TOURISM AND STATE AID 135 impact on the touristic attractiveness of the site/facility for visitors, i.e. on tourist flows in general; further (infrastructure) projects are generally accessible for free and thus seem to have more the character of a public infrastructure open to the public; none of the projects seems to be of internationally recognised importance […] as regards the beneficiaries, these are often local authorities or companies established by them, SMEs, non-profit, non-governmental entities or selfgoverning bodies”. Seemingly, the Commission tried to find and use even peculiar and also non-coherent arguments to be able to conclude on the absence of the aid. Even though statements cited above were true, it is most probably not safe to say that if touristic facilities are developed in a region where the borders with other Member States are to be found, then the effect of trade or the possibility of it cannot be entirely excluded. A more bullet-proof solution would have been to make a compatibility assessment under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. The question of serving touristic purposes emerged in many cases when the Commission adopted decisions related to the development of cable cars and ski lifts66. In these decisions, the main question was the purpose of the cable car and, depending on the purpose, the Commission distinguished between facilities used due to the lack of proper road connections, facilities serving mainly the local inhabitants but also used for leisure purposes and cable cars with touristic objective. Since cable cars are usually used for fee (remuneration), their operation is an economic activity, and any financing related to them is subject to the State aid rules. The Commission, in this case, took into account the following factors during the State aid assessment: the location of the cable car, opening hours, who are the users, capacity related to the number of local inhabitants and any nearby touristic centres. Consequently, depending on these characteristics, the financing of cable car development could constitute a public service compensation under Article 93 TFEU, but this type of aid would only be compatible if the cable-car serves local users; if it is used for touristic or sports purposes, it has to be assessed under Article 107(3)(c) TFEU. The Commission also used the argument of no effect on trade when the ski lift led to ski slopes in which the large majority (at least 85%) of the tickets were sold for local inhabitants. 66 See Commission Decision 2003/521/EC of 9 April 2002 on the State aid implemented by Italy for cableway installations in the Autonomous Province of Bolzano (OJ L 183, 22.07.2003, pp. 19-29); case No. 676/2002 – Italia. Impianti funiviari Valle d’Aosta; case N 476/2004 – Italia. Impianti a fune di PradaCostabella; Case No. 731/2007 – Italie. Aides aux zones skiables d’intérêt local du Veneto; Case No. 702/2009 – Czech Republic. Aid for the reconstruction of a cableway on Mount Sněžka.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTE4NzM5Nw==