Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 41kWORD 18k
17 April 2019
Question for written answer E-001900-19
to the Commission
Rule 130
Michael Cramer (Verts/ALE)

 Subject:  State aid decision on Berlin-Brandenburg airport (BER)
 Answer in writing 

By decision of 3 August 2016 (C(2016)4948), reference SA.41342 (2016/N), it was ruled that the notified investment amounting to a total of EUR 2.207 billion (EUR 1.107 billion to cover new costs of the completion of Berlin-Brandenburg airport and EUR 1.1 billion for expansion of its capacity) did not constitute state aid.

1. Is it permissible for the Federal Republic of Germany to revoke the aforementioned earmarking of the funds (increase in capacity), which was assessed by the Commission, and use the funds to complete passenger terminal T1 without any need for the EU to carry out a fresh examination or be involved in any other way? What documents did the Federal Republic of Germany submit in relation to the above procedure?

2. Does a fresh review by the Commission of the exemption from state aid rules have to be sought if the forecasts, assumptions and scenarios underlying the decision (market exit of Air Berlin PLC & Co. Luftverkehrs KG, postponement of the start of operation until October 2020) have proved inaccurate? If not, does the Commission have to be involved in some other way?

3. How many times may aid or authorisation of aid be granted for ‘the same purpose’ (installation of fire protection, sound insulation)? What conditions have to be met in order to secure authorisation or a derogation for the same purpose?

Original language of question: DE 
Last updated: 6 May 2019Legal notice