11.9.2 Has the Commission consistently taken into account this relevant characteristic?

Since the Commission applies the Impaired Assets Communication (IAC) to all cases that are characterised by asset relief measures, the decisions thus explicitly mention the fact that the bank benefited from asset relief measures. Conversely, there are no decisions in which the Commission explicitly mentioned that the bank did not benefit from asset relief measures. So the Commission always mentions the presence of the characteristic if the characteristic is present1, whereas the Commission does not mention the absence of the characteristic if the characteristic is not present.2 The omission to mention this absence does not amount to an inconsistency, because it is obvious that the omission means that the relevant characteristic is not present in the case: if the relevant characteristic (i.e. an asset relief measure) would be present, then it is not in question that the Commission would assess this asset relief measure under the State aid rules and thus mention the presence of the relevant characteristic in the decision.