The Operators take the view that aircraft firefighting and wildlife hazard prevention services are not security services, but sovereign tasks associated with safety that are covered by the airport tax, such that these are non-economic activities falling outside the scope of the European rules on State aid.

The Operators stress that, during the CCI operating period, neither the repayable advances paid by the CCI’s general arm for the benefit of the airport’s accounts nor the rebilling system for joint costs can be regarded as acts that may be assessed under the State aid rules. Accordingly, in their view, in the first case the CCI acted as a private investor ensuring that its business had the necessary resources and, in the case of the rebilling system for joint costs, these costs were decided based on objective criteria associated with the volume of services provided to each recipient.

Clearly defined public service obligations. The Operators refute the Commission’s view that developing the airport, particularly for commercial flights, cannot be defined as a service of general interest. In fact, they consider that (i) the Member States enjoy broad discretion in defining what they regard as a service of general economic interest (SGEI); and that (ii) the ‘development of air traffic’ has a wider objective, namely regional development, which is an objective that, according to the Operators, has already been recognised by the Commission as being a general interest objective.

In addition, the Operators have submitted a study proving that the airport’s impact on the local economy is clearly greater than the flat-rate contribution, due to the airport’s importance as a focus of activity.

The Operators also refer to the contents of the CDSP to prove that (i) the CDSP contains numerous obligations associated with the maintenance and accessibility of the airport; and that (ii) VTAN was required to ensure the continuity of the public service under threat of penalties, by assuming obligations that a private investor, based on its own commercial interest, would not have assumed or would not have assumed to the same extent or under the same conditions.

The Operators assert that the Commission has misinterpreted the meaning of the expression ‘development of air traffic’. Unlike the Commission, which has taken the view that this task involves developing the airport, the Operators have indicated that, in its broader sense, this task corresponds to regional development, which they claim to be a clearly defined general interest objective. In addition, in their view, this task also includes development of the industrial hub.

The Operators also stress that, contrary to the Commission’s opinion, the compensation granted to VTAN did not depend on how the aviation activity developed. In fact, the flat-rate contribution took the form of compensation fixed at EUR [1 200 000–1 500 000] per year in the reference scenario, which could only go down subject to certain conditions defined in the CDSP.

Lastly, the Operators consider that the overall management of Nîmes airport, given its size and local role, should be regarded as an SGEI, given that the Commission has not proven that a private market economy operator would have been prepared to assume such obligations in the absence of public service compensation.

Parameters established in advance for determining the amount of compensation. The Operators maintain that the flat-rate contribution paid by the delegator to the delegatee was fixed, and was only indexed each year according to a clearly defined formula. Furthermore, they clarify that the exceptional increases stipulated in the amendments were agreed as a result of the occurrence of events that were unforeseeable at the time when VTAN drew up its tender.

Fair compensation for costs arising from public service obligations. The Operators rely on a quantitative analysis to prove that the airport operator was not overcompensated. As a result, given the size of Nîmes airport, all the operator’s economic costs (excluding sovereign tasks) must be taken into account to determine the existence of overcompensation. In this context, over the 2007-2011 period, there was allegedly a loss of nearly EUR [1-3] million. Only if the entire flat-rate contribution were allocated solely to the public service costs in the strict sense would the operator make a profit of EUR [2-4] million. Lastly, the Operators stress that, if the AMS expenditure is included in the public service missions, the compensation covers only […] % of the AMS expenditure of EUR [5-7] million over the 2007-2011 period, less the public service costs in the strict sense, which does not show any overcompensation.

Selection of the service provider. The Operators rely on an independent economic study to prove that the negotiated procedure allowed the most efficient operator to be selected (i) by improving the efficiency of the agreement; and (ii) by allowing the Operators to submit more aggressive tenders. The procedure followed with Veolia met the final Altmark criterion, given that the predicted costs used to calculate the financial contribution reflected the costs of a well-run airport of the same size as Nîmes.

VTAN stresses that Ryanair and AMS are two separate entities and that their contractual relations must therefore be treated separately. In addition, the Operators maintain that all the services contracted to AMS fell within the public service missions assigned to VTAN. As a reminder, the main objective of these public service missions was the economic and tourism development of the Nîmes region.

The Operators confirm that the only work directly carried out by the CCI during its operation of Nîmes airport involved the expansion and adaptation of the passenger terminal, with this work being financed from the CCI’s own resources or through loans taken out in its name. Given that the vast majority of this work took place during the 1990s, the applicable legislation is the 1994 Aviation Guidelines, meaning that the financing of this work escapes the monitoring of State aid carried out by the Commission.

The Operators also note that, except for the passenger terminal, the investments were made in the airbase, as the commercial activity was secondary.

During the VTAN operating period, the main investments, which were mainly military in nature, involved bringing the runway into compliance. These investments were made to meet the basic needs of the airbase. In addition, other investments were made between 2010 and 2011 to bring the terminal into compliance following an unfavourable opinion from the Safety Commission, which could not have been anticipated when the delegation was granted.

As regards the financing of certain investments by the SMAN, the Operators assert that this was the only possible solution given the short term of the CDSP, which was much shorter than the ‘investment depreciation period’. In addition, they assert that, if these investments had been taken into account at the time of the invitation to tender, the interested parties would have requested higher compensation. To conclude, they assert that the infrastructure being placed at the operator’s disposal without charge did not confer any advantage on VTAN because, in the absence of the SMAN’s support for certain investments, the associated costs would have been directly included in the amount of the flat-rate contribution.

As regards the equipment subsidy granted to VTAN following closure of the airbase, the Operators maintain that the investments in the aircraft rescue and firefighting service (service de sauvetage et de lutte contre l’incendie des aéronefs sur les aérodromes — ‘SSLIA’) and in the creation of an automatic parameter transmission system (système de transmission automatique des paramètres — ‘STAP’) cannot be regarded as falling within the airport’s commercial activity rather than its sovereign activities.

The Operators maintain that a regional airport’s catchment area is limited to those airports that can be reached by car within a maximum of 60 minutes. They also note that customers of low-cost airlines are much more sensitive to the costs of transport to the airport.

With regard to Montpellier airport, the Operators take the view that its potential passengers would not be interested in travelling to Nîmes, given the additional journey time and the additional cost incurred. Furthermore, Montpellier airport serves a tourist demand that is situated more to the west of the airport, whereas Nîmes airport covers a different catchment area. Lastly, the existence of identical destinations served by the two airports (London and Brussels) and the study of their traffic show that there is no competition between Montpellier airport and Nîmes airport.

Likewise, with regard to Avignon airport, the Operators take the view that its potential passengers would not be interested in travelling to Nîmes, given the additional journey time and the additional cost incurred. Furthermore, the destinations served by the two airports are different (except for London, although the arrival airport is different and the Avignon service is targeted at a different type of passenger, mainly business passengers). In addition, a 2011 passenger survey highlighted the low ranking of Avignon airport among the other airports situated in the region.

With regard to Marseille airport, the Operators stress that, in accordance with the Commission’s decision-making practice, the activities of a Category D airport such as Nîmes cannot really hinder those of an airport such as Marseille, which sees annual traffic of over 7 million passengers, given that the two airports are not substitutes as far as users are concerned. In addition, an independent economic study shows that the drop in passenger numbers at Nîmes following the opening of the low-cost terminal at Marseille in 2007 was less than the losses recorded during the period prior to that opening.

As regards the financing granted to the CCI and VTAN, the Operators consider that this could not have affected the airport operating market given that the overlap between the catchment areas of Montpellier, Avignon and Marseille airports is very limited.

The Operators consider that all the measures examined are compatible with the internal market. Given that their aim is the performance of general economic interest tasks, these measures de facto meet the SGEI criteria and are therefore compatible with the 2005 Guidelines.

CCI operating period to February 2006. The aid is compatible with the internal market given that (i) there was an act entrusting the public service missions (in particular the 1986 AOT); (ii) the compensation was limited to the costs necessary to perform the public service (there were legal mechanisms, such as Circular No 111 of 30 March 1993, to ensure fair compensation); and (iii) there were regular checks to ensure the absence of overcompensation (monthly reports verifying that the voted budget was being properly implemented).

CCI operating period from 1 February 2006 to 31 December 2006. In this case, the SGEI criteria were also met given that (i) the delegation agreement of 1 February 2006 imposed clearly defined public service obligations; (ii) the agreement also stipulated that the compensation must be limited to the costs necessary to perform the public service; and (iii) regular checks were also carried out.

VTAN operating period. The CDSP also met the criteria, in particular (i) the existence of an act entrusting the public service missions; (ii) the limitation of the compensation to the necessary costs; and (iii) the absence of overcompensation given that there was an annual report to the delegating authority that set out the economic and financial results for the year.

Clearly defined objective of general interest. The investment measures met a clearly defined objective of general interest, namely the economic and tourism development of the Gard department because, according to the Operators, the specific net impact of Nîmes airport on the local economy was approximately EUR 71 million, based on both the jobs created by the airport and net tourism flows.

Necessity and proportionality of the investments. The majority of the investments were made in the 1990s. The investments made during the CCI operating period that are covered by the opening decision were minor and intended to bring the airport into compliance with the applicable safety standards. In addition, the investments made during the VTAN operating period involved renovating the runway in 2007 and bringing the terminal into compliance between 2010 and 2011.

Satisfactory medium-term prospects for use. The Operators maintain that there were satisfactory prospects during both operating periods. Accordingly, the CCI underlines that, during its operating period, the prospects were positive given that traffic had increased by 3,5 times over the 20 years prior to the airport’s resizing. Likewise, VTAN asserts that, when the CDSP was signed, there were satisfactory medium-term prospects.

Equal and non-discriminatory access to the infrastructure. The general rate card determined the charges to be paid by any airline operating from Nîmes airport.

Absence of effect on the development of trade to an extent contrary to the Community interest. Given that the aid granted was unlikely to affect the airports situated within the catchment area of Nîmes airport.

Proportionality and necessity of the aid — incentive effect. In the absence of these measures, the airport would have been closed. In addition, the fact that an invitation to tender covering the operation of the airport was launched in 2007 shows that no economic operator would have agreed to assume these investments.

The Commission claims that Ryanair and AMS were paid amounts owed under their respective agreements not by the CCI but by state entities such as the Languedoc-Roussillon Region.

Ryanair indicates that not all the resources of the CCIs come from taxes, given that they have their own resources generated, for example, by their commercial activities. In the specific case of airports, the CCIs must finance their airport operations independently, under the French Civil Aviation Code.

Ryanair asserts that the fact that flat-rate contributions were involved clearly shows that these contributions did not correlate to specific payments by VTAN to Ryanair. It also maintains that the imputation of the measures to the state has not been established by the Commission and that the analysis therefore fails to meet the criteria required for the imputation of a measure to the state.

In addition, Ryanair concludes that the change of contractual partners (from the CCI to VTAN) entailed a change in the negotiating conditions, which allegedly proves that VTAN was not simply a front for the French state.

France stresses that the private investor criterion must be analysed based solely on the variable costs generated by the airport’s commercial activity, given that all the airport’s fixed costs are, in its view, included as part of the performance of the general interest tasks assigned to the airport.

France asserts that the sums paid by the SMAN to VTAN under the CDSP did not confer any advantage on VTAN because the flat-rate contribution payments were, in its view, solely intended to compensate for clearly defined public service obligations.

Clearly defined public service obligations. France underlines the broad discretion that it enjoys in defining the activities that constitute an SGEI. France asserts in this respect that, given that Nîmes airport is a Category D airport, the entire airport constitutes an SGEI in accordance with the 2005 Guidelines. France underlines that the activities imposed on VTAN could have been included under the ‘special task’ heading as no economic operator would have been able to accept the concession under the proposed conditions.

France also states that VTAN was not entrusted with developing the airport, but rather with the economic and tourism development of the region, and particularly with the development of the industrial hub situated nearby. Finally, France notes that the compensation paid to VTAN was not linked to the development of commercial routes, as indicated by the Commission. It was simply a flat-rate contribution of a fixed amount that depended on the economic situation referred to in the ‘reference scenario’ or in the ‘downturn scenario’. As a result, France considers that a private operator acting in a market economy would not have been prepared to assume the tasks assigned to VTAN, under the same conditions, in the absence of compensation for the public service provided.

Parameters established in advance for determining the amount of compensation. According to France, the rules governing the amount of compensation are clearly defined in the CDSP. France justifies the payment of additional amounts to the airport operator by the fact that a number of unexpected events, which could not have been envisaged at the time when the tender was submitted, occurred during the period of the delegation, in particular the dismantling of the airbase.

Fair compensation for costs arising from public service obligations. France asserts that VTAN’s accounts do not prove that the operator was overcompensated. The analysis conducted by France shows that, due to the small size of Nîmes airport, all the economic costs incurred by the operator (except for the activities covered by the airport tax, i.e. the costs of the sovereign tasks) should be taken into account when assessing the existence of overcompensation. As a result, France indicates that all the costs associated with the airport’s operation (including the costs generated by Ryanair/AMS) must be regarded as falling within a public service activity. On that basis, France concludes that there was no overcompensation.

Selection of the service provider. France also stresses that the operator was selected in accordance with the principle of legality, given that an invitation to tender notice was published in the French Official Gazette of Public Procurement Notices (Bulletin Officiel des Annonces des Marchés Publics — BOAMP) and in the Official Journal of the European Union. Veolia’s tender was finally chosen because it was regarded as the most advantageous after its economic, service and financial aspects had been analysed.

As regards Marseille airport, France considers that the cost of a return journey to the airport and the journey time (in excess of 60 minutes) are sufficient reasons for Marseille airport to be excluded from the catchment area of Nîmes airport or, at the very least, for the overlap between the activities of these two airports to be very limited, particularly with regard to the low-cost offer at Nîmes. Furthermore, France asserts that Nîmes airport is a Category D airport according to the 2005 Guidelines and that, in accordance with the Commission’s decision-making practice, it cannot be regarded as a competitor to Marseille airport, given that the latter sees annual traffic of over 7 million passengers. Finally, France stresses that the type of traffic at Marseille airport (high proportion of business passengers) is completely different from Nîmes airport (tourist and seasonal traffic focused on the appeal of Nîmes and the Gard department) and that the Brussels-Charleroi destination is served by both airports, which, in its view, shows that these are not substitutes as far as users are concerned.

As regards Avignon airport, France asserts that the return cost of EUR 40 is regarded as a negative factor by low-cost passengers. In addition, there is no overlap between the activities of Avignon airport and those of Nîmes airport because the destinations served from Avignon are different. France maintains that this argument is supported by a 2011 passenger survey, which allegedly highlighted the low ranking of Avignon airport among the other airports in the region (2,55 % of passengers from other airports in the region).

As regards Montpellier airport, France considers that the two airports are not in the same catchment area given that (i) the Ryanair routes from Montpellier airport meet a tourist demand that is situated more to the west than to the east of the airport; and (ii) that Nîmes airport covers a different catchment area from part of Montpellier airport’s catchment area (in particular the Cévennes, Uzège and the northeast of Gard/south of the Ardèche in the Rhône valley). Furthermore, France takes the view that the lack of overlap between the activities is confirmed by two facts, namely (i) the Brussels-Charleroi route operated from both airports allegedly shows that these are not substitutes as far as their users are concerned; and (ii) the traffic at Montpellier airport is clearly higher than that at Nîmes airport.

In conclusion, France asserts that Nîmes airport is a Category D airport according to the 2005 Guidelines and that it has a specific catchment area that differs from those of Montpellier, Avignon and Marseille airports. As a result, public financing granted to the Nîmes airport operator is unlikely to affect competition.

• During the CCI operating period to February 2006: France considers that its national legislation confers general interest tasks on the chambers of commerce, such as economic development and improvement of the region’s attractiveness. The obligation to ensure the continued operation of Nîmes airport stems from this framework. In addition, France indicates that the criterion according to which compensation must not exceed the costs necessary to perform public service missions was met given that (i) in its view, the compensation was limited to the SGEI costs stipulated in the Circular laying down the financial rules applicable to the CCI’s operation66; (ii) the CCI had a separate account for the airport’s operation and (iii) its accounts were regularly checked by the competent authorities.

• During the CCI operating period from 1 February 2006 to 31 December 2006: in France’s view, the aid was compatible given that (i) the delegation conditions were clearly defined by the delegation agreement of 1 February 2006; (ii) the delegatee was only authorised to receive subsidies corresponding to the level of expenditure incurred in operating the airport; (iii) the accounts were managed separately; and (iv) checks existed as the competent authorities could request a financial audit at any time.

• During the Veolia operating period: France refers to its previous analysis on the application of the Altmark criteria.

In any event, France considers that the financing of the investments complied with the 2005 Guidelines for the reasons set out above, in particular, (i) the measures met a clearly defined objective of general interest; (ii) the investments made were proportional to ensure optimum use of the infrastructure; (iii) there was a satisfactory prospect of medium-term passenger flows; (iv) the rates agreed with Ryanair could have been applied to any other airline making similar commitments to Ryanair; (v) there was no effect on trade; and (vi) the investments were essential to ensure the airport’s survival.

France has stated that it agrees with the approach taken in the opening decision to analyse together the airport services agreements and marketing services agreements signed at the same time. On the other hand, certain interested third parties, particularly the Operators and Ryanair, question this approach as they consider that the marketing services agreements should be analysed separately.

However, the facts on record confirm that the approach taken in the opening decision, and approved by France, is well-founded. Firstly, each marketing services agreement was signed on the same date as an airport services agreement, except in the case of certain amendments to existing marketing services agreements. However, the amendments in question amended marketing services agreements that were themselves signed at the same time as airport services agreements. Furthermore, certain amendments to marketing services agreements were concluded in return for Ryanair’s operation of certain routes or frequencies. This was the case, for example, with the amendment of 30 November 2010, which provided for additional marketing payments that, according to France, were the counterpart to Ryanair’s operation of a route to Liverpool. In the light of the general reasoning developed in this section, an implicit airport services agreement applying, to the routes or frequencies in question, the airport charges and ground handling charges resulting from the existing airport services agreement corresponding to the marketing services agreement amended by the amendment in question can be associated with this amendment.

Moreover, the two types of agreement were signed by the same parties. AMS is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ryanair and its managers are senior Ryanair executives. AMS acts in Ryanair’s interests and under its control, and AMS’s profits go to Ryanair in the form of dividends or increased company value. Moreover, as will be detailed further on, the various marketing services agreements were connected with the operation of certain air routes by Ryanair from Nîmes airport. The marketing services agreements in fact indicate that they are rooted in Ryanair’s commitment to operate these routes, and they were also signed at the same time as airport services agreements with Ryanair for these same routes. Consequently, the fact that the marketing services agreements were signed by the airport’s operators with AMS and not Ryanair cannot prevent a marketing services agreement and an airport services agreement that were signed at the same time from being regarded as forming a single transaction, particularly for the purpose of analysing these agreements in the light of the MEO test, and in the context of this analysis, Ryanair and AMS from being regarded as forming a single economic entity.

Moreover, the Commission notes that the provisional operating accounts, based on which the flat-rate contribution granted to VTAN from 1 January 2007 was calculated, take into account the payments made to Ryanair and AMS, with fixed amounts of around EUR 1,6 million per year on average throughout the term of the CDSP, in the reference scenario. The Commission therefore understands that the marketing payments made to Ryanair/AMS were regarded by VTAN and the SMAN as an integral part of the commercial framework between the airport and Ryanair.

An examination of each marketing services agreement signed by AMS also reveals the extremely close link between each of these agreements and the airport services agreement signed in parallel by Ryanair.

Furthermore, according to the marketing services agreement, the services to be provided by AMS consist in inserting messages and links on the Nîmes destination page of the Ryanair website, and inserting a link to the website designated by the CCI on the English homepage of the same website. However, the Nîmes destination page of the Ryanair website is mainly targeted at people who have already decided to use or are likely to consider using Ryanair’s services to Nîmes. As for the website homepage, this is certainly targeted at a much wider audience, but only its English version is covered by the marketing services agreement. This further indicates that the marketing services are essentially designed to promote Ryanair’s services between Nîmes and London, and not equally passenger traffic to Nîmes and its region. If they were designed to promote Nîmes and its region to all tourists and business travellers likely to be interested in the region, the CCI would in all likelihood have asked for the link to a website of its choosing to be placed on all, or at least several versions of, the Ryanair website homepage, and not just the English version.

Furthermore, according to these marketing services agreements, the services to be provided by AMS consist in inserting messages and links on the Nîmes destination page of the Ryanair website, inserting a link to the website designated by the CCI on the English, Belgian and Dutch homepages of the same website (quite clearly reflecting the points of origin of the Ryanair air routes to Nîmes airport) and, in certain cases, inserting a ‘button’ on the ‘Discover Europe’ page of the website. The ‘Discover Europe’ page is easily accessible from all versions of the Ryanair homepage. Although it promotes the attractions of various destinations by means of ‘buttons’, it specifically promotes Ryanair flights to those destinations. The marketing services are therefore, once again, primarily targeted at those people who are most likely to use Ryanair’s services to Nîmes.

These elements of the various marketing services agreements show that the marketing services stipulated in these agreements are, in terms of both their duration and their nature, closely linked to the air transport services offered by Ryanair, as defined in the marketing services agreements and covered by the corresponding airport services agreements. The marketing services agreements even indicate that they are rooted in Ryanair’s commitment to operate the transport services in question. Far from being designed to generally and equally increase travel to Nîmes and its region by tourists and business travellers, the marketing services specifically target those persons likely to use the Ryanair transport services covered by the marketing services agreements, and therefore have the primary objective of promoting those services.

The marketing services agreements are therefore indissociable from the airport services agreements signed at the same time and from the air transport services that form their purpose. The facts presented in the above recitals also indicate that, in the absence of the air routes in question (and therefore the associated airport services agreements), the marketing services agreements would not have been signed. As stated in recital 321, the marketing services agreements explicitly indicate that they are rooted in Ryanair’s commitment to operate certain air routes. They also provide for marketing services that are essentially intended to promote those routes.

Furthermore, it seems that, before signing the marketing services agreements in question, the Operators did not organise an invitation to tender nor did they consult various potential providers in order to compare their offers. More generally, they did not consider any providers other than AMS for the services in question. This confirms the existence of the close link of dependency between the marketing services agreements and the air routes operated by Ryanair from Nîmes airport. If the marketing services agreements had been truly independent of the airport services agreements, the Operators would in all likelihood have consulted other providers in addition to AMS.

In conclusion, given all the above, each marketing services agreement and the corresponding airport services agreement should be analysed as a single measure in order to determine whether this agreement constitutes State aid.

In analysing each of the transactions in question, the benefits that this hypothetical MEO, motivated by the prospect of profits, could expect from the marketing services should be determined. This analysis should not take into account the general impact of such services on the region’s tourism and economic activity. Only the effects of these services on the airport’s profitability may be considered, as it is these alone that would be taken into account by the hypothetical MEO used in this analysis.

Marketing services may boost passenger traffic on the air routes covered by the marketing services agreements and corresponding airport services agreements, as they are designed to promote these routes. Although this effect primarily benefits the airline, it does also benefit the airport operator. An increase in passenger traffic may lead, for the airport operator, to an increase in revenue from certain airport charges and from non-aeronautical revenue from car parks, restaurants and other businesses.

There can therefore be no doubt that a hypothetical MEO operating Nîmes airport would have taken this positive effect into account when considering entering into a marketing services agreement and the corresponding airport services agreement. The MEO would have taken into account the impact of the air routes in question on its future revenues and costs by, in this context, forecasting a number of passengers using these routes that would have reflected the positive effect of the marketing services. This effect would have been assessed for the entire operating period of the routes in question, as set out in the airport services agreement and marketing services agreement.

It should be determined whether a hypothetical MEO could reasonably expect and quantify benefits other than those resulting from the positive effect on passenger traffic for the air routes covered by the marketing services agreement for the operating period of those routes, as set out in the marketing services agreement or airport services agreement.

It should first be noted that there is nothing in the records to suggest that, when the marketing services agreements covered by the formal investigation procedure were signed, the Operators ever considered, and still less quantified, any positive effects of the marketing services agreements going beyond the air routes covered by these agreements or, in terms of time, extending beyond the expiry of these agreements. Moreover, neither France nor the Operators have proposed any method for estimating the possible value that a hypothetical MEO operating Nîmes airport would have given to these effects when assessing whether to enter into the marketing services agreements and airport services agreements.

As stated above, the marketing services purchased from AMS were mainly targeted at those people likely to use the air routes covered by the marketing services agreement, namely only those scheduled air routes offered to Nîmes.

Furthermore, the sustainability of these effects also seems very doubtful. It is possible that advertising Nîmes and its region on the Ryanair website may have encouraged people visiting this website to buy Ryanair tickets to Nîmes when this advertising was first posted or just after. However, it is unlikely that the effect of this advertising on visitors lasted or had an influence on their ticket purchases for more than a few weeks after it was posted on the Ryanair website. An advertising campaign is more likely to have a sustainable effect when the promotional activities involve one or more advertising media to which consumers are regularly exposed over a given period. For example, an advertising campaign on general television and radio stations, various websites and/or various billboards displayed outdoors or inside public places may have such a sustainable effect if consumers are passively and repeatedly exposed to these media. However, promotional activities limited to certain pages of Ryanair’s website alone are unlikely to have an effect that lasts much beyond the end of the promotion.

It is very likely that most people will not visit Ryanair’s website often enough to leave them with a lasting impression of the advertising for this region. This observation is well supported by two factors.

• seven days per year for five years according to the 2005 agreement, increased by 26 and three days per year in line with the respective launch of the third and fourth routes stipulated by the agreement,

• 27 days on the English page and 60 days on the Belgian and Dutch pages according to the agreement of 2 January 2007,

• 33 days on the English page and 60 days on the Belgian and Dutch pages according to the agreement of 1 November 2007, and

• 32 days on the English page and 60 days on the Belgian and Dutch pages according to the agreement of 27 August 2008.

Both the nature of these promotional activities (presence of a single link with limited promotional value) and their short lifespan would have significantly limited the effect of these activities beyond the end of the promotion, particularly as these activities were limited to Ryanair’s website alone and were not supported by any other media. In other words, these promotional activities were highly unlikely to leave those people exposed to these activities with a lasting impression of the advertising in question and a lasting interest in Nîmes and its region.

Secondly, the other marketing activities included in the agreements signed with AMS involved the Nîmes destination page of the website and the ‘Discover Europe’ page, where it was only intended to insert a ‘button’, as well as email advertising. As a general rule, this last type of promotional activity is targeted only at an audience that is by definition limited, without recipients being frequently exposed to this advertising. Furthermore, with regard to the Nîmes destination page of the Ryanair website, this is likely to be even less visited by a given person than the website’s homepage, since it is devoted to a specific Ryanair destination and not to all its activities. It is therefore unlikely to leave those persons accessing this page with a lasting impression of the attractions of Nîmes and its region. Moreover, the Nîmes page of the Ryanair website is very likely to be accessed, most of the time, as a result of a potential interest in this destination or in Ryanair’s services to this destination. The advertising on this page is therefore unlikely to generate new interest in this destination among people unaware of or not having any interest in this destination. As regards the ‘Discover Europe’ page, this promotes a large number of destinations by means of ‘buttons’. Although it undoubtedly allows potential travellers to make a short-term choice between several travel destinations, it is unlikely to generate a lasting interest in a particular destination from among all those presented.

As a result, although the marketing services may have increased passenger traffic on the air routes covered by the marketing services agreements for the period of those services, it is very likely that this effect after this period was zero or negligible.

Moreover, the Ryanair studies of 17 and 31 January 2014 indicate that the likelihood of the benefits of the marketing services agreements going beyond the air routes covered by these agreements or lasting beyond the operating period of these routes, as set out in the marketing services and airport services agreements, was extremely small and could not be quantified with a degree of reliability that would be considered sufficient by a prudent MEO.

The ‘cash flow’ approach involves assessing the benefits of the marketing services agreements and airport services agreements in the form of future revenues generated for the airport operator by the marketing services and by the airport services agreement, minus corresponding costs. In the ‘capitalisation’ approach, improvement of the airport’s brand image through the marketing services is treated as an intangible asset, acquired for the price set out in the marketing services agreement.

The study suggests a probability factor of 30 %, which it considers prudent. However, this highly theoretical study does not provide any serious quantitative or qualitative evidence for this factor. It does not base itself on any facts relating to Ryanair’s activities, air transport markets or airport services to substantiate this rate of 30 %. It does not establish any link between this rate and the factors that it mentions in passing (prominence, strong brand, network externalities and repeat passengers) and that are supposed to extend the benefits of the airport services and marketing services agreements beyond their expiry dates. Finally, it does not in any way base itself on the specific content of the marketing services provided for in the various agreements with AMS when analysing to what extent these services could influence the factors mentioned above.

Moreover, it does not prove that there is any likelihood that, on the expiry of an airport services agreement and marketing services agreement, the profits generated by these agreements for the airport operator in the final year of their application will continue in the future. Likewise, it provides no evidence that the growth rate of the air transport market in Europe is a useful indicator for measuring the impact of an airport services agreement and a marketing services agreement for a given airport.

A ‘terminal value’ calculated using the method suggested by Ryanair would therefore be highly unlikely to be taken into account by a prudent MEO when deciding whether or not to enter into an agreement.

The study of 31 January 2014 therefore shows that a ‘cash flow’ method would lead to only very imprecise and unreliable results, as would the ‘capitalisation’ method.

Moreover, neither France nor any interested third party has provided any evidence that the method put forward by Ryanair in this study, or any other method aiming to take into account and quantify the benefits extending beyond the expiry of the airport services agreements and marketing services agreements, has been successfully used by operators of regional airports comparable to Nîmes. France has not for that matter commented on the studies of 17 and 31 January 2014 and has not therefore approved their conclusions.

Moreover, as stated above, the marketing services considered by the formal investigation procedure clearly target people likely to use the routes covered by the marketing services agreements. If these routes are not renewed on the expiry of the airport services agreement, it is unlikely that the marketing services will continue to have a positive effect on passenger traffic at the airport after the expiry date. It is very difficult for an airport operator to assess the likelihood of an airline continuing to operate a route on the expiry of the term to which it has committed itself in the airport services agreement. Low-cost airlines, in particular, have shown that, when it comes to opening and closing routes, they are very responsive to market conditions which, more often than not, change very quickly. Therefore, when entering into a transaction such as those being examined in this formal investigation procedure, a prudent MEO could not rely on an airline being willing to extend the operation of the route in question on the expiry of the agreement.

Furthermore, it should be noted that a terminal value calculated using the method proposed by Ryanair in the study of 31 January 2014 will be positive (and therefore will have a positive effect on the projected return on the airport services agreement and marketing services agreement) only where the incremental profit expected from these agreements in the final year of application of the airport services agreement is positive. This method involves taking the incremental profit expected in the final year of application of the airport services agreement and projecting it into the future by applying two factors. The first factor is the overall growth of the European air transport market and reflects the expected traffic growth. The second is a factor of 30 % that approximately represents the probability of the agreements that are due to expire promoting the future signature of similar agreements likely to generate similar financial flows. As a result, if the future incremental profit expected in the final year of application of the airport services agreement is negative, the terminal value will also be negative (or at most will be zero), which indicates that the signature of agreements similar to those that have recently expired will, just like those agreements, each year erode the airport’s profitability.

In conclusion, it is clear from the above that the only benefit that a prudent MEO would expect from a marketing services agreement, and that it would take into account and quantify when deciding whether or not to enter into such an agreement, together with an airport services agreement, would be that the marketing services would have a positive effect on the number of passengers using the routes covered by the agreements in question for the operating period of those routes, as set out in the agreements. Any other benefits would be deemed too uncertain to be taken into account and quantified, and there is nothing to suggest that they were taken into account by the Operators.

The Commission considers it appropriate to reiterate in the context of this analysis that, following the adoption of the new Guidelines, both France and the interested parties were invited to submit comments on the application of those guidelines to the present case. In the event, neither France nor the interested parties disputed the substance of the Commission’s approach according to which, where an appropriate benchmark cannot be identified to establish a true market price for the services provided by airports to airlines, the most relevant criterion for assessing the arrangements concluded between these two parties is an ex ante incremental profitability analysis.

Moreover, the liberalisation of the air transport market complicates any purely comparative analysis. As the present case amply demonstrates, commercial arrangements between airports and airlines are not necessarily based on a list of public prices for individual services. Rather, these commercial relationships vary widely. They include sharing risks with regard to passenger traffic and any related commercial and financial liability, standard incentive schemes and changing the spread of risks over the term of the agreements. As a result, it is difficult to compare transactions based on a price per rotation or per passenger.

However, the method adopted by Ryanair is ineffective in so far as it limits itself to the services and payments resulting from the airport services agreements without taking into account the marketing services agreements. As previously indicated, the two types of agreement are indissociable and must be considered together when applying the MEO test. Accordingly, the findings of the comparative analysis provided by Ryanair cannot be accepted.

Under these circumstances, the Commission considers that the approach generally recommended in the new Guidelines for applying the MEO test to relationships between airports and airlines, namely the ex ante incremental profitability analysis, must be applied to the present case.

It should also be noted that France and the Operators have stated that Nîmes airport was the first regional airport operated by Veolia Transport. They consider that this position as a new entrant justified the need for VTAN to ensure Ryanair’s presence and develop the airport, if necessary through an initial loss, in order to allow it to acquire the experience needed to develop its airport operation activity. If this argument were taken into account, it would mean ignoring the incremental profitability approach recommended by the guidelines and accepting that VTAN could have entered into agreements leading to negative incremental profitability, without this conduct implying any economic advantage for Ryanair.

However, that argument must be rejected. Firstly, as previously indicated, neither France nor VTAN have provided any analysis showing that the ‘net incremental cost’ caused for Veolia Transport by the agreements signed with Ryanair/AMS, as indicated further on, would have been offset by future benefits resulting for the Veolia Transport group from this initial airport operation experience. There is also nothing to say that Veolia Transport could not have acquired this initial experience at another airport where the net cost would have been lower.

Moreover, it should be noted that VTAN’s conduct towards Ryanair/AMS must not be assessed in isolation, but in conjunction with the SMAN’s conduct. This is all the more relevant as the ‘net incremental cost’ of the agreements signed with Ryanair and AMS should not actually have been borne by VTAN, but by the SMAN through the flat-rate contribution ensuring financial stability and a reasonable profit for VTAN. However, in terms of its profitability, the SMAN did not have any interest in encouraging the signature of agreements allowing the Veolia Transport group to acquire some initial airport operation experience in order to develop its activity in this area. Veolia Transport’s interest in developing this activity cannot therefore lead to the conclusion that the SMAN behaved, in conjunction with VTAN, in the way that an MEO motivated by the prospect of profits would have done.

It should also be noted that, in their comments on the application of the MEO test to the various agreements in question, certain interested third parties referred to the fact that the conditions offered to Ryanair may or may not have been offered to other airlines likely to want to use Nîmes airport. This argument is without merit. For an airport operator motivated by the prospect of profits, objective factors can justify different conditions being offered to different airlines. These factors may include the expected volume of traffic, the number and type of routes and associated frequencies, or even the nature of the services requested by the airline. The extent to which the conditions offered to Ryanair by the CCI and VTAN were or could have been offered to other airlines is therefore irrelevant in the context of the MEO test.

• the future incremental traffic expected from the implementation of these agreements, possibly taking into account the effects of the marketing services on the load factors of the routes covered by the agreements,

• the future incremental revenues expected from the implementation of these agreements, including revenues from airport charges and ground handling services, generated by the routes covered by these agreements, as well as non-aeronautical revenue from the additional traffic generated by the implementation of these agreements,

• the future incremental costs expected from the implementation of these agreements, including operating costs and any incremental investment costs generated by the routes covered by these agreements, as well as the costs of marketing services.

These calculations should provide the future annual flows corresponding to the difference between incremental revenues and costs, to be discounted, if necessary, by a rate reflecting the cost of capital for the airport operator. A positive net present value indicates in principle that the agreements in question do not confer an economic advantage, whereas a negative net present value reveals the presence of such an advantage.

It should be noted that, in this assessment, the arguments of Ryanair and the Operators that the price of the marketing services purchased by the Operators is equivalent to or less than what may be regarded as a ‘market price’ for such services are without merit. A hypothetical MEO motivated by the prospect of profits would not be prepared to purchase such services, even at a price at or below ‘market price’, if it were predicted that, despite the positive effect of such services on passenger traffic on the air routes concerned, the incremental costs generated by the agreements would exceed the incremental revenues at present value. In such a scenario, the ‘market price’ would be higher than the hypothetical MEO was prepared to pay, and the services in question would therefore logically be rejected.

For the same reasons, the fact that the prices set in the airport services agreement may be equivalent to or higher than the prices invoiced by even slightly comparable airport operators would be irrelevant in this assessment if these prices were not expected to generate sufficient incremental revenues to cover the incremental costs.

When assessing the value in entering into an airport services agreement and/or a marketing services agreement, an MEO would have chosen the term of the agreement or agreements as the time frame of its assessment.

There does not seem to be any justification for choosing a longer period. On the dates when the agreements were signed, a prudent MEO would not have relied on these agreements being renewed on their expiry, whether under the same terms or under different terms, particularly as low-cost airlines such as Ryanair were and are known to be very dynamic in terms of launching and withdrawing routes, or even increasing and reducing frequencies.

Furthermore, it should be noted that, for certain agreements, the effective start date of the activities covered by the agreement was not the date of signature of the agreement. In this case, it is the effective start date that has been used as the starting point, and not the date of signature.

It should also be noted that, in applying the MEO test, the fact that Ryanair did not operate certain routes throughout the entire period stipulated in certain agreements has not been taken into account as this factor was neither known nor foreseeable at the time when the agreements were signed.

The Commission will now describe the assumptions used to analyse the agreements signed with Ryanair/AMS in terms of incremental traffic, costs and revenues, before presenting the results of this analysis.

The analysis conducted by the Commission is based on the incremental traffic (i.e. the number of additional passengers) that an MEO operating Nîmes airport in place of the Operators could have predicted when the agreements were signed. With regard to the 2000 agreement for example, this involves determining the number of passengers that the Nîmes airport operator could have expected, in 2000, to use the Nîmes-London route operated by Ryanair, over the term of the agreement.

The projected incremental traffic has been determined based on the number of routes and frequencies stipulated in the various airport services agreements and marketing services agreements, and on the resulting number of annual rotations.

Furthermore, the Commission has taken into account the capacity of the aircraft used by Ryanair, namely, according to the agreements, the Boeing 737-200, the Boeing 737-300 and the Boeing 737-800.

On the other hand, for the agreements signed before October 2005, the Commission has used lower load factors. The assumptions made in this regard are detailed below, in the analysis of each of the agreements in question. It should be noted in this respect that the April 2000 agreement and its various amendments did not provide for marketing services to be carried out by Ryanair or its subsidiaries, but rather public relations activities with a limited scope (distribution of press releases, organisation of press conferences, etc.) that were the responsibility of the CCI.

Some agreements contained indications as to the number of passengers expected on the routes covered. However, as these indications were not binding, they would not necessarily have been taken into account by a prudent MEO in its profitability analysis. The Commission has therefore ignored them and used the assumption of an 85 % load factor for all the agreements signed from 2005 (which is higher than these indications).

Furthermore, some agreements contained a commitment by the airline with regard to the minimum number of passengers to be carried on the routes concerned. However, an MEO would have probably banked on a number of passengers higher than the minimum guaranteed by the airline. In fact, an MEO would have probably assumed that the airline had allowed for a safety margin between the traffic level to which it had committed and the traffic that it was reasonable to expect. The Commission has therefore decided to ignore these compulsory minima in its assessment. These minima are generally lower than the incremental traffic assumptions used by the Commission.

For each transaction covered by its analysis, the Commission has sought to determine the incremental revenues, i.e. the revenues generated by the transaction, as an MEO would have predicted them.

Applying the ‘single-till’ principle, the Commission takes the view that both aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues should be taken into account.

• the ‘landing charge’, which is a fixed amount per rotation,

• the ‘passenger charge’, which is a fixed amount per outbound passenger,

• the charge paid for ground handling services, which takes the form of an amount per rotation set in the various airport services agreements.

The charge for ground handling services is not regulated, but is negotiated bilaterally. In the various airport services agreements signed with Ryanair, this charge takes the form of a fixed amount per rotation, without any indexation, except in those cases where this charge is not stipulated. The amount resulting from each agreement has therefore been used by the Commission in its analysis.

In order to calculate the proceeds from the three airport charges, which an MEO would have expected from each agreement, the Commission has used the forecasts of the number of rotations (for the landing charge and for the charge for ground handling services) and additional traffic (for the passenger charge), determined for each agreement, and has multiplied these by the unit charge, as determined above.

The assumptions used are favourable to Ryanair because it is clear that the amount of incremental non-aeronautical revenue per passenger resulting from this method is higher than the amount resulting from the VTAN business plan.

• costs of purchasing the marketing services,

• financial incentives involving the transfer by the airport operator to Ryanair, under the airport services agreement, of part of the proceeds from the airport charges, according to criteria such as the traffic level,

• incremental investment costs, due to investments made as a result of the transaction,

• incremental operating costs, namely operating costs (staff, sundry purchases) that may be generated as a result of the transaction.

With regard to the costs of the marketing services agreements and ‘financial incentives’, the Commission has taken into account the amounts stipulated in the various marketing services agreements and the financial incentive mechanisms provided for in the various airport services agreements.

As with the traffic forecasts, the projected marketing payments do not necessarily represent the amounts actually paid, given that certain events occurring after the agreements were signed may have resulted in deviations from these initial figures. This is particularly the case where the agreement was terminated early. However, these events should not be taken into account when applying the MEO test because they postdate the signature of the agreements.

As regards the incremental investment costs, none have been accepted since there is nothing in the records to suggest that an MEO would have expected to have to make certain investments due to one or more of the agreements covered by the formal investigation procedure.

In the absence of a business plan for each agreement, the incremental operating costs that were foreseeable when the various agreements were signed are the most difficult category to determine. In particular, the approach used for the non-aeronautical revenue, which, for the period prior to 2007, involved using the airport’s total commercial non-aeronautical revenue in order to determine the revenue per passenger, cannot be used for the operating costs.

Such an approach would involve considering the airport’s total operating costs, reduced to the number of passengers, as incremental costs. However, a significant proportion of an airport’s operating costs is fixed, which means that the total operating costs per passenger are likely to be markedly higher, in most cases, than the incremental costs.

In order to estimate the incremental operating costs, the Commission must use the airport operator’s analysis, as it is unable to estimate itself how a given agreement may influence the airport’s various cost items.

However, the only ex ante estimates that the Commission can use are found in the VTAN business plan, based on which the VTAN study arrived at a total incremental operating cost per passenger of EUR [2-4]. In the absence of anything better, the Commission considers that this figure is an acceptable basis for determining the impact of additional traffic on the airport’s operating costs. This figure was established based on the VTAN business plan, which, for the reasons already stated, constitutes a source of reliable ex ante figures, and on the VTAN study. As explained previously, the VTAN study contains a precise and plausible assessment of how the airport’s various operating cost items vary according to traffic. The Commission has therefore used this figure in its assessment of the agreements signed with Ryanair and AMS.

The VTAN agreements were signed between 2007 and 2010, i.e. within a relatively short period of time after the VTAN business plan was produced. The use of the aforementioned estimate of the incremental operating cost per passenger is therefore particularly indicated for these agreements.

In the absence of anything better, it is also acceptable for the agreements signed by the CCI, even if the VTAN business plan was produced after those agreements. This is particularly the case with the October 2005 agreements, which were signed just a few months before the VTAN business plan was produced. The Commission considers that an MEO would not have estimated very different incremental operating costs per passenger in October 2005 and September 2006, because it is highly unlikely that the cost structure of an airport operator would alter considerably over a period of less than a year.

As regards the agreements signed between 2000 and 2004, they are further away in terms of time from the VTAN business plan. However, in the absence of a better alternative, the Commission takes the view that the incremental operating cost per passenger of EUR [2-4], adjusted to take account of inflation, estimated at 2 % per year on a forecast basis, is also appropriate for analysing these older agreements.

It should be noted that, for each agreement signed by the CCI, the incremental operating cost proposed by France (EUR [5-7] per passenger), calculated as the average of the operating costs per passenger observed over the 2000-2006 period, is markedly above the incremental cost per passenger used by the Commission, which the latter deems to be more relevant given the above findings.

As a result, for each agreement, the incremental operating cost per passenger is multiplied by the projected incremental traffic in order to determine, year by year, the total incremental operating cost associated with the agreement.

It must be ascertained whether the various measures still to be examined can be regarded as public service compensation granted in order to provide a genuine service of general economic interest (‘SGEI’).

In this regard, it should be recalled that the Court of Justice ruled in the Altmark judgment that public service compensation does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU when four cumulative conditions are met. First, the recipient undertaking must actually have public service obligations to discharge, and the obligations must be clearly defined. Second, the parameters on the basis of which the compensation is calculated must be established in advance in an objective and transparent manner. Third, the compensation must not exceed what is necessary to cover all or part of the costs incurred in the discharge of the public service obligations, taking into account the relevant receipts and a reasonable profit. Finally, where the undertaking that is to discharge public service obligations, in a specific case, is not chosen pursuant to a public procurement procedure which would allow for the selection of the tenderer capable of providing those services at the least cost to the community, the level of compensation needed must be determined on the basis of an analysis of the costs that a typical undertaking, well-run and adequately provided with the relevant means, would have incurred. In order to apply these conditions, the first point to be examined is the existence of a genuine SGEI.

This reasoning is vitiated by a manifest error of assessment. In actual fact, in order to assess the extent to which the operation of an airport is an SGEI, the need in the general interest met by that activity must be considered. In this regard, the airport’s size is also not a relevant criterion.

As a result, the contribution of Nîmes airport to local economic development, which is the main factor highlighted by France in support of its theory regarding the existence of a genuine SGEI, is not in itself a relevant factor as it must be considered separately from the contribution of that airport to the region’s accessibility. It is not disputed that, by improving a region’s accessibility, particularly when it breaks its isolation, an airport can have positive effects on local economic development. However, the simple fact that the presence and activity of an airport generate direct and indirect jobs and stimulate the activity of local undertakings cannot be regarded as a relevant criterion for establishing the existence of a genuine SGEI.

As regards the contribution of Nîmes airport to the region’s accessibility, France has recognised in particular that Montpellier airport is situated just 63 km from Nîmes airport, which represents a journey time of only 49 minutes by road. It has also recognised that Nîmes has been served by a high-speed rail service (TGV) since 2001. This town is therefore connected, for example, to Paris and Lyon by regular train services with journey times of around 3 hours and 1 hour 30 minutes respectively. France has omitted to take account of this rail service in its arguments on the existence of an SGEI. As regards the road network, the town of Nîmes is situated right next to the A9 and A54 motorways, which directly connect it to the main cities in the south-eastern quarter of France, notably Lyon, Marseille and Montpellier. In the light of this information, it cannot be argued that part of the area potentially served by Nîmes airport would, without the airport, be isolated from the rest of the Union to an extent that would prejudice its social and economic development.

As regards Montpellier airport, France has indicated as follows: ‘although the above information tends to place it in the same catchment area as Nîmes airport due to the journey time of less than 60 minutes and the cost of the return journey not exceeding EUR 20, it should, however, be stressed that the Ryanair routes from Montpellier airport, which currently number four, meet a tourist demand that is situated more to the west than to the east of the airport (the route to Hahn is an example of this, even though Ryanair has withdrawn its routes to Germany from Marseille) and that Nîmes airport covers a different catchment area from part of Montpellier airport’s catchment area (in particular the Cévennes, Uzège and the northeast of Gard/south of the Ardèche in the Rhône valley). It therefore has a particular catchment area. It should also be noted that 51 % of low-cost passengers travel less than 50 km from their airport’.

France has therefore recognised that there are factors suggesting that Nîmes airport is situated within the same catchment area as Montpellier airport. Under these circumstances, it cannot be argued that the presence of Nîmes airport may prevent an isolation that could prejudice the social and economic development of part of the area served by that airport, particularly as Nîmes airport is served by the TGV, as indicated above. France has also not provided any information allowing the extent of such a hypothetical prejudice to be assessed. The fact that the catchment areas of Nîmes and Montpellier airports are not exactly the same is not a sufficient argument. In fact, the catchment areas of two separate airports, however close they may be, never exactly coincide. Lastly, the fact that 51 % of low-cost passengers travel less than 50 km from their airport does not prove that, without Nîmes airport, travellers wanting to travel to or from the catchment area of that airport would not be prepared, to a large extent, to use flights that start or end at Montpellier airport.

This argument cannot be accepted given that, as recalled above, the simple contribution of an activity to local economic development is not in itself sufficient to justify that activity being defined as an SGEI. Moreover, the commercial development of an airport by introducing new air routes or expanding non-aeronautical activities cannot as such satisfy the general interest criterion for definition as an SGEI. In particular, the Commission takes the view that the compensation by public authorities of the net costs incurred in the provision of an SGEI should not affect the economic incentive for an airport operator to enter into commercial relations with airlines.

As a result, in the light of all the above and the arguments submitted by France, and particularly given the proximity of Montpellier airport and the TGV service from which Nîmes benefits, the Commission takes the view that France has committed a manifest error of assessment in claiming that the overall management of Nîmes airport was an SGEI. In particular, the activity of the Nîmes airport operator consisting of handling commercial passenger transport flights at that airport cannot be regarded as a genuine SGEI. It therefore follows that, in so far as the various financial support measures covered by this assessment were intended to finance the operation of the airport’s activity as a whole, they cannot be regarded as financial compensation granted with a view to the management of a genuine SGEI. As a result, they do not satisfy the cumulative conditions of the Altmark judgment.

As France has committed a manifest error of assessment by defining the overall management of the airport as an SGEI and as the measures covered by the present assessment were used to finance the airport’s operation as a whole, the first Altmark condition is not satisfied.