L 210/16 Official Journal of the European Union 14.8.2009 COMMISSION DECISION of 8 April 2009 on the measures C 7/07 (ex NN 82/06 and NN 83/06) implemented by the United Kingdom in favour of Royal Mail (Notified under document C(2009) 2486) (Only the English text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (2009/613/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) thereof, Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof, Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision(s) cited above () and having regard to their comments, Whereas: 1. PROCEDURE On 3 December 2002, Deutsche Post AG (hereinafter ‘DP’) lodged a complaint against alleged cross-subsidies granted to the parcel activities of Royal Mail Group plc (Royal Mail' or RM)). In response to Commission requests for information, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) authorities provided information relevant to the matters raised in the complaint by letters of 25 February 2003 and 13 February 2004, and by email dated 17 December 2003. This information included other Government measures in relation to RM. On 27 May 2003, the Commission approved a series of measures in favour of Post Office Limited (‘POL’) which is a subsidiary of RM (case N 784/02) (3. Under these measures, compensation was granted to POL, financed through a reserve (‘the mails reserve) constituted from surplus cash generated by RM. On 22 February 2006 the Commission raised no objection to the continuation of one of these measures (rural network support) for a further period (case N 166/05) (?). On 8 October 2003, DP lodged an action for annulment (T-343/03) against the N 784/02 Commission Decision, arguing that this decision had implicitly rejected its CP 206/02 complaint. On 16 November 2005, the Court of First Instance rejected the action of DP saying that the N 784/02 Decision did not imply the rejection of the complaint and that the Commission was carrying on 91, 26.4.2007, p. 34. 0] C 0] C 269, 8.11.2003, p. 23. 0] C 141, 16.6.2006, p. 2. () (6) ®) investigations (as demonstrated by the correspondence presented before the Court). On 10 August 2006, DP sent a letter which invited the Commission to take a position on its complaint of 2002 within the period of two months, on the basis of Article 232 of the Treaty. The same letter contained information concerning a series of alleged new State aid measures. These measures are distinct from those which were the subject of the complaint of 2002 and the complaint against them was therefore treated as a separate complaint which was attributed the reference CP 221/06, subsequently NN 83/06. The alleged measures were as follows: (a) a transfer of GBP 850 million to a special account dedicated to finance RM's pensions; (b) decision by Department of Trade and Industry to increase the amount of a loan granted to RM from GBP 844 million to GBP 900 million; (c) violation of the Commission’s decision in case N 166/05 concerning support for POLs rural network, since GBP 150 million was transferred to POL directly from the State budget and not, as approved by the Decision, from a special, ring- fenced reserve. In response to Commission requests for information, the UK authorities provided information relevant to the matters raised in the two complaints by letters of 6 October and 31 October 2006. By letter of 5 December 2006, they supplemented this information with respect to the measures in favour of POL mentioned at recital 3. By letter of 27 October 2006, the Mail Competition Forum (MCF), a body representing entrants to the postal market in the UK, submitted a complaint about the special account dedicated to finance RM's pensions also covered by DP’s second complaint. The complaint of MCF was attributed the reference CP 164/06, subsequently NN 82/06. A non-confidential version of the complaint was sent to the UK authorities on 20 November 2006. The UK authorities provided comments on the complaint by letter of 19 December 2006. By letter of 7 December 2006, the Commission informed DP that it did not find sufficient grounds for continuing the investigation concerning complaint CP 206/02, and that if it did not hear from DP within 20 working days, the complaint would be considered withdrawn. No response was received within the deadline. That complaint was therefore considered withdrawn.