132 COMPETITION LAW IN TOURISM investments can have impact on trade. Additionally, an important statement was made concerning the financing of the infrastructure necessary for the park’s operation. In essence, the Commission confirmed that the infrastructure development was made for the whole area and not only in the park’s operator interest. The Commission explained as a general rule that “public powers can, as the Spanish authorities state, carry out work to develop their land. They can, for instance, fund infrastructure which will benefit the population as a whole. Moreover, theCommission considers that the reason for which such infrastructure is set up is indifferent, provided that it is done in the interests of the local community as a whole. However, if such infrastructure of services will serve the needs of a private company only, that company is responsible for funding them. This follows from the fact that, where State aid is concerned, the Commission’s remit is to analyse the impact of the measures concerned in practice, rather than the objectives pursued”. This has been the Commission’s general approach ever since58. The Commission cleared all the remaining measures (assets transferred, shareholder’s loan, public contribution) as no aid because they were on market terms, except the municipal tax breaks. Since the amount of the local tax break was very low compared to the size of the investment, this latter was found to be compatible under Article 107(3)(a) TFEU, as the theme park was built in an assisted region and the aid complied with the conditions of the regional aid guidelines. From the Commission decisions dealing with State measures related to the tourism sector, a high number had the primary question of whether the measure had a potential effect on trade between the Member States. In the famous Dorsten Pool case59, the Commission simply concluded that the swimming complex benefitting from State measures was around 50 kilometres from the border, being, therefore, unlikely to attract customers from abroad. Hence, the measure escaped the qualification as State aid. Similarly, the Commission found no effect on intra-Community trade as regards the restoration and creation of a heritage centre of a landmark pier in Brighton60, which, incidentally, was a well-known touristic destination even for foreigners. 58 See Commission Decision (EU) 2015/508 of on the alleged infrastructure aid implemented by Germany in favour of Propapier PM2 GmbH (OJ L 89, 01.04.2015, pp. 72-93) and also the Commission decision in case SA.36346 (2013/N) – Germany – GRW land development scheme for industrial and commercial use. 59 Case N 258/00 – Deutschland, Freizeitbad Dorsten. 60 N 560/01 and NN 17/02 – United Kingdom, Brighton West Pier.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==