]
corrected by a discount rate of 7,5 %, which reflects the
investment risk level.
[…] Berth
No
12 EUR
[…] EUR
[…]
(70) The
independent
appraisal
takes
into
account
income
4. ASSESSMENT
from port dues and fees and income resulting from the
use of port land and infrastructure. Total investment
4.1. EXISTENCE OF AID
costs are taken into account, including the public
financing.
(77) Pursuant
to
107(1)
of
the
TFEU,
any
aid
granted
by
a
Member State or through State resources in any form
whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort
competition by favouring certain undertakings or the
(71) Based
on different
levels
of cargo
turnover,
the
net
present value (NPV), internal rate of return (IRR) and
production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects
benefit costs ratio (BCR) are forecasted for concession
trade between Member States, be incompatible with the
fees ranging from EUR […] per sm to EUR […] per
internal market save as otherwise provided by the TFEU.
sm per year. The independent valuer concluded that
the financial indicators justify (the NPV is positive) a
(78) The
criteria
laid
down
in
Article
107(1)
are
cumulative.
concession fee not lower than EUR […] per sm per
Therefore, in order to determine whether the notified
year for an expected cargo turnover of […] tonnes per
measure constitutes State aid within the meaning of
year and EUR […] per sm per year for an expected cargo
Article 107(1) TFEU, all the abovementioned conditions
turnover of […] tonnes per year.
need to be fulfilled. Namely, the financial support:
(a) is granted by a Member State or through State
(72) Given
the
forecasted
volume
of
[…]
tonnes
per
year,
the
resources;
valuer concluded that a concession fee of at least […]
EUR per sm per year is justified.
(b) favours certain undertakings or the production of
certain goods;
(73) Taking into account the results of the two methods
detailed above, the independent valuer set the concession
(c) distorts or threatens to distort competition;
fee at EUR […] per sm per year.
(d) affects trade between Member States.
(74) The table below provides the values of the financial
indicators of the project taking into account the
4.1.1. ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
resulted concession fee:
(79) According
to
the
case-law
( 5 ) of the Court, there is no
advantage to the concession holders if a private investor,
Cargo turnover […] tonnes, concession fee EUR […] per
in similar circumstances, would have set the concession
sm per year, discount rate 7,5 %, growth rate 2,28 %
fee at the same level.

(80) From
the
outset,
the
Commission
notes
that
in
this
case
Indicator
Without Cohesion Fund
grant
With Cohesion Fund grant
the concession fees have been established beforehand by
means of separate valuations carried out by an external
IRR […]
% […]
%
expert. The Latvian authorities have provided evidence to
the effect that the expert has suitable degree and
NPV […] […]
experience.
(75) Thus
the
appraisal
of
the
independent
valuers
confirmed
(81) As
detailed
above,
the
independent
valuer
benchmarked
the appropriateness of the concession fee set as detailed
the calculated concession fees with those set for three
above, i.e. EUR […] per sm per year.
contracts considered as comparable in Ventspils port.
Taking into consideration the specific features and char
acteristics of the infrastructure subject to these contracts,
3.1.3. THE CONCESSION FEE
the independent expert used correction quotients in order
to establish an adequate concession fee.
(76) On the basis of the valuations carried out by the inde
pendent valuer, the Latvian authorities decided to set the
( 5 ) Joined cases C-328/99 and C-399/00, Italy and SIM 2 Multimedia v
concession fees as follows:
Commission [2003] ECR I-4053.

---

L 319/98
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
2.12.2011
(82) Nevertheless,
the
Commission
cannot
ascertain,
on
the
4.1.2. CONCLUSION
basis of the information available whether the contracts
considered as reference have been tendered out, nor there
(90) The
Commission
considers
that
the
public
financing
of
is currently any indication that the concession fees paid
the user-specific infrastructure in Ventspils port does not
on the basis of these contracts can be considered a
result in an economic advantage at the level of the
market price.
concession holders and the measure does not therefore
have the effect of putting the chosen service providers in
a more favourable competitive position than the under
(83) In
the
light
of
the
above,
the
Commission
maintains
that
takings competing with them.
the benchmarking exercise is not sufficiently reliable and
thus cannot be sufficient to exclude that the concession
(91) According
to
settled
case-law,
for
a
measure
to
be
clas
holders will benefit of an advantage.
sified as State aid, all the conditions set out in
Article 107(1) TFEU must be satisfied ( 6 ). Since the
measure to be put in place by the Latvian authorities
(84) According to the second method used by the inde
does not entail an economic advantage for the future
pendent valuer, the concession fees and other revenues
concession holders, it does not therefore cumulatively
of the port authority would ensure recovery of the infra
fulfil the conditions required to be considered State aid
structure investment costs and a certain rate of return in
within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.
25 years. The port authority decided to set the
concession fee for the dry cargo terminal (EUR […]
per sm instead of EUR […] per sm per year) and for
5. CONCLUSION
berth No 35 (EUR […] instead of EUR […] per year)
substantially above the value recommended by the
(92) In
light
of
the
above,
the
Commission
concludes
that
the
expert. Therefore, the actual return expected by the
public financing of the construction of user-specific infra
port authority is substantially higher than the value
structure in Ventspils port does not involve aid at the
calculated by the expert.
level of the concession holders.
(93) This
decision
only
concerns
State
aid
aspects
and
is
(85) Therefore, the Commission concludes that the concession
without prejudice to the application of other provisions
fee and the other revenues of the port authority enable it
of TFEU, particularly regarding service concessions,
to recover the entire infrastructure investment costs,
including dredging and access railways costs, and earn
a return which is in line with the return a private
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
investor would require.
Article 1
(86) In addition, the Commission notes that there is no indi
The State aid which Latvia is planning to implement in favour
cation in this case that the port authority has set the
of Ventspils port authority in relation to the construction of the
concession fees at a level that would not maximise its
dry-bulk terminal, berth No 12 and berth No 35 does not
revenues.
involve State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU
at the level of the concession holders.
(87) Furthermore,
the
inclusion
of
review
clause
enables
the
concession fee to be reviewed periodically.
Implementation of the measure is accordingly authorised.
Article 2
(88) In view of the above, the Commission is of the view that
in the present case, it can be concluded that the
This Decision is addressed to the Republic of Latvia.
concession fee established as detailed above does not
grant undue advantages to the concession holders of
the user-specific infrastructure.
Done at Brussels, 25 August 2011.
(89) This
decision
in
no
way
prejudges
any
possible
further
For the Commission
analysis by the Commission as far as the respect for the
EU public procurement rules or other general principles
Joaquín ALMUNIA
of the TFEU are concerned.
Vice-President
( 6 ) Joined Cases C-278/92 to C-280/92 Spain v Commission [1994] ECR
I-4103, paragraph 20; Case C-482/99 France v Commission [2002]
ECR I-4397, paragraph 68.

---

EN
2.12.2011 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
319/99
TERMINAL
CARGO

THE DRY
OF
ANNEX I
TERRITORY
EXISTING AND NEW

---

L 319/100
ANNEX II
SCHEME OF […] LEASED TERRITORY (INCLUDING PLANNED BERTH No 35)
EN

Off
icial
Jour
nal
of
the
European
Union
2.12.2011

---

2.12.2011 Off
ANNEX III
TRANSPORTATION SCHEME OF CONSTRUCTION MODULES FROM […] LEASED TERRITORY TO BERTH No 12
EN

icial
Jour
nal
of
the
European
Union
L
319/101

---