HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"EN
12.9.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
243/19
DECISIONS
COMMISSION DECISION
of 2 May 2013
on State aid SA.33618 (12/C) which Sweden is planning to implement for Uppsala arena
(notified under document C(2013) 2362)
(Only the English text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2013/452/EU)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
(6) Sweden
has
provided
a
language
waiver
and
agrees
that
the decision will be adopted in English as the authentic
language.
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 108(2)
thereof,
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic
Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
(7) The
parties
involved
in
the
Uppsala
arena
project
are
the
municipality of Uppsala ( 3 ) (hereafter the "municipality"),
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments
and three firms which have, or will have upon being set
pursuant to the provision(s) cited above (
up, private ownership, namely, the Arena Company, the

1 ) and having regard to
their comments,
Property Company and the Events Company.
Whereas:
(8) The
Arena
Company
will
manage
and
coordinate
the
1. PROCEDURE
arena project until the Property Company and Events
Company have been formed. The Arena Company is
(1)
On 7 December 2011, Sweden notified the Commission
the only company which currently exists. It is owned
a measure for a new arena in Uppsala following a pre-
by the private companies SH Bygg (45
%), Aros
notification phase. On 17 January 2012, the Commission
Holding (45 %) and the sports club Almtuna IS (10 %).
sent a request for information. Sweden submitted its
reply on 16 February 2012.
(2) By
letter
dated
22
March
2012,
the
Commission (9) The
Property
Company
will
build
and
own
the
arena.
informed Sweden that it had decided to initiate the
The shareholders of the Property Company will
procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty on
exclusively be private investors. The municipality will
the Functioning of the European Union in respect of the
set out requirements in order to ensure that the
aid.
selection of the Property Company is managed objec
tively and as openly and transparently as possible. The
Arena Company will make suggestions to the munici
(3) The
Commission
decision
to
initiate
the
procedure
was
pality of possible and eligible investors, and the munici
published in the Official Journal of the European Union ( 2 ).
pality will be in charge of approving and deciding which
The Commission called on interested parties to submit
investors are selected to form the Property Company in
their comments.
accordance with the listed selection criteria ( 4 ). The arena
project will have a portal website as a means of
(4) The
Commission
received
comments
from
one
interested
providing information and communicating with
party. It forwarded them to Sweden, which was given the
interested parties. Through this portal, interested parties
opportunity to react; its comments were received by
letter dated 3 August 2012.
( 3 ) Uppsala is the fourth largest city in Sweden (located approx. 70 km
north of Stockholm).
( 4 ) The selection criteria for the Property Company is listed in the
(5) Sweden
also
submitted
additional
clarifications
in
Supplement to Letter of Intent, submitted by Sweden on 29 June
October and November 2012.
2012; a.o. the candidate should have: experience and knowledge of
construction and operating a larger facility for commercial purposes;
a high level of professional competence; financial stability and
( 1 ) OJ C 152, 30.5.2012, p. 18.
strength; commitment to promote the arena's openness to the
( 2 ) Cf. footnote 1.
public and work actively against discrimination.

---

L 243/20
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
12.9.2013
will have the opportunity to express an interest to invest
and two of which are privately owned. In addition, there
in the Property Company ( 5 ). However, the municipality
are other large arenas within 1 to 2 hours distance road
will not own any part of the arena nor have any
from Uppsala, inter alia in Stockholm. However, Sweden
influence over the activities of the Property Company
claims that the present capacity is insufficient to meet the
as such, but will, in return for its grant, receive an
needs for arena space and does not allow the hosting of
option to purchase the Property Company.
larger sporting and cultural events and that an alternative
means of expansion would be more expensive for the
municipality ( 9 ).
(10) The
Events
Company
will
be
a
private
undertaking
in
charge of the operation of the arena. The owner(s) may
not be the same as those of the Property Company. The
Events Company will be selected by the Property
(14) The
municipality's
preference
would
be for
the
new
Company in compliance with the requirements set out
capacity to be provided by private projects, without
by the municipality to ensure that the selection of the
public intervention, but this is not feasible.
Events Company is open, transparent and objective and
in accordance with the listed selection criteria ( 6 ).
2.1. Funding of the construction of the arena
(11) In order to meet the current and future need for facilities
(15) The
municipality
will
be
financially
involved
in
two
ways
for sporting and cultural events, the municipality claims,
first by a direct grant to the building of the arena and
based on the result of studies made ( 7 ), that a multifunc
second by leasing the land on which it will be built to
tional facility the size of the arena must be constructed.
the Property Company.
(12) The
arena
will
be
designed
to
cater
for
several
types
of
sport for example ice hockey, basketball, floor ball,
(16) Regarding the grant, the cost of the arena project is
estimated at SEK 650 million (or EUR 72 million). The
handball and equestrian sports, several types of cultural
municipality would contribute with a grant of SEK
and entertainment events for example concerts, family
150 million (or EUR 16,5 million), the rest would be
shows, TV productions and gala events and various
financed mainly by a mix of private capital and loans
types of meetings for example conferences, company
as follows: the private owners of the Property Company
meetings, trade fairs, corporate events. The largest arena
will contribute SEK 75 to 100 million (or EUR 8 to
room will have capacity to accommodate 8 500 visitors
11 million) and the Property Company will take up
at sport events and 10 000 at other events ( 8 ). The arena
loans of between SEK 400 to 425 million (or EUR 44
will also house a gym and restaurants.
to 47 million) for which the municipality will not
provide any guarantees.
(13) Currently
there are six arenas and concert halls in
Uppsala, four of which are owned by the municipality
(17) In
return
for
its
funding,
the
municipality
will
receive
an
( 5 ) In analogy with the Commission Interpretative Communication on
option ("the option") to buy the arena. The option, which
the Community law applicable to contract awards which are not
is transferable, may be exercised from year 6 until year
subject or not fully subject to the provisions of the Public
25 from the date it comes into force. In order to exercise
Procurement Directives, (OJ C 179, 1.8.2006, p. 2).
this option, the option holder will pay a fee in
( 6 ) The selection criteria for the Events Company is listed in the
accordance with the criteria set out in the option
Supplement to Letter of Intent, submitted by Sweden on 29 June
agreement. A possible scenario in year 10 has been
2012; a.o. the candidate should have: experience and knowledge of
the relevant markets, high level of professional competence and to
provided indicating such fee to be SEK 47,3 million (or
the events, sports and cultural scene in Uppsala, credible business
EUR 5 million). According to Sweden, the net present
plan for the operation of the arena including openness to the public
value of the option is SEK 128 million (or EUR
and work against discrimination, financial stability and strength and
15 million) in a pessimistic case scenario (which would
agree to a fair and commercial mix of fixed and result-oriented level
mean that the net value of the municipal grant is SEK
of compensation.
22 million (or EUR 2,6 million)) ( 10 ). According to
( 7 ) Several surveys have been submitted for example a survey on the
needs for facilities for organised sports associations in Uppsala, the
Sweden, the municipality has no interest in becoming
result thereof showed that currently only around 70 % of the need
an owner of the arena and the value of the option for
for facilities for major sports in Uppsala is met and thus the lack of
the municipality resides in the possibility of selling it on
capacity would correspond to approximately 30 %. Another ques
in the future to recoup the funding of the arena.
tionnaire amongst the residents of Uppsala revealed that 37 % of the
residents believe that the municipality should invest in sports halls,
arenas and stadiums, the second most required investment after bike
( 9 ) For example only maintaining the existing Grnby Ice Rink without
and walking paths, and that investments in sport events are
any expansion would not be a realistic alternative, because it would
preferred by 16 %.
not solve the need for new capacity and expanding of Grnby Ice
( 8 ) The larger of the two wings of the arena will have capacity to take
Rink would involve higher costs for the municipality.
2 000 visitors at sports and 3 500 visitors at congresses and
( 10 ) The option is drafted in consultation with the financial adviser
concerts. The smaller of the two wings of the arena will have
Copenhagen Economics. In a base scenario the option is valued
capacity to take around 1 000 visitors at any event and the “con
at SEK 174 million (or EUR 19,6 million), that is to say SEK
ference room” of the arena has room for 10 to 400 visitors.
24 million more than the grant.

---

EN
12.9.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
243/21
(18) Regarding the land lease, the arena will be built on public
The lease will be for 25 years with a rent of SEK
land, which the municipality will lease to the Property
15 million (or EUR 1,7 million) per year ( 14 ). Besides
Company for a minimum term of 50 years ( 11 ). The lease
the rent paid by the municipality, the arena is
will be SEK 50 000 per year (or EUR 5 500). The rent is
estimated to have other rental revenues of SEK […] (*).
claimed to be on market terms.
2.3. Grounds for initiating the procedure
(23) In the decision to open formal investigation, the
2.2. Operation and Use of the arena
Commission found that a selective economic advantage

could not be excluded at any level for example
(19) Upon completion of the construction, the arena will be
construction, operation and use and consequently the
operated by the Events Company, which will lease the
project would involve state aid. In addition, the public
arena from the Property Company and then let it to
co-financing of the arena, would most likely distort, or at
users.
least, threaten to distort competition and have an effect
on competition and trade between Member States could
not be excluded. The Commission also had doubts
whether the proposed project could be deemed
compatible under Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty, at
that stage at all three levels of possible aid (construction,
(20) One of the conditions for contributing to the funding of
operation and use) in accordance with the above.
the arena is that the municipality has set out
requirements for the selection of the Events Company.
According to the leasing agreement between the Property
3.
Company and the Events Company, the latter will also
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
ensure that the arena is made available to the general
(24) Following the opening of the formal investigation
public on market terms and under non-discriminatory
procedure, comments were only submitted by the
conditions.
Green party, an opposition party in the Uppsala
Municipal Council which, in general terms, expressed
its disapproval of the project which it considered to be
primarily to the benefit of private undertakings.
(21) As clarified by Sweden during the procedure, there will
be three main categories of events in the arena:
4. COMMENTS FROM SWEDEN
commercial events, sponsored events and events
organised by the municipality or others during the time
(25) Sweden has, for the purpose of the notification, assumed
the arena is rented by the municipality. Approximately
the presence of state aid as they acknowledge that the
90 % of those events will be open to the public, although
additional arena capacity will not be provided by market
at varying fee levels, and no less than 95 % of the
forces but argue that it should be considered compatible
municipality's rented time will be used for school and
under article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty. They argue that in
student sports, non-profit associations and leisure sport
particular the following should be taken into consider
for the general public that is to say around 60 hours per
ation.
week. The arena is claimed to be multifunctional and
open to all with no captive user given predominant
use ( 12 ).
(26) The
arena
satisfies
a
well-defined
objective
of
common
interest in light of its multifunctional character and
present lack of adequate and up-to-date facilities for
sports and cultural events in Uppsala. The municipality
will be fulfilling its responsibility to the general public by
making the arena project possible (
(22) In
order
to
ensure
arena
time
for
schools,
sports
clubs

15 ). Available alter
and the general public, as well as for the municipality's
natives, investments into the existing infrastructure
own events, the municipality will enter into a lease
Grnby Ice Rink would cost more and would still not
agreement with the Events Company (
cover the full capacity shortfall.

13 ). The munici
pality will lease 20 % of the total capacity of the arena.
(27) There is a market failure as the required new arena
( 11 ) The municipality may not terminate the site leasehold prior to the
capacity would not be provided without the aid. The
expiry of 50 years from the date of the lease and thereafter upon
the expiry of consecutive 20 year periods.
( 12 ) Although the arena will become the home arena for local ice
( 14 ) The rent will be reviewed yearly, on the basis of the consumer price
hockey and basketball teams, it has been explained that those
index. The municipality will also make a separate agreement with
associations will not govern the use of the arena.
the Property Company to ensure that it will keep access to the
( 13 ) In addition to the leasing agreement between the Events Company
arena on the same terms should the Events Company go out of
and the municipality, the latter will also enter into an agreement
business.
with the Property Company in order to, a.o. secure municipal and
(*) […]: the information in brackets is covered by the obligation of
public access to the arena in case the Events Company was to
professional secrecy
become insolvent or lose its lease agreement with the Property
( 15 ) According to surveys there is at present a 30 % shortage in the
Company. The lease the Property Company will in such cases
capacity for the type of sports and cultural events that the arena
continue under the same conditions.
would accommodate.

---

L 243/22
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
12.9.2013
Swedish sport sector is, unlike the situation in some
the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it
other Member States, largely non-profit and reliant
affects trade between Member States, be incompatible
upon public financial support.
with the internal market".
(28) The
public
co-funding
at
23
%
of
the
total
project
budget
(33) In
order
to
be
classified
as
state
aid,
the
notified
project
is limited to what is strictly necessary and proportionate
must fulfill the following cumulative conditions: first, the
in order to realise the project by being limited to the
measure must be granted through State resources;
funding gap that is to say the funding that cannot be
second, it has to confer an economic advantage to under
found on the market. Thus, by investing the "missing"
takings; third, this advantage must be selective and
funds the municipality makes the arena project possible
distort or threaten to distort competition and fourth,
since no other market actor is willing to contribute the
the measure must affect intra-Community trade.
SEK 150 million (or EUR 16,5 million). The lease that the
municipality will pay for 20 % of the arena's capacity will
not provide an advantage to the operator compared to
market terms, and the site will be leased to the Property
Company on terms comparable to those of other under
(34) With regard to the requirement that the measure must be
takings leasing land from the municipality that is
granted through State resources and must be attributable
dedicated for sports facilities. Sweden has further
to the State, this criterion is clearly fulfilled in this case as
explained the need of the arena, that is to say the
the municipality of Uppsala itself will contribute with a
necessary additional capacity cannot be met by private
direct grant, pay rent for use of the arena and provide
actors or by use of the existing arenas in Uppsala and/or
the land where the arena is to be built. Municipalities,
expansion thereof.
like Uppsala, are public authorities and part of the State

and their resources are thereby deemed attributable to
the State.
(29) To further ensure that the aid is proportionate, the
municipality will receive the option, valued at a
base scenario at SEK 174 million (or EUR 19,6 mil
(35) The municipality funding of the construction of the
lion) ( 16 ). The option precludes any over-compensation
arena may constitute aid if it leads to a selective
since the municipality gets the option in return for its
advantage for specific economic activities. In this
contribution which is worth more than the contribution
context, the funding of the construction of an infra
made.
structure for commercial activities constitutes State aid,
according to the Leipzig/Halle airport judgment of the
Court of Justice ( 17 ), if all the requirements of Article 107
(1) of the Treaty are fulfilled. Following the Court's
(30) Sweden has also further clarified the use of the arena and
assessment, the economic character of the later use of
its openness to the public, that is to say, open to the
the infrastructure would determine the nature of the
general public for approximately 90 % of the available
construction. In this case, the arena will be used to
time and the use of the arena will be ensured on a non-
provide services on a market, hence for an economic
discriminatory basis without favouring any specific
activity. Consequently, it needs to be assessed whether
undertaking(s) and on market terms.
there is State aid to the different actors involved in the
project.
(31) The
effect
on
competition
and
trade
between
Member
States, if any, is limited since the economic activities
Construction of the arena
are mostly local. In addition, the private facilities in the

municipality have different profiles and cannot be
(36) Sweden has acknowledged that the municipality had
considered to compete for the same audiences as the
initially hoped that private investors would finance the
arena.
realisation of the arena, but it is not feasible to carry out
the project without public funding. Consequently, the
SEK 150 million grant for the construction of the
arena gives an economic advantage to its owner, the
5. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID
Property Company, as it is necessary for the construction
5.1. Existence of aid within the meaning of
of the arena that would not have been built on market
Article 107(1) of the Treaty
terms. As the funds involved are obviously state
resources and the decision to make the grant is
(32) According
to
Article
107(1) of
the
Treaty, "any aid
imputable to the municipality, all other criteria of State
granted by a Member State or through State resources
aid are met see hereafter the examination of distortion of
in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to
competition and effect on trade between Member States
distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or
and the grant thus constitutes state aid to the Property
Company.
( 16 ) In a negative scenario the option is valued at SEK 128 million (or
EUR 15 million) which would mean that the net present value of
( 17 ) Judgment of 19 December 2012 in Case C-288/11, Mitteldeutsche
the municipal grant is SEK 22 million (or EUR 2,6 million).
Flughafen AG and Flughafen Leipzig-Halle GmbH v Commission.

---

EN
12.9.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
243/23
(37) Concerning
the site leasehold, Sweden has provided
rent that the municipality and the Events Company pays
evidence of comparable rent levels for other sports
will increase over time; and (iii) the Events Company will
facilities in Uppsala ( 18 ). Therefore it cannot be demon
charge market rents to other users.
strated that the terms of the lease would contain
additional aid to the Property Company.
(41) While these arrangements minimise the advantage to the
Events Company to the minimum necessary to ensure
operation of the infrastructure, an advantage to the
Operation of the arena
operator of this new arena within the market for
operating such facilities cannot be excluded. However,
(38) The
arena
will
be
operated
by
the
Events
Company,
given that such aid would be compatible with the
which will lease the arena from the Property Company.
internal market, as demonstrated below, it is not
Both the Property Company and the Events Company
necessary to make a definitive finding about the
will be private companies. During the procedure,
existence of aid.
Sweden has further clarified the terms and conditions
for the selection of the Property Company and the
Events Company, as well as the primary terms and
conditions of the lease agreement between the Property
Use of the arena
Company and the Events Company ( 19 ). Regarding the
selection of the Property Company, the municipality
(42) As mentioned above, the Events Company is a private
will be in charge of approving and deciding which
undertaking. Regarding the use of the arena, the Events
candidates are selected to form the Property Company,
Company has to ensure that the arena is made available
however, the municipality will not be involved in the
to the general public on market terms and under non-
commercial operations of the Property Company. The
discriminatory conditions. Approximately 90 % of all
Property Company will select the Events Company,
events will be open to the public, although at varying
which will be a private undertaking not linked to the
fee levels, and no less than 95 % of the municipality's
Property Company.
rented time will be used for school and student sports,
non-profit associations and leisure sport for the general
public that is to say around 60 hours per week). Thus,
the arena is multifunctional and open to all with no
captive professional user.
(39) As regards the lease fee that the Events Company will
pay to the Property Company, Sweden has explained that
it will consist of the following elements: (i) a fixed rent
that corresponds to the rent paid by the municipality to
(43) In this case, the municipality will be an essential
the Events Company for its lease of 20 % of the arena's
customer and the arena will to a large extent be used
capacity; (ii), a fixed fee that corresponds to the payment
by the local ice-hockey and basketball teams, which will
from a name sponsor; (iii) a fixed rent, based upon actual
have the arena as their home arena. The ice-hockey
cost that covers operating expenses and depreciation of
team's activities, as well as the basketball teams', are
equipment; and (iv) a variable rent that is calculated as a
predominantly at the amateur level, and the best team
percentage of the net turnover of the Events Company,
of the ice-hockey association plays in the second highest
with a minimum level to be agreed between the parties.
ice-hockey division.
In other words, the lease will – above a certain minimum
that follows from the above – be set freely between the
two private undertakings. Sweden has also clarified that
the municipality will not have a right to be directly
(44) The
renting
of
the
arena
may
constitute
aid
for
the
users,
involved in the negotiations between the Property
if the users can be considered undertakings within the
Company and the Events Company as regards the lease
meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty and if the rent they
agreement and will not in any way influence the
pay is below the rent for the use of comparable infra
commercial terms and conditions agreed upon by those
structure under normal market conditions. Non-profes
two independent, private, undertakings.
sional users do not qualify as undertakings within the
meaning of Article 107 of the Treaty. Sweden
committed furthermore to apply a market oriented fee.
However, in the absence of any clarification on how that
fee will be calculated, an advantage cannot be entirely
(40) With regards to the lease agreement between the munici
excluded.
pality and the Events Company for the use of 20 % of
the total arena capacity, it shall be for 25 years with a
rent of SEK 15 million per year (or EUR 1.7 million).
Sweden has declared that: (i) the municipality will pay
Effect on competition and trade between Member States
an hourly rent that is 40 to 50 % lower than the rent
that the Events Company will pay the Property Company
(45) Even
if
most
of
the
activities
which
are
to
be
carried
out
for their use of the arena (ii) the difference between the
in the arena are of local character, the arena will have the
capacity to host large or mid-size international events as
well, and thus an effect on competition and trade
( 18 ) An example of a comparable site leasehold interest agreement
between Member States cannot be excluded. Although,
regarding a tennis facility in Grnby has been provided, for
which the rent is SEK 52 000 per year.
according to the municipality, it is highly unlikely that
( 19 ) See Supplement to Letter of Intent dated 29 June 2012.
more than a few, if any, of the events that will take place

---

L 243/24
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
12.9.2013
in the arena will be of such an interest to persons living
of additional arena capacity. With only 70 % of the need
in neighbouring countries that they would be willing to
for facilities for major sports in Uppsala being satis
travel hundreds of kilometers to Uppsala in order to
fied ( 21 ) and with Uppsala's population growing at a
attend the events and thus it would be unlikely that
relatively high rate, there is an urgent and pressing
events taking place in the arena would compete with
need for additional arena capacity in Uppsala. Sweden
arenas in nearby countries.
has further explained that the need of the arena cannot
be met fully by private actors alone. One reason is the
characteristic of the Swedish sports movement, amongst
others not-for-profit and based on voluntary leadership
(46) However, the General Court has held, in its Order
and work, and dependent on public financial support.
concerning the Ahoy complex in the Netherlands, that
Sweden has further explained that the existing arenas
there was no reason to limit the market for use of this
are also inappropriate for certain types of events etc
type of facilities to the territory of that Member State (
for example larger sports and cultural events and that

20 ).
As in the opening decision, the Commission therefore
the privately owned facilities typically arrange only
considers that aid to the arena has the potential to
smaller types of events. The existing facilities have
affect competition and trade between Member States.
become outdated and do not meet the modern
requirements of the public anymore. The Grnby Ice
Rink was built in 1974, and in order to improve it to
modern standards, it would, according to Sweden, require
such a big change that in practice it would amount to
5.2. Compatibility
building a whole new arena and the site where it is
located is too small to make that possible. E.g. the
(47) Sweden argued that if the measure was found to
constitute state aid, this should be declared compatible
adjacent bandy facility would be affected and another
under article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty. In order for a
problem with the site is that it is not able cope with
proposed measure to be found compatible with the
transportation, evacuation and safety of visitors and
internal market under this derogation, the Commission
players, while other activities are going on in other
examines whether it pursues a policy objective of
facilities nearby.
common interest, as well as whether it is necessary and
proportional and does not cause undue distortion of
competition.
(51) In addition, with the new arena constructed, the existing
(48) With
regard
to
the
achievement
of
a
policy
objective
of
arenas including Grnby Ice Rink will still be used. The
common interest, it is noted that the construction of
new arena with its multiarena character will be used both
venues for sport and other public events and supporting
for large sports and cultural events which currently
different types of activities which benefit the general
cannot take place in Uppsala, as a complement to the
public can be considered as a State responsibility,
existing arenas, while the existing arenas will continue
particularly in light of the Amsterdam Declaration on
functioning mainly in the same way as they currently
Sport and article 165 of the Treaty, "The Union shall
do. With the new arena, larger sports events that
contribute to the promotion of European sporting
currently take place at Grnby Ice Rink for example
issues, while taking account of its specific nature, its
ice-hockey games in the second highest division can be
structures based on voluntary activity and its social and
moved to more suitable facilities in the new arena with
educational function".
higher capacity. It is expected that around 60 % of the
ice-hockey will gradually be moved from Grnby Ice
Rink to the new arena, which will free around 3 045
hours per year at Grnby Ice Rink for school and
student spots and leisure sports for the general public.
(49) As the arena will ensure the general public's access and
practice of sport and culture, particularly considering the
arena's multifunctional character and lack of capacity
and/or adequate and up-to-date facilities for sports and
cultural events in Uppsala, the municipality will be
fulfilling its responsibility to the general public by
making the arena project possible. The realisation of
(52) There are also no practicable alternatives to the
the arena must therefore be regarded as satisfying
construction of the new arena. Maintaining the existing
policy objectives of common interest.
arena of Grnby Ice Rink without any expansion of
capacity, would not be a realistic alternative to the
arena because it would not solve the need for new
capacity, and expanding the capacity of Grnby Ice
(50) Concerning
the necessity and proportionality of the
Rink, would not satisfy the need for facilities to host
proposed measure, Sweden has demonstrated the need
larger events. With the new arena constructed, the
existing arenas including Grnby Ice Rink will still
require repairs and need to be re-equipped.
( 20 ) Case T-90/09 Mojo Concerts BV and Amsterdam Music Dome
Exploitatie BV v. the European Commission, Order of the General
Court of 26/01/2012, paragraph 45.
( 21 ) Based on surveys carried out, see also footnote 7.

---

EN
12.9.2013 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
243/25
(53) Consequently,
even
if
other
arenas
exist
both
directly
in
SEK 22 million (or EUR 2,6 million) in a negative
the areas and in nearby cities/countries, the Commission
scenario. However, the municipality estimates that the
considers that Sweden has shown that the need of
value of the option almost certainly exceeds the
additional capacity in Uppsala cannot be met only by
investment cost.
the use or expansion of the existing arenas in Uppsala.
The new arena will become a complement, ensuring an
effective use of the arena capacity in Uppsala, rather than
a substitute for the existing arenas, in particular Grnby
Ice Rink, as well as a host for larger sports and cultural
(56) In any case, both the selection procedure of the operator
events for which there are currently no appropriate
and its agreement with the Property Company, together
venues in Uppsala.
with the other above reasons, ensure that the necessity
and proportionality requirements would be fulfilled.
(57) Regarding the municipality's use of the arena, 20 % of
(54) Sweden
has
also
explained
that
if
the
municipality
had
the total possible use of the arena amounting to 3 285
not taken an interest in this project the private parties
hours per year, Sweden has committed that no less than
would have settled for a different arena with more focus
95 % of the Municipality's rented time will be used for
on commercial activities to the detriment of sporting
school and student sports, non-profit associations and
activities and in general the general public. According
leisure sport for the general public around 3 121 hours
to Sweden, discussions with banks and private investors
per year, approximately 60 hours per week.
have revealed that they are not willing to cover the entire
Consequently, in terms of openness to the general
financial risk that the project involves. The total
public, the new arena will not only add 3 285 hours
investment cost of SEK 650 million (or EUR 72 million)
of capacity due to the municipality's rent agreement for
is financed by three parts: loans, direct private
the new arena, but also add available time of 3 045 hour
investments and municipal investment. In order to
per year at Grnby ice rink (see recital 51).
ensure enough solidity in the company, the part
financed by loans cannot be too large and the rest
must be financed directly by investors. Due to the
structure and risk/return of the project, the private
investors are only willing to invest around SEK 75 to
(58) Hence,
the
new
arena
will
both
complement
existing
100 million (or EUR 8 to 11 million), leaving SEK
arenas with additional capacity and increase the types
150 million (or EUR 16,5 million) to be financed by
of events, both sports and cultural, which can take
the municipality. With such an investment by the
place in Uppsala, and considerably benefit amateur
municipality, the initial solidity will be above 35 % and
sports and the general public in Uppsala. Thus, the aid
will also remain above 30 % for the project ( 22 ). The
must thus be considered well-targeted and the public co-
amount of SEK 150 million (or EUR 16,5 million) also
financing thereof justified
corresponds to around 23 % of the nominal total
investment. All private letters of intent from banks and
private investors are contingent on the municipality
investing SEK 150 million (or EUR 16,5 million). An
investment of such an amount from the municipality is
(59) In
addition,
considering
the
location
of
the
arena
and
thus necessary to realise the project and to achieve the
that most of the activities which are to be carried out
public benefits thereof. It has thus been demonstrated,
in the arena are of local character, the effect on
that the municipality's commitment to the project is
competition and trade between Member States is
essential. The public co-financing of the arena is also
limited, although, as described above, cannot be
necessary, as without the municipality's contribution
completely excluded.
there will not be enough funds to finance the arena
project. Based on the above, the municipal contribution
has also been ensured to be limited to the strictly
necessary.
(60) From
the
above
reasons,
it
has
been
demonstrated
that
the municipality's involvement in the arena project is
both necessary, proportionate and does not cause
undue distortion of competition, and that possible aid
to the Events Company and users would also be
compatible with the internal market.
(55) In
return
for
its
contribution,
the
municipality's
option
to
buy the arena is valued in a pessimistic scenario to SEK
128 million (or EUR 15 million), which means that the
net value of the municipal capital contribution is at most
(61) As the project is still in phase 1 pending the Commis
sion's approval, it is only following such an approval that
( 22 ) Calculations on solidity in the Property Company dependent on the
the project will evolve and the Property Company and
initial investment from the municipality by Copenhagen Economics.
Sweden has also explained that banks are generally hesitant to loan
the Events Company will be formed. Thus, Sweden has
funds to projects with solidity lower than 30 %.
committed that:

---

L 243/26
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
12.9.2013
(i) the Letter of Intent and supplement to Letter of
(63) The
Commission
therefore
finds
that
the
Uppsala
arena
Intent between the municipality and the Arena
project is compatible with the internal market in
Company shall be implemented ( 23 );
accordance with Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty.
(ii) no less than 95 % of the municipality’s rented time
(64) The Commission notes that Sweden has agreed that the
in the arena shall be used for school and student
decision shall be adopted in English as the authentic
sports, non-profit associations, and leisure sport for
language.
the general public;
(iii) Sweden shall submit the relevant agreements that are
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
entered into as a result of the Letter of Intent to the
Commission (the agreement between the munici
pality and the Property Company, the agreement
Article 1
between the Property Company and the Events
The measure which Sweden is planning to implement for the
Company and the lease agreement between the
Uppsala arena, amounting to SEK 150 million is compatible
municipality and the Events Company); and
with the internal market pursuant to Article 107(3)(c) of the
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Implemen
(iv) Sweden shall submit annual reports on the imple
tation of the measure amounting to SEK 150 million is
mentation of the aid measure, in particular with
accordingly authorised.
regards to point 2 above, for the period up to the
end of year 2020 to the Commission.
Article 2
6. CONCLUSION
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Sweden.
(62) The municipality's grant for the construction of the arena
constitutes state aid to the Property Company, and
possibly to the Events Company and the users of the
Done at Brussels, 2 May 2013.
arena. The public co-financing of the Uppsala arena has
been demonstrated to be both necessary and propor
tionate to realise the project, as well as sufficiently
For the Commission
open to all on non-discriminatory terms without
favouring any specific undertaking(s). The outcome of
Joaquín ALMUNIA
the balancing test is positive.
Vice-President
( 23 ) As submitted to the Commission by Sweden as Appendix 6 to the
Notification and as supplemented by Appendix 1 to the submission
of 29 June 2012.

---

Document Outline

• �

---