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

The concept of the relevant context is particularly relevant here. The balance sheet reduction is a very important compensatory measure for banks that continue to exist as a standalone entity (i.e. the C-context). The other contexts are also characterised by downsizing. However, this downsizing takes a different form. In the S/T/W-context and in the S/C/W-context, the bank is split-up. The split-up of the bank obviously results in the downsizing of the bank, but this downsizing is not achieved by a balance sheet reduction.1 In the T-context, the (majority of the) bank’s activities are transferred to another bank. In this context, downsizing can be relevant. However, this mainly concerns downsizing of the territorial presence through a reduction of the branch network.2 This will be discussed in section 13.7. Finally, the winding-down of a beneficiary bank is the most extreme form of downsizing. Thus, in the W-context, the bank will eventually exit the market. In other words: the market presence of the beneficiary bank will be reduced to zero.

The table in Annex XII gives an overview of the banks that were subject to downsizing in the form of a balance sheet reduction. As can be seen, most cases in the C-context are characterised by a balance sheet reduction. In three cases, however, structural remedies were not needed: the Hungarian bank FHB, the Lithuanian LCCU and the Bulgarian bank FIB. So there is no balance sheet reduction in these three cases, but there is a justification.

I am of the opinion that the principle of equal treatment does not require that there is a balance sheet reduction in each and every case. However, it does require that the Commission takes, in each and every case, the balance sheet reduction into consideration when assessing the compatibility of the State aid. There was a justification for the absence of a balance sheet reduction in the cases of FHB, LCCU and FIB. The fact that this justification is mentioned in these three decisions illustrates that the Commission has always taken into account the current relevant characteristic.

To conclude, there is therefore nothing that would indicate that the Commission has not consistently taken into account this relevant characteristic.