TOURISM AND STATE AID 123 investor principle45 given that a private investor would never consider this objective. The applicants also argued that the Commission was wrong when it denied (as well as the General Court for agreeing with the Commission) that the aid was compatible either under Article 107(3) point c) or d)46 with the internal market. The applicants explained that the Commission did not take into account the specific situation of the concerned undertakings and their additional costs, which also contribute to the preservation of national heritage when assessing the measure. The Court dismissed these pleas as well, as the General Court carefully analysed how the Commission had exercised its discretion as regards the assessment of the compatibility of the aid and did not commit a manifest error of assessment when it concluded that the measure constituted an operating aid. Therefore, the Commission did not err when it did not authorise the measure, since specific and very strict rules apply to operating aid. As regards aid for cultural purposes, the Court agreed again with the Commission and the General Court. There was no strong connection between the preservation of cultural heritage and the social costs of the beneficiaries. Therefore, the Commission was allowed to disregard the cultural aid option during its compatibility assessment. In the same vein, and due to the lack of a link between the costs and the aid, the Court dismissed the plea requiring that the measure should have been assessed as a compatible aid to make good of the damage caused by natural disasters or as an aid to promote the execution of an important project of common European interest47. Lastly, the applicants argued against the recovery of the aid granted. They explained that the Commission should have taken into account the specific situation of the beneficiaries and their legitimate expectations as regards the legality of the measure. In its answer, the Court was bluntly clear: recovery of the aid is a logical consequence of its illegality and incompatibility, as the aim of 45 The market economy investor principle is defined and used by the jurisprudence to establish whether a financial activity of the State confers advantage and hence State aid, or based on all relevant information available at the time of the decision, a hypothetical private investor would have taken the same decision. Consequently, the measure does not confer an advantage not obtainable at the market. See Chapter 4.2 NoA (Footnote 12). 46 Point c) gives a broad possibility for the Commission to find an aid compatible with the internal market, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to the extent contrary to the common interest. Point d) allows aid to be granted aid to promote culture and heritage conservation where such aid does not affect trading conditions and competition in the Union to an extent that is contrary to the common interest. 47 Articles 107(2)(b) and 107(3)(b) TFEU.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==