Annexes to COM(2001)151 - Implementation in 2000 of Commission Decision 2496/96/ECSC establishing Community rules for State aid to the steel industry (Steel Aid Code) - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2001)151 - Implementation in 2000 of Commission Decision 2496/96/ECSC establishing Community rules for State aid to the steel industry ... |
|---|---|
| document | COM(2001)151  |
| date | March 21, 2001 |
3.2.3. Salzgitter
On 28 June, the Commission adopted a final negative decision concerning the aid that the German authorities granted to Salzgitter (Preussag Stahl) and ordered its repayment. The aid was granted from the 1980s to 1995 as tax incentives, under a 1971 German law, which provided for such incentives for companies located along the border with the German Democratic Republic and Czechoslovakia. The Commission had approved that law as an aid scheme compatible with the EC treaty. However, the ECSC treaty does not provide for the possibility of such regional derogations and the aid was therefore incompatible.
3.2.4. Georgsmariënhütte
The Commission decided to open the investigation procedure concerning a management service contract concluded between Gröditzer and Georgsmariënhütte (GMH), with the support of BvS, the public authority for privatisation of companies in former East Germany. Under the contract, Gröditzer is to pay a fee of EUR 1.3 million per year to GMH.
Because at the moment of the contract, Gröditzer was on the brink of bankruptcy and the payment of the annual fee is guaranteed by BvS, the Commission has doubts that such a contract does not involve elements of State aid.
3.2.5. Saarstahl
On 18 October, the Commission approved aid, amounting to EUR 0.153 million, to Saarstahl for a R&D project, denominated "improved materials and steels for thixoforging". The project is carried out jointly by seven participants, including other industrial companies and the Universities of Aachen and Hanover.
The project, with a budget cost of EUR 0.306 million, was considered as industrial research and received a grant with an intensity of 50%.
3.3. SPAIN
3.3.1. Tubacex
On 31 October, the Commission decided to revoke its 1997 negative decision concerning measures in favour of Tubacex. Initially the Commission had concluded that the rescheduling of social security debts and repayment agreements with the Wage Guarantee Fund constituted incompatible aid. However, in the light of a judgement of the European Court of Justice, the Commission reviewed its previous decision and concluded that no aid was involved, the Spanish authorities having acted like a private creditor in similar circumstances.
3.3.2. Tax credits on foreign investments
On 31 October, the Commission took a final negative decision on tax credits for foreign investments provided for in the Spanish corporate tax law and considered them incompatible with the Steel Aid Code.
Contrary to the position taken by the Spanish authorities, the Commission did not consider that these provisions constitute general measures as they only benefited companies carrying out certain activities.
3.4. FRANCE
3.4.1. Myriad
On 4 October, the Commission took a decision by which it closed the proceedings initiated against regional aid that the French authorities had paid to the company, taking note that the situation had meanwhile been regularised. Indeed, after the opening of the procedure the company, on its own initiative, paid back the aid received illegally accrued with interests, the total amounting to EUR 2.14 million.
3.4.2. Tax credits on foreign investments
On 31 October, at the same time that it took a final negative decision concerning the tax credits for foreign investments provided for in the Spanish corporate tax law, the Commission took a decision to initiate proceedings against similar provisions existing in the French law.
3.5. ITALY
3.5.1. Five companies
On 29 November, the Commission adopted a final negative decision on aid (EUR1.88 million) that the Italian had notified in September 1999 in favour of five undertaking towards investments they carried out between 1986 and 1994 for investments in energy conservation.
The five undertakings are Acciaierie e Ferriere Leali SpA; Acciaierie e Ferriere Beltrame, Vicenza SpA; Acciaierie e Ferriere Beltrame, S. Giorgio Nogaro SpA; Lucchini, Mura SpA; Lucchini, Lovere SpA. The investments were considered by the Commission as not eligible for State aid because they were carried out at a time when such a type of investment was clearly excluded from environmental aid and the notified aid, more than ten years after the investments were made, would not have an incentive effect as required by the environmental guidelines and by the Code.
3.5.2. Lucchini and Siderpotenza
On 21 December, the Commission took a final decision on aid notified by the Italian authorities in favour of Lucchini and Siderpotenza. It approved aid to Siderpotenza, amounting to EUR 0.574 million and took a negative decision on a further EUR 0.105 million to Siderpotenza and on EUR 698 million to Lucchini.
In concluding the incompatibility of the aid, the Commission considered that the investments in question had been made for economic reasons and were not aimed at improving the environment. Moreover, the detailed criteria to assess aid for environmental purposes were not met in the case in question.
3.6. AUSTRIA
3.6.1. Voest Alpine Linz
On 11 April, the Commission decided to open proceedings concerning a proposal by the Austrian authorities to grant aid to Voest Alpine, Linz. The aid, amounting to EUR 2.17 million, is to help finance the cost of a new wastewater treatment and purification installation that the company is investing in and that will bring it into line with the new environmental standards.
The Commission has doubts about the reason for the investment in view of the age of its old installation.
3.7. SWEDEN
3.7.1. CO2 taxation scheme
On 21 December, the Commission approved the prolongation of the Swedish scheme of CO2 tax relief for ECSC steel companies, until the end of 2000. Although the earlier Commission's approval was limited to 1999, the Swedish authorities had continued to apply the aid scheme in 2000. Whilst giving its approval, the Commission reminds Sweden of its obligation to comply with notifying obligations under Article 6.1 of the Code.
ANNEX
>REFERENCE TO A GRAPHIC>