Brussels, 20/05/2014 (Agence Europe) - The various organisations representing the main transport sectors have sounded the alarm with regard to revision of state aid for infrastructure projects in the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T). TEN-T projects approved by the European Commission often suffer from major delays because of the notification procedure. These associations say that the current revision of guidelines must provide an opportunity for radically changing this situation.
The European Rail Infrastructure Managers (EIM), CER (the voice of European railways and infrastructure companies), European Sea Ports Organisation (EPSO), European Federation of Inland Ports (EFIP), European Association with tolled motorways, bridges and tunnels (ASECAP) and the International Road Transport Union (IRU) have mobilised to denounce the problems relating to state aid when attempting to promote Important Projects of Common European Interest (IPCEI), in which they are involved as part of the TEN-T project initiative. Investors currently face the problem of legal uncertainty, as well as unnecessary red tape when they make a request for TEN-T funding, which also involves having to go through the state aid notification procedure. The associations point out that around a third of the cost of TEN-T projects is generally financed through European funding and the rest mainly through funding from member states' own coffers. Although the European Commission considers that European funding is compatible with Community law, the institution is more demanding when it comes to national subsidies. The Commission can interpret them as state aid, which therefore need to be notified to the Commission separately. This procedure can lead to significant delays in carrying out infrastructure projects. One industry expert stated that Commission work on the subject should be better coordinated and affirmed that, “if a TEN-T project has already been agreed to by the Commission, the presumption of legality should prevail”. This same source regretted that a simple complaint by a third party, apart from fraud cases, could put a whole project on hold.
Although a public consultation was carried out at the beginning of the year on the draft communication on state aid for large-scale projects, the above-mentioned groups would like the ongoing review of the state aid guidelines to take their concerns into account. These organisations all stated that “a positive TEN-T funding decision should entail the legal certainty that the possible use of state aid for the same project will not be too easily challenged at a later stage”. (MD)