1999/597/ECSC: Commission Decision of 21 April 1999 in a procedure under Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty concerning state aid granted by Germany to Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH (notified under document number C(1999) 1123) (Only the German text is authentic)

• Published date: 31 August 1999
• Subject Matter: competencia,ayudas concedidas por los Estados,concorrenza,aiuti degli Stati,concurrence,aides accordées par les États
• Official Gazette Publication: Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas, L 230, 31 de agosto de 1999,Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunità europee, L 230, 31 agosto 1999,Journal officiel des Communautés européennes, L 230, 31 août 1999

|

31999D0597

1999/597/ECSC: Commission Decision of 21 April 1999 in a procedure under Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty concerning state aid granted by Germany to Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH (notified under document number C(1999) 1123) (Only the German text is authentic)

Official Journal L 230 , 31/08/1999 P. 0004 - 0008

COMMISSION DECISION

of 21 April 1999

in a procedure under Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty concerning state aid granted by Germany to Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH

(notified under document number C(1999) 1123)

(Only the German text is authentic)

(1999/597/ECSC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Articles 86 and 88,

Whereas:

I. PROCEDURE

(1) On 16 December 1998 the Commission initiated the procedure under Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty against Germany. It concluded, on an evaluation of the information presented to it, that Germany had infringed Article 86 of the ECSC Treaty by its failure to implement decisions requiring it to recover state aid of DEM 74 million that was incompatible with the common market from the recipient enterprise, Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH (hereinafter referred to as "NMH").

(2) On 1 February 1999 the Commission notified Germany of its position and gave it an opportunity to submit its comments. It received Germany's comments on 5 March 1999.

II. FACTS

(3) The Commission, by Decision 95/422/ECSC of 4 April 1995 concerning state aid that the Land of Bavaria intends to grant to the ECSC steel undertakings Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulzbach-Rosenberg and Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH, Meitingen-Herbertshofen(1) (NMH Decision I), determined that the notified measures, including a loan from the shareholders, the Land of Bavaria, constitutes state aid that is incompatible with the common market and must not be granted.

(4) Nevertheless, in the years 1993-95 Bavaria granted a series of such loans without informing the Commission in advance.

The Commission therefore adopted the following two decisions:

(a) Decision 96/178/ECSC of 18 October 1995 on state aid that Bavaria granted to the ECSC steel undertaking Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulzbach-Rosenberg(2) (NMH Decision II), laying down that the sum of DEM 49,9 million granted as loans by Bavaria to NMH constitutes state aid that is incompatible with the common market and prohibited under the provisions of the ECSC Treaty and Commission Decision No 3855/91/ECSC of 27 November 1991 establishing Community rules for aid to the steel industry(3);

(b) Commission Decision 96/484/ECSC of 13 March 1996 on state aid that Bavaria granted to the ECSC steel undertaking Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulzbach-Rosenberg(4) (NMH Decision III), laying down that the sum of DEM 24,1 million granted as loans by Bavaria to NMH constitutes state aid incompatible with the common market and prohibited under the provisions of the ECSC Treaty and Commission Decision No 3855/91/ECSC.

(5) In both cases, i.e. by Decisions NMH II and NMH III, Germany was ordered to recover the aid from the recipient company on the ground that it was incompatible with the common market.

(6) Germany challenged all three decisions before the European Court of Justice (Cases C-158/95, C-399/95 and C-195/96). The Court ordered the proceedings to be stayed pending a ruling by the Court of First Instance, before which NMH challenged the decisions (Joined Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 and T-97/96)(5).

(7) By judgment of 21 January 1999, the Court of First Instance dismissed NMH's applications and upheld the Commission's decisions in their entirety.

(8) In Case C-399/95, Germany sought a suspension of the operation of Decision NMH II on the grounds that there was doubt as to the lawfulness of the decision and there was reason to fear that its immediate implementation might cause significant harm. The President of the Court of Justice dismissed the application by Order of 3 May 1996(6) on the ground that Germany had failed to adduce sufficient evidence justifying the suspension of the Commission decision ordering the repayment of the aid that Bavaria had granted to NMH.

(9) On 6 December 1996 Germany informed the Commission that Bavaria had ordered NMH to repay the aid by 15 October 1996 and that proceedings to recover the aid from NMH in accordance with the Commission decisions in NMH II and NMH III were being prepared. Germany indicated on 25 and 27 June 1997 that Bavaria had begun recovery proceedings in February 1997, seeking an order for recovery of the debt from the Regensburg Local Court. NMH challenged the decision, whereupon the case was remitted to the Amberg Regional Court.

(10) In the statement of reasons for the claim and the application, it is indicated that Bavaria has claimed DEM 14,8 million together with interest, i.e. only 20 % of the aid declared incompatible with the common market in the NMH II and NMH III Decisions. According to the statement of reasons for the claim and the application and according to information provided by Germany, Bavaria took this step unilaterally in order to economise on the costs. Bavaria understands that, if its...