INHALT

Commission Decision (EU) 2025/906 of 22 November 2024 on State aid SA.48580 (2017/C) implemented by Germany for WestSpiel (notified under document C(2024) 8105)

COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2025/906
of 22 November 2024
on State aid SA.48580 (2017/C) implemented by Germany for WestSpiel
(notified under document C(2024) 8105)
(Only the German text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
1.
PROCEDURE
2.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID
2.1.
Legal context at the time when the alleged measures were granted
2.2.
The beneficiary
2.3.
The alleged measures
2.3.1.
Annual loss coverage
2.3.2.
Alleged capital injection in 2015
2.4.
Grounds for initiating the procedure
2.4.1.
Alleged annual loss coverage
2.4.2.
Alleged capital injection in 2015
3.
COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES
4.
COMMENTS FROM GERMANY
4.1.
Alleged annual loss coverage
–
First scenario: the liquidation of WestSpiel
–
Second scenario: the sale of WestSpiel
4.2.
Alleged capital injection in 2015
4.3.
Additional arguments
5.
OBSERVATIONS FROM WESTSPIEL AND THE COMPLAINANTS
5.1.
Observations from WestSpiel
5.1.1.
Alleged annual loss coverage
5.1.2.
Alleged capital injection in 2015
5.2.
Observations from the complainants
5.2.1.
Alleged annual loss coverage
5.2.2.
Alleged capital injection in 2015
6.
ASSESSMENT
6.1.
Existence of State aid
6.1.1.
Alleged annual loss coverage from 2009 to 2015
6.1.1.1. Automatic consumption of the capital
6.1.1.2. Behaviour of a comparable private investor
–
Assessment of the counterfactual scenarios (liquidation and sale)
–
Scenario 1: liquidation of WestSpiel
–
Liquidation value according to Germany’s description of the process
–
Liquidation value according to WestSpiel’s annual accounts
–
Scenario 2: sale of WestSpiel
–
Assessment of the general financial situation of WestSpiel from 2009 to 2015
–
Assessment of the factual scenario (annual loss coverage)
–
Conclusion on the advantage
6.1.2.
Alleged capital injection in 2015
6.1.2.1. Relation between the profit skimming mechanism and the capital injection
–
Conclusion on the relation between the profit skimming mechanism and the capital injection
6.1.2.2. Assessment of the capital injection
6.1.2.2.1. Undertaking
6.1.2.2.2. State resources and imputability
6.1.2.2.3. Advantage
6.1.2.2.3.1. Assessment of Germany’s argument that the capital injection would be in line with the MEIP test
–
Applicability of the MEIP test
–
Conclusion on the applicability of the MEIP test
–
Application of the MEIP test
–
Germany’s ‘short-term view’
–
Assessment of the counterfactual scenarios: liquidation and sale
–
Conclusion on the assessment of the counterfactual scenarios
–
Germany’s ‘long-term view’
–
Conclusion on the application of the MEIP test
6.1.2.2.3.2. Alleged compensation for structural disadvantage
6.1.2.2.3.3. Alleged lack of advantage as the same economic result could have been achieved via legislative amendments
6.1.2.2.3.4. The alleged repayment of the book value of NRW’s silent participation would amount to an extensive repayment of the (alleged) State aid
–
Conclusion on the advantage
6.1.2.2.4. Selectivity
6.1.2.2.5. Distortion of competition and effect on trade
–
Conclusion on the capital injection
6.1.3.
Conclusion on the existence of aid
6.2.
Lawfulness of the aid
6.3.
Compatibility
7.
RECOVERY
8.
INDEMNITY CLAUSE
9.
CONCLUSION
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Article 5
Article 6