be taken by the State or involve State resources

As a results, the investigation did not reveal any State interference.

Accordingly, there is very little scope for state intervention to bring further benefits.

First, it must be a state measure or involve state resources.

Hence, it has no objection to the principle of public intervention in this field.

As regards the mother company, this company did not demonstrate that it was free from State interference.

The investigation did not reveal any State interference with regard to the purchase or pricing of these materials.

In order to safeguard this principle, any public intervention shall aim at being technology neutral.

The investigation did therefore not reveal any State interference and the claims made by the complainant in this regard were rejected.

As regards the investment in Trèves, it followed the FMEA selection and investment committee recommendations without any state intervention.

Since no State interference was established, the company should be granted MET.

Business decisions regarding prices and costs are made in response to market conditions and without State interference

Co-regulation should allow for the possibility of State intervention in the event of its objectives not being met.

Co-regulation should allow for the possibility of State intervention in the event of its objectives not being met.

Therefore, the company was not able to restore viability on its own and the public intervention was in order.