even if the Greek authorities had supplied information intended to demonstrate that the guarantees granted fulfilled the conditions for excluding State aid, the Commission would not have been able to accept the justification as, to but one example, the exemption only applies if the beneficiary firms are not in financial difficulty;

Since the explanations provided by the Greek authorities in their letter of 9 August 2004 apply equally to the agricultural and non-agricultural sectors, the Commission can only conclude, as it has done in the case of the agricultural sector, that none of the information provided by the Greek authorities enables the Commission to establish that the various conditions laid down in the 1994, 1997 and 1999 Guidelines were fulfilled (to but one example, there is nothing to suggest that the beneficiary firms submitted a restructuring plan including the necessary compensatory measures).

Austria and GRAWE also submitted other methods [58] of evaluating the different risks involved with the two bidders.

GOC the ‘guidelines issued by the Commission on reimbursement/refunds’ as an example of a similarly non-binding document in the EU context.

In their 22 June 2006 submission the complainants to EUR 15 million, but from their earlier submissions and the data provided by the Finnish authorities it appears that the right amount is FIM 15 million.

In this connection Belgium recitals 93 and 95 of decision N 9/05 and N 10/05, where the criteria in point 25 of the TSE guidelines are considered to be met.

the Auditor General’s report of December 2005, which stated that ‘the level of freight charges and the resultant competition from Norse Island Ferries was one of the key factors which contributed to NorthLink 1’s financial problems’ and that ‘while chartering the extra (freight) vessel was intended to ensure there was adequate capacity to meet demand, it created a situation whereby freight capacity actually exceeded demand.

While not imposing a call for tenders as the only possible procedure for a privatisation, the Competition Report explicitly refers to privatisations and provides guidance on the prerequisites of a procedure ensuring that privatisation does not entail State aid.

In answer to the Commission’s of selectivity of the tax scheme at issue, the French authorities put forward several arguments.

That schedule is to indicate, for each document annexed, the number of the annex, a short description of the document and the page or paragraph of the written pleadings or observations in which the document is and which justifies its production.

Vtesse gives more precise figures on the impact of these differences in marginal taxation of contracts: taking the example of the bid launched by Kent MAN for the provision of backbone and access telecommunication links, Vtesse claims that its rates liability on that bid represented 16 % of its revenue.

They also , among others, the decision adopted by the French Competition Authority, according to which land-based poker does not form part of the same market as online poker, since land-based poker requires personal self-control, observation of the other players, often higher costs and a limitation from a geographic point of view [27].

Portugal also several examples of other public undertakings transformed by legislative act into public limited companies [52].

As regards compatibility of the Mortgage Loan Scheme, the Icelandic authorities also refer to previous arguments made to the Authority regarding the systemic importance of the savings banks in Iceland – see, for example, a letter from the Central Bank of Iceland dated 19.5.2009, confirming the necessity of the measures (Annex 5 to the notification).

In this regard, also to the opinion delivered by Advocate General Bot in the Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional case [22] according to which, the impact of new means of communication is such that games of chance and gambling, which used to be available only in specific premises, could now be played at any time and any place, given the evolution of new technologies such as phones, interactive television and the Internet.

Belgium also the GEMO judgment [20], but does not consider that this changes its line in this particular case.

It also the judgment of the Court in the Van den Bergh & Jürgens case [23], where the following test was applied to determine whether an expectation is justified: ‘…if a prudent and discriminating trader could have foreseen the adoption of a Community measure likely to affect his interests, he cannot plead that principle if the measure is adopted.’

This argument is held up also by the Hungarian Authorities [10], which in addition points out that according to the information available on websites of the main competitors of Magyar Posta, on the B2X standard post parcels, there is no distinction made in terms of published prices, as to whether parcel recipients are consumers or businesses.

Regarding the legal basis for the measure, the Italian authorities a series of previous decisions by the Commission (in particular, State aid cases N 83/2000, N 185/2000, N 657/02 and N 729/02), in which the Commission authorised aid in the agricultural and agricultural processing sector on the basis of Article 87(2)(b) of the Treaty and in the light of the implementation criteria specified in point 11.3 of the Guidelines, maintaining that, in the case in question, the implementation criteria had been met.

The Danish authorities and TV2 advanced various arguments to justify the excess funding calculated in recital 196.