title: 1999/679/EC: Commission Decision of 26 May 1999 on State aid granted by Germany to Dow/Buna SOW Leuna Olefinverbund GmbH (BSL) (notified under document number C(1999) 1469) (Text with EEA relevance) (Only the German text is authentic)

eurovoc_concepts:
Germany
State aid
aid for restructuring
aid to industry
chemical industry
privatisation

text: L 269/36 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 10. 1999 on State aid granted by Germany to Dow/Buna SOW Leuna Olefinverbund GmbH (BSL) COMMISSION DECISION of 26 May 1999 (notified under document number C(1999) 1469) (Only the German text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (1999/679/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) thereof, Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof, Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provisions cited above (1), and having regard to their comments, Whereas: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) I. PROCEDURE By Decision 96/545/EC of 29 May 1996 concerning aid proposed by Germany to Buna GmbH, Sächsische Olefinwerke GmbH, Leuna-Werke GmbH, Leuna-Polyo- lefine GmbH and BSL Polyolefinverbund GmbH (2), the Commission approved aid totalling DEM 9,5 billion for the privatisation of Dow/Buna SOW Leuna Olefinver- bund GmbH (BSL). By letter dated 8 September 1997, Germany submitted two new contractual agreements (Third and Fourth Amendment Agreements) amending the privatisation agreement. By letter dated 3 February 1998, the Commission informed Germany that it had decided to reopen the Article 88(2) proceedings in respect of the aid which it had approved by Decision 96/545/EC. Germany replied by letter dated 3 March 1998. By letter dated 1 April 1998, the Commission requested additional information, receiving replies by letters dated 9 and 19 June 1998. The Commission decision to initiate proceedings was published in the Official Journal of the European Commun- ities (3). The Commission called on interested parties to submit their comments on the aid. On 17 June 1998, a meeting took place between the Commission and the German authorities to enable the concluded Commission to examine between BSL and Hoechst. contracts the (1) OJ C 128, 25. 4. 1998, p. 13. (2) OJ L 239, 19. 9. 1996, p. 1. (3) See footnote 1. (6) (7) (8) (9) The third-party comments were forwarded to Germany by letter dated 29 June 1998. Germany's comments in response to these were received by letter dated 4 August 1998. By letter dated 4 September 1998, the Commission put further questions, to which it received a reply on 29 September 1998. On 3 November 1998, a meeting was held with the German authorities. On 2 December 1998, the Commission asked further questions and sent a study by an outside expert concerning the to Germany for energy contracts comments. (10) By letters dated 6 January and 15 March 1999, Germany sent its reply and also informed the Commission of a number of amendments. II. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID (11) On 10 December 1997, the Commission decided to the reopen Article 88(2) proceedings in respect of DEM 9,5 billion in aid for BSL which it had approved in its final Decision of 29 May 1996. The aid was to be paid for the privatisation of BSL, which is the successor to three of the largest chemical industry complexes in the former German Democratic Republic. (12) The authorisation given by the Commission on 29 May 1996 was subject to the fulfilment of a number of that Germany conditions, must notify the Commission, pursuant to Article 93(3) (now, Article 88(3)) of the EC Treaty, of any deviations from the privatisation agreement. including the requirement (13) At the beginning of September 1997, Germany submitted to the Commission two new contractual agreements (Third and Fourth Amendment Agreements) between Dow and the ‘Bundesanstalt für vereinigungsbe- dingte Sonderaufgaben’ (BvS) amending the privatisation agreement. The amendment agreements related to changes in the plants that were to be built or upgraded. Although the overall amount of aid remained unchanged at DEM 9,5 billion, both amendments resulted in far- reaching changes in capacity and aid payments that 19. 10. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 269/37 altered the balance between capacities and amounts of aid which the Commission had approved in its Decision of 29 May 1996 for the various investments to be carried out by BLS. several aniline manufacturers had repeatedly more, indicated their concern to the Commission about the aniline plant. The compatibility of additional aid for investment costs amounting to some DEM 50 million therefore appeared doubtful. (14) In addition, the Commission learnt that the new energy supply agreement concluded between BSL and VKR (VEBA) in compliance with the condition contained in the Commission Decision of 29 May 1996 provided for a much higher price during the restructuring period (in which the BvS is to offset negative cash flow) than in subsequent years. (15) In its decision of 10 December 1997 to reopen the case, the Commission was aware that the total aid amount of DEM 9,5 billion was not affected by the amendment agreements. (16) Nevertheless, it had serious doubts as to whether the changes in production capacity within BSL's restructuring contained in the Third and Fourth Amendment Agree- ments could still be regarded as being covered by the Commission Decision of 29 May 1996. The possibility could thus not be excluded that the increases in capacity could adversely affect competition and trade between Member States. (17) The relevant changes contained in the amendment agreements concern the following plants: (18) (19) (20) Regarding the upgrading of the cracker, the capacity for the production of chemical grade ethylene, which is needed for the production of ethyl benzene and, further downstream, of styrene, was to be increased to 60 kt/y. In this context, the Commission wanted to know whether the investment to be carried out in the cracker was still consistent with the information provided by Germany before Decision 96/545/EC was adopted. It was the in particular necessary to know whether increase in chemical grade ethylene production would affect the total capacity of the cracker or whether the increase would simply be within such overall capacity. It had been decided to increase the capacity of the to 320 kt/y. The capacity originally benzene plant planned was 120 kt/y, but during the Commission's first Article 88(2) proceedings the planned capacity had already been increased to 200 kt/y. The Commission had based its Decision 96/545/EC on this capacity. The capacity increase provided for in the Fourth Amendment Agreement resulted in additional costs of DEM 50 million. (22) An increase in the capacity of the butadiene plant from 45 kt/y to 120 kt/y was added to the restructuring plan instead of the DEM 45 million propane storage tank approved in Decision 96/545/EC, the storage tank being no longer required in the amended restructuring plan. The butadiene was to be used in-house in the new solution process elastomers plant. DEM 90 million were earmarked for the financing of the butadiene plant. (23) Here too, the Commission had serious doubts as to whether any financing by the BvS of the DEM 90 million cost of the butadiene plant expansion was still in line with the absolute minimum restructuring aid requirement authorised in Decision 96/545/EC. (24) (25) The expansion of the ethylbenzene/styrene unit was added to the restructuring plan in place of the ‘structural defi- ciency’ payments which the Commission could not accept. The capacity of this unit was now to be expanded from 200 kt/y to 280 kt/y. Both products are used in-house. The Fourth Amendment Agreement stipulated that investment costs amounting to DEM 33 million would not be financed by the BvS. The overall costs would be DEM 75 million more than originally planned. The Commission had serious doubts on the aid for this investment for the following reasons: first, the original capacity of 200 kt/y seemed to be higher than that reported to the Commission under the initial Article 88(2) proceedings and, it was doubtful whether the DEM 33 million really represented the cost of the increase in capacity, given that the plant would cost DEM 75 million more than originally planned. secondly, (26) The capacity of the LDPE plant at Leuna was now described as being 160 kt/y instead of 145 kt/y. Here, the Commission wanted to know the reason for this change and, there were also changes in the investment. in particular, whether (21) In reopening the Article 88(2) proceedings, the Commis- sion saw no reason why these additional investment costs should be financed under the approved aid. Even though benzene itself is not traded, but is used in BSL's aniline plant, aniline would certainly be traded. Further- (27) Under the Third Amendment Agreement, the Mitteldeut- sche Erdölraffinerie MIDER (previously Leuna 2000) was to contribute DEM 10,5 million to construction of the pipe- line to Rostock. The contribution of the BvS would be reduced by this sum; however, the total aid ceiling was to remain unchanged. L 269/38 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 10. 1999 (28) (29) This DEM 10,5 million contribution by MIDER to the Rostock pipeline clearly led to an increase in the aid budget available for other investment. The Commission felt that the overall amount of aid should be reduced by DEM 10,5 million, particularly as MIDER itself was receiving large amounts of aid and its contribution was therefore equivalent to the granting of aid under other schemes. The acrylic acid and acrylic esters plants to be built by Hoechst for BSL were to have a lower capacity than originally planned, but were to cost considerably more than anticipated. The Fourth Amendment Agreement laid down a ceiling of DEM 390 million for the BvS's contribution to this investment. The Fourth Amendment Agreement stipulated that the agreements between BSL and Hoechst, which were made available to the Commis- sion only on 10 December 1997, covered the operation the plants and that as well as the construction of Hoechst was to receive an incentive payment. (30) The Commission was afraid here that Hoechst could become a beneficiary of the aid approved for BSL. (31) In respect of the EDC plant, there were inconsistencies in the figures. Annex 7 to the original privatisation agree- ment provided for a capacity of 276 kt/y, whereas the Fourth Amendment Agreement showed a capacity of 532 kt/y. In this context, the Commission wanted to know whether the investment carried out in the cracker still tallied with the information provided by Germany before Decision 96/545/EC was adopted. (32) As regards the approved DEM 327 million in aid for investment in phthalic acid, solvent and dispersion plants which were not an integral part of BSL or for investment in replacement plants, the Fourth Amendment Agreement specified which units were to be shut down and which to be maintained. The investment in the plants to be maintained amounted to only DEM 28 million. For the remaining DEM 299 million, the Agree- ment provided for the following replacement plants costing a total of DEM 432 million: a 15 kt/y hydro- carbon resin plant, a 36 kt/y syndiotactive polystyrene plant, a 60 kt/y solution process elastomers plant and a 23 kt/y polycyclohexylethelene (PCHE) plant. (33) Although the Commission approved the aid, it could not agree to such potential introduction of replacement investment of which nothing was known, and it there- fore approved aid only for the phthalic acid, solvents and dispersion plants. (34) The Commission was less negative in its attitude towards this replacement investment, since the possibility of such investment had been expressly provided for in the priva- tisation agreement and a considerable proportion of the costs would not be financed by the BvS. However, it could not rule out the possibility that this replacement investment might create sectoral difficulties and affect trade between Member States to an extent contrary to the common interest. It therefore considered it appro- priate to include this point in the new Article 88(2) proceedings and to invite interested parties to comment on any adverse effect the replacement projects might have on the market. that the energy the Commission felt supply Lastly, contracts concluded between VKR and BSL after Decision 96/545/EC had been adopted might contain aid elements. Decision 96/545/EC had expressly excluded any aid for energy supply, since the Commission consid- ered such support to be operating aid, which could in no way be accepted. the Decision of 29 May 1996 stipulated that Germany must refrain from granting any further aid for the restruc- turing of BSL beyond what was approved in the Decision. In addition, Article 5 of The new energy supply contracts were concluded for a period of 19 years (until 31 December 2014). For the remaining restructuring period (until 31 May 2000), during which, under the privatisation agreement, losses would be covered by the BvS, the supply contracts provided for prices which far exceeded the average prices for the supply of electricity and heat. For the period after restructuring, when Dow itself would have to finance any losses in BSL, the contracts provided for energy prices which were initially well below the average price. These prices would then increase gradually each year until they reached the level of average prices by the year 2014. The Commission's doubts concerned the substantial differences in the prices which BSL would have to pay during and after the restructuring period. This price differential seemed to be artificial, and the possibility could not be ruled out that the very high energy price during the restructuring period, when losses would be covered by the BvS, could subsidise the much lower energy prices in the period thereafter. The Commission also doubted that aid for the supply of energy was really excluded, since, with the takeover of part of the financing of VKR's powerplant by BSL, for which the BvS would provide [. ] in compensation, the energy prices could be influenced in such a way that VKR would be relieved of expenditure which it would otherwise have to bear itself. (35) (36) (37) (38) III. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES (39) Three sets of comments were received from interested parties, namely one from the United Kingdom, another from a Portuguese aniline producer and the third from BSL itself. They may be summarised as follows: 19. 10. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 269/39 (40) (41) (42) The United Kingdom shared the Commission's doubts as to the effects which the changes laid down in the Amendment Agreements could have on trade and competition in the common market, and it expressed particular concern regarding the effects on the European petrochemicals market, which was, in its opinion, in a position of oversupply. The Portuguese aniline producer stated that it expressly shared the Commission's doubts on all points and trusted that the Commission would take the right decision at the end of the Article 88(2) proceedings. BSL's comments focused on explaining why it believed that neither the changes in the restructuring programme nor the energy supply contracts contained any aid elements. In addition it pointed out that the overall aid amount had not risen. Lastly, it referred to the negative impact which the new Article 88(2) proceedings would have on new investment at BSL's industrial site and requested the Commission to terminate its investigation as quickly as possible. IV. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY (43) In response to the Commission's decision to initiate Article 88(2) proceedings, Germany provided the following relevant information on the key points at issue: A. The changes in production capacity (44) As regards the upgrading of the cracker, Germany pointed out that the production of chemical grade ethylene was a Dow technology. Chemical grade ethylene could be used only for the production of ethylene benzene and not for any other purpose. More specifically, it cannot be used for the production of polyolefins. (45) According to Germany, it is current industrial practice to define the capacity of a cracker in terms of its capacity to produce ethylene. The production of chemical grade ethylene in this cracker has no influence on the overall capacity of the cracker, which remains at 450 kt/y, as authorised by the Commission in Decision 96/545/EC. (46) Turning to the increase in the capacity of the benzene plant from 200 kt/y to 320 kt/y, regarding which the Commission saw no reason why additional investment costs of DEM 50 million should be financed by the BvS, Germany stressed in particular that the additional costs amounted to only DEM 30,5 million. The plant now planned with a capacity of 320 kt/y cost DEM 180,5 million, whereas a plant with a capacity of 200 kt/y would have cost DEM 150 million. As evidence of this, Germany submitted a study by an independent consult- ant which, on the basis of a comparison of the cost of a plant with a capacity of 320 kt/y and one with a capacity of 200 kt/y, confirmed its figures. (47) As regards the additional aid to be paid by the BvS for the DEM 30,5 million cost of the capacity increase, Germany undertook to ensure that the privatisation agreement concluded between the BvS and BSL would be amended to exclude any contribution from the BvS to the financing of this capacity increase. (48) As regards the increase in the capacity of the butadiene plant from 45 kt/y to 120 kt/y, Germany stressed that this capacity increase was not caused by an extension of the existing plant, but by the construction of a completely new butadiene plant to replace the existing one. Germany also pointed out that the propane storage tank for which the Commission had authorised aid in Decision 96/545/EC in order to allow BSL to overcome structural deficiencies would not be built. (49) At a later stage in the proceedings, Germany undertook to ensure that the privatisation agreement would be amended in such a way as to remove the financing of the butadiene work completely from the restructuring programme, i. e. the financing of the construction of this plant by the BvS would be ruled out. (50) This amendment would not detract from the justifica- tion for the aid authorised by the Commission in Decision 96/545/EC for overcoming structural deficien- cies. In this context, Germany described two additional infrastructure projects which would, on the one hand, help to overcome the structural weaknesses of the firm's plants spread over three different industrial sites, e. g. non-building of the propane storage tank, and, on the other, would not lead to any increase in production capacities and would thus not have any impact on the market. (51) The relevant infrastructure projects were as follows: (52) The construction of a pipeline between the cracker in Böhlen and the one in Litvinov in the Czech Republic (1) for the transport of various products and for the storage of such products in the salt tunnel at Teutschenthal. The pipeline would allow greater flexibility in the production and consumption of hydrocarbon monomers and would, in addition, save costs and be environmentally friendly, since transport of the relevant products by rail or road could be avoided. Use of the pipeline is available to producers other than BSL and can, according to the German authorities, contribute to the development of the chemical triangle at the Böhlen/Schkopau industrial site. The overall cost of the pipeline would amount to DEM 90 million. (1) This cracker does not belong to Dow, but to Unipetrol, which is owned by the Czech State and is about to be privatised. L 269/40 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 10. 1999 (53) The construction of a connection road between the plants in Schkopau and the A38 motorway, including parking areas, which will be carried out on BSL's site, enabling heavy goods vehicles to have direct access to the motorway without having to pass through the cities of Halle and Merseburg. The German authorities state that use of the road and of the parking areas would be open to everybody. This measure would relieve local traffic and could also cut the time required for transporting products. The cost of this measure would be DEM 8 million. (54) Germany pointed out that these additional infrastructure measures would continue to justify the payment for overcoming structural deficiencies which the Commis- sion had approved in Decision 96/545/EC (1). At the same time, the BvS contribution would be limited to the same amount as had been allocated to replacement of the propane storage tank and the upgrading of the old butadiene plant, for which aid had also been authorised in Decision 96/545/EC. Consequently, the maximum aid ceilings (DEM 386 million) agreed between the BvS and BSL for projects intended to overcome structural defi- ciencies which had been approved by the Commission and for which BSL had already received advance payments would be fully complied with. (55) As regards the Commission's doubts that the original capacity of the ethylbenzene/styrene unit, at 200 kt/y, was higher than that notified under the initial Article 88(2) proceedings, Germany admitted that this capacity had at the time not been explicitly specified to the Commis- sion. The building costs of DEM 175 million had, however, been notified to the Commission. This price corresponded exactly to the cost of a plant with a capacity of 200 kt/y. Furthermore, the capacity fitted into the structure of the overall complex, as approved by the Commission. Consequently, no additional capacity was involved. (56) As regards the Commission's doubts on the question of whether the cost of increasing the capacity of this unit from 200 kt/y to 280 kt/y, as provided for in the Fourth Amendment Agreement, would really amount to only DEM 33 million, given that the plant as a whole appeared to cost DEM 75 million more than originally planned, Germany submitted a study carried out by an independent consultant. The study confirmed that the additional limited to DEM 33 million. Germany also emphasised that the BvS would not parti- cipate in the financing of this additional investment cost. cost was (1) See Section IV, point 9. (57) As regards the capacity of the LDPE plant at Leuna, which was described as being 160 kt/y instead of 145 kt/y, Germany explained that there were no changes to this project. The capacity increase, which was less than 10 %, was due solely to more efficient use of the plant. (58) As far as the DEM 10,5 million contribution by MIDER is it would only concerned, Germany emphasised that cover the costs of additional investment which was necessary in order to enable MIDER to make use of the pipeline and to transport oil. The additional investment costs related to cleaning-, measuring- and analysis- stations, adaptation of the pipeline to crude oil and the valve and pump stations. This additional investment would be financed exclusively by MIDER. (59) It was not necessary to reduce the BvS's contribution to the overall restructuring programme, since the scope of the original pipeline project had not changed in any way. (60) Regarding the acrylic acid and acrylic esters plants which were to be built by Hoechst on behalf of BSL and on which the Commission, due to insufficient information on the agreements concluded between BSL and Hoechst, had serious doubts that Hoechst might become a benefi- ciary of the aid approved by the Commission for BSL, Germany made the agreements available for detailed examination. (61) As regards the EDC plant, where there were inconsisten- cies in the figures, Germany indicated that no additional capacity would be created. The overall capacity which would be created during both phases was specified in Annex 13. 1 of the original privatisation contract approved by the Commission, where, in point 3. 3. 1, an overall capacity of 531 kt/y was indicated. The new Annex 7 to the Fourth Amendment Agreement, which indicated a capacity of 532 kt/y, merely provided clari- fication. replacement (62) With regard to the approved aid for replacement invest- ment amounting to DEM 327 million in plants which were not an integral part of BSL (e. g. phthalic acid, solvents, dispersion plants), Germany emphasised that this investment would not cause any sectoral problems. This was confirmed by the fact that no particular comments were received from third parties on this issue. Furthermore, Germany pointed out that the overall these projects had been for increased to DEM 460 million, whereas the BvS's contri- bution remained the same at DEM 276,3 million, thus increasing significantly BSL's own share in the financing of these projects. investment 19. 10. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 269/41 B. The energy supply contracts prices were not out of line with expected prices for very large industrial customers in eastern Germany over that period. (63) the power plant (‘Baukostenzuschuss’), Regarding the [. ] grant paid by BSL for the construc- the tion of German authorities stressed that, it was common practice for a large client like BSL to contribute to the costs of a plant which was ultimately being built largely for it. Such a contribution was indeed required under the German Energy Act. in Germany, (64) On the question of whether, in view of the enormous difference between prices in the period up to the year 2000 and the period agreed thereafter, the new energy supply contracts contained aid elements, the German authorities stated that the prices were realistic and not artificially inflated. In support of this statement, they submitted a study drawn up by a consultant confirming their view. (65) Germany nevertheless agreed that the Commission would have a study drawn up by an independent consultant in order to examine the energy contracts and associated questions in greater detail. (66) The study arrived at the following conclusions: (67) Regarding the [. ] grant, the study established that it was being treated as part of the negative cashflow for which BSL will receive compensation during the restruc- turing period and that it was not included in the calcula- tion of energy prices during that period. The study concluded that it was legitimate to regard this payment as restructuring costs, as such costs arose from the reduction in BSL's steam demand, which had changed from the original estimate since the construction of the powerplant in 1993, requiring modifications to be made to the steam and electricity facilities at the VKR and BSL site. It was customary in Germany for large electricity consumers to make a financial contribution of their own, and this was indeed provided for in Section 6 of the German Energy Act and therefore normal practice in Germany in the case of new energy consumers. (68) As far as the energy supply prices were concerned, the study concluded for the period from l April 1996 to 31 May 2000, during which BSL has to pay a relatively high price per kWh, that the prices were higher than the maximum total costs (fuel costs + operating and mainte- nance costs + investment costs) for a coal-fired plant, that liberalisation effects were not, however, as yet there were detectable on the electricity market, neither alternative suppliers nor was BSL in a position to operate its own plant, and VKR could use its position as monopoly supplier to BSL during the restructuring period to recover substantially more of its sunk costs during than after the restructuring period and that these i. e. (69) (70) (71) (72) For the period after restructuring, i. e. from 1 June 2000 to 31 December 2014, in which BSL will have to pay a much lower price for energy supplies, the study concludes that, on the basis both of the notion of a liberalised energy market in which the price of electricity is determined by the market and not by VKR, and of BSL's option of setting up its own facility for the genera- tion of electricity and steam, the price payable by BSL is in line with the prices which it would have to pay if it pursued the other two options. the question of The study concludes by looking at whether a contract such as that entered into between VKR and BSL was based on a normal commercial arrangement that did not depend on the potential impact of State aid on one of the companies concerned. Its first conclusion was that VKR could have no interest in spreading the recovery of its stranded costs over a longer period than it did. To do so would have exposed VKR to two risks: in the first place, BSL might not survive as a business for the entire period of the contract and, secondly, BSL might decide, probably with the support of the German regulatory authority, to renege on the contract when the market became more compe- titive. Both risks gave VKR a powerful incentive to shift additional cost charges into a period in which it still enjoyed a de facto monopoly. the above assumptions, Taking account of it was, according to the study, not necessary to hypothesise that BSL would endeavour to exploit State aid provisions in order the to explain the dual-period structure of contract. Furthermore, the date of the changeover was consistent with both interpretations of how far the parties could at the time have anticipated when VKR would lose its monopoly position, both in relation to forecasts of the advent of market liberalisation and as regards the time when a new plant would be built. Lastly, BSL would not have been in a position to attack VKR's monopoly position with the German regulatory authority, since it would not have been able to demon- strate discrimination by reference to comparable prices to other industrial consumers and with the prospect of market liberalisation. (73) Thus, the study arrives at the conclusion that the energy supply contracts do not contain any aid elements. (74) As regards the comments of other interested parties, Germany stated the following: L 269/42 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 10. 1999 (75) In reply to the United Kingdom's comments, Germany rejected the view that there was oversupply on the petrochemicals market. It argued that the United King- dom's opinion might be influenced by the fact that BP had shut down some of its plants in the United Kingdom. The decision to shut down these plants had been taken a long time ago and was not influenced by the market situation. This view was confirmed by the fact that BP itself had not submitted any third-party comments as part of the proceedings. (76) As regards the comments made by the Portuguese aniline producer, Germany believed that there was no need for a specific reply, since the comments did not contain any points that went beyond the Commission's comments. (77) No specific remark was made on BSL's comments. V. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID (78) In assessing the points at issue in this case, it should be borne in mind that the Commission decided to reopen the Article 88(2) proceedings in respect of aid paid in connection with BSL's privatisation because it doubted whether the changes in the Third and Fourth Amend- ment Agreements were still in line with the Commis- sion's findings in Decision 96/545/EC. Thus, the point of the Commission's examination is not to establish whether the changes constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty that might be exempted under Article 87(2) and (3) of the EC Treaty. Rather, the Commission must base itself on Decision 96/545/EC, especially since the overall aid amount of DEM 9,5 billion approved by the Commission has not in any way altered. (79) Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the Commis- sion's concern in examining the capacity increases is that the BvS should not pay any aid for capacity increases beyond the amounts which the Commission approved in Decision 96/545/EC, and not whether the capacity increases as such are compatible with the aid rules. The aid authorised for the restructuring of BSL was intended solely to assist in the creation of a minimum industrial basis which was to help attract further investment and, consequently, is increases confirmed both in Decision 96/545/EC and in the decision of 10 December 1997. In point 13. 4 of Section IV of Decision 96/545/EC, the Commission specifically makes the point that ‘Dow and BSL contemplate making investments of DM 1 250 million in addition to the investments under the reconstruction programme until in capacity. This further the year 2010, in order to secure the long-term compe- titiveness, growth and economic viability of the petro- chemical complex’. In point 9. 1 of the decision of 10 December 1997, the Commission expressly stated that ‘any new changes which increase production capacities. should. be financed by the company itself’. The Commission thus expressly accepted further investment and increases in capacity, provided that such investment was financed by BSL itself. Consequently, it was the Commission's task in this investigation to make sure that BSL's capacity increases are not financed by the BvS. (80) In the two areas that had to be examined (changes in production capacities and energy supply contracts), the Article 88(2) proceedings demonstrated the following: A. Changes in production capacities (81) As regards the upgrading of the cracker, the proceedings showed that the production of chemical grade ethylene in the BSL cracker does not affect the overall capacity of the cracker, which is defined by its capacity to produce ethylene and which remains at 450 kt/y, as approved by the Commission in its Decision 96/545/EC (1). There is therefore no infringement of the Decision in this respect. (82) As regards the increase in capacity of the benzene plant from 200 kt/y to 320 kt/y, where the Commission saw no reason why additional investment of DEM 50 million should be financed under the approved aid, but felt that such additional costs should be borne by the investor such costs itself, Germany provided evidence that amounted to only DEM 30,5 million. In addition, Germany undertook to ensure that the privatisation agreement between the BvS and BSL would be amended by a further Amendment Agreement specifying that the BvS would not contribute to the additional costs of the capacity increase. (83) Consequently, BSL will not receive more aid for this project than authorised in Decision 96/545/EC. (84) As regards the increase in the capacity of the butadiene plant from 45 kt/y to 120 kt/y as a result of the construction of a completely new butadiene plant to replace the old one, no aid will be paid by the BvS. This is ensured by Germany's undertaking that the privatisation agreement will be supplemented by a clause removing any BvS contribution to the financing of this project. Conse- quently, there is no infringement of Decision 96/545/EC in this respect. that (85) With regard to the ethylbenzene/styrene unit, Germany provided evidence in both cases the original capacity notified to the Commission under the initial Article 88(2) proceedings amounted to 200 kt/y and that the cost of increasing the capacity of this unit from 200 kt/y to 280 kt/y was limited to only DEM 33 million. Since it is stipulated in the Fourth Amendment Agreement that the BvS will not contribute to these additional costs, the capacity increase will be financed only by BSL. Consequently, only the aid authorised in Decision 96/545/EC will be paid for this project. (1) See Section III point 3 of Decision 96/545/EC. 19. 10. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 269/43 (86) As regards the capacity of the LDPE plant at Leuna, which is now given as 160 kt/y instead of 145 kt/y, the information provided demonstrates that there is no change to this project and that the capacity increase of less than 10 % is the result of more efficient use of the plant. Consequently, there is no ‘real’ increase in capacity and, hence, no divergence from Decision 96/545/EC. (87) The DEM 10,5 million contribution by MIDER to the pipe- line to Rostock will cover only the costs of the additional investment needed to enable MIDER to make use of the pipeline and to transport oil. The additional investment relates to cleaning-, measuring- and analysis-stations, the adaptation of the pipeline to crude oil and the valve and pump stations. The additional investment will be financed by MIDER alone. There will therefore not be any change in the scope of the original pipeline project. Consequently, the project remains in line with Decision 96/545/EC (1). (88) As regards the agreements concluded between BSL and Hoechst for the construction of acrylic acid and acrylic esters plants, it is clear that there is an increase in the overall investment costs of DEM 365 million provided for in the original contract approved by the Commis- sion. It should be borne in mind, however, that the Commission's purpose in initiating proceedings was to clarify whether Hoechst might become a beneficiary of the aid to be paid for this project. This should be ruled out. An incentive system agreed between BSL and Hoechst should ensure that the price Hoechst obtains corresponds to its expenses. Since Hoechst will be rewarded if it keeps below a specified ceiling, it is in its interests to keep the costs low. This arrangement should also result in only minor changes in the overall invest- ment cost. It should also be borne in mind that the overall capacity will be lower than in the original plans, that it is always difficult to predict with 100 % accuracy the real costs of a new project and that the overall contribution of the BvS to the investment will differ only marginally. Similar variations are also evident in other BSL investment projects. In addition, the agree- ments between BSL and Hoechst contain clauses providing for an audit to be carried out at the request of the BvS. Consequently, the change can be accepted within the framework of Decision 96/545/EC. (89) As regards the EDC plant, Germany made it clear that no additional capacity will be created. The overall capacity which will be created during both phases of the restruc- turing programme is indicated in Annex 13. 1 to the the original privatisation agreement Commission. Point 3. 3. 1 of that Annex gives the overall capacity as 531 kt/y. The new Annex 7 to the Fourth Amendment Agreement, which indicates a capacity of approved by (1) See Section IV point 6. 9 of Decision 96/545/EC. 532 kt/y, merely clarifies the situation. There is there- fore no infringement of Decision 96/545/EC. (90) As regards the approved aid for replacement investment amounting to DEM 327 million (2), the Article 88(2) proceedings showed, as the Commission had already assumed when the proceedings were initiated, that this investment is unlikely to cause any sectoral problems. No comments on this investment were received from third parties, for whose sake alone the Commission had included the investment in its investigation. It should also be borne in mind that the overall investment for these projects has risen to DEM 460 million, while the BvS's contribution remains the same at DEM 276,3 million. Dow's own share in the financing of these new investment projects will therefore increase. B. Energy supply contracts (91) to the conclusion that The study which the Commission asked an independent consultant to carry out and which examined in detail the justification for the price differences in energy supplies comes the energy supply contracts between VKR and BSL will not necessarily have any spillover effect and do not provide any grounds for assuming that State aid granted for other purposes has been misused. Furthermore, the study notes that BSL's contribution to the construction of the power plant is common practice in Germany and is indeed provided for in the German Energy Act. (92) Consequently, no aid is involved in the energy supply contracts. (93) C. The two additional infrastructure projects In the light of the above, the Commission concludes that, assuming the changes announced by Germany to the Third and Fourth Amendment Agreements are enshrined in a Fifth Amendment Agreement, none of the points at issue in respect of which the Article 88(2) proceedings were reopened involves an infringement of Decision 96/545/EC. There is, however, one point which is not explicitly dealt with in Decision 96/545/EC and where the Commission must therefore examine whether it is nevertheless covered by that Decision. This is the the two infrastructure projects in BvS's financing of place of its contributions to the butadiene plant and the cancelled construction of the propane storage tank, which were authorised by the Commission in its Decision 96/545/EC as part of a number of different projects intended to enable BSL to overcome structural deficiencies. therefore be examined whether these two projects are consistent with the reasons accepted as justifying such various projects, for which the Commission authorised aid totalling DEM 384 million and for which advance payments have been made by the BvS to BSL. It must (2) See point 9. 1 of the decision of 10 December 1997. This invest- the privatisation agreement is specified in point 8. 1. 2 of ment approved by the Commission. L 269/44 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 19. 10. 1999 (94) that The main beneficiary of both infrastructure projects will certainly be BSL. On the other hand, there will also be significant benefit to other firms. BSL is not the only producer within the new chemical triangle at Schkopau. A pipeline which is also available to other producers in this region may contribute to the development of the industrial site as a whole. The same is true of a direct motorway access link. Both projects may therefore help to overcome structural difficulties which undoubtedly exist at the relevant sites. Account must also be taken of the two infrastructure projects replace the fact another infrastructure project, i. e. the propane storage tank which was not built, but which was approved by the Commission in Decision 96/545/EC. The two infra- structure projects will certainly not have any more adverse impact on the market than the tank approved by the Commission. The BvS contribution of DEM 384 million approved by the Commission for this part of the restructuring programme will not increase, but remain the same. Consequently, the Commission would not be authorising any new, additional public funding, but merely a change in the use made of funds already approved and made available to BSL in the form of advance payments after Commission immediately Decision 96/545/EC. VI. CONCLUSION (95) The Article 88(2) proceedings have demonstrated that no additional aid for BSL is involved and that the aid to be paid corresponds to the amount and is limited to the capacities which were authorised by the Commission on 29 May 1996. In addition, no aid element was found in the energy supply contracts. The Commission therefore concludes that the minor divergences from the original privatisation agreement are compatible with the prin- ciples laid down in Decision 96/545/EC, ben’ (BvS) comply with Decision 96/545/EC approving aid for the privatisation of BSL, subject to the conditions and obliga- tions set out in Article 2. Article 2 Germany shall submit an Amendment Agreement stipu- 1. lating that: (a) the BvS will not contribute to the financing of the DEM 30,5 million costs of increasing the capacity of the benzene plant, and that (b) the financing of the butadiene plant will be completely removed from the restructuring programme, i. e. the BvS will no longer finance the construction of this plant. 2. A copy of the Fifth Amendment Agreement shall be submitted to the Commission within one month of its conclu- sion. Article 3 The provisions and conditions laid down in Decision 96/ 545/EC shall remain applicable. This applies in particular to the requirement that Germany submit to the Commission half yearly reports on the progress of restructuring and the amount of aid paid by the BvS. Article 4 Germany shall inform the Commission, within two months of the date of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply therewith. This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Article 5 HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: Done at Brussels, 26 May 1999. Article 1 The Third and Fourth Amending Agreements concluded between Dow/Buna SOW Leuna Olefinverbund GmbH (BSL) and the ‘Bundesanstalt fur vereinigungsbedingte Sonderaufga- For the Commission Karel VAN MIERT Member of the Commission


title: Commission Regulation (EC) No 1082/1999 of 26 May 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 1169/97 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 introducing a Community aid scheme for producers of certain citrus fruits

eurovoc_concepts:
EAGGF Guarantee Section
agro-industry
citrus fruit
market intervention
producer organisation
production aid

formats: html pdf print

text: L 131/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 5. 1999 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1082/1999 of 26 May 1999 amending Regulation (EC) No 1169/97 laying down detailed rules for the applica- tion of Council Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 introducing a Community aid scheme for producers of certain citrus fruits THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, Article 1 Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 of 28 October 1996 introducing a Community aid scheme for producers of certain citrus fruits (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 858/1999 (2), and in particular Articles 2(2), 3(4), 6 and 8 thereof, Regulation (EC) No 1169/97 is hereby amended as follows: 1. the following paragraph 3 is added to Article 2: (1) Whereas Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2202/ 96, lays down that the financial consequences of exceeding the processing thresholds laid down in paragraph 1 of that Article are postponed to the marketing year following that in which the overrun occurs; whereas the detailed rules for the applica- tion of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1169/ 97 (3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1145/ 98 (4), should be amended to reflect this new situa- tion; (2) Whereas the equivalent period of 12 consecutive months referred to in Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 2202/96, used to assess whether or not there has been an overrun of the processing threshold, must be laid down; (3) Whereas, in order to make the administration of multiannual contracts more flexible, the transfer should be permitted of a limited percentage of the quantity to be delivered in a delivery period to the previous or the subsequent delivery period in the the total same marketing year, provided that quantity provided for that for marketing year is respected; in the contract (4) Whereas experience with processing contracts has shown that, in order to achieve the objectives of the scheme, financial penalties need to be imposed where producer organisations do not supply the quantities provided for in a contract and, in partic- ular, where they cancel a contract or fail to make any deliveries at all; (5) Whereas the measures provided for in this Regula- tion are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fresh Fruit and Veget- ables, (1) OJ L 297, 21. 11. 1996, p. 49. (2) OJ L 108, 27. 4. 1999, p. 8. (3) OJ L 169, 27. 6. 1997, p. 15. (4) OJ L 159, 3. 6. 1998, p. 29. In a given marketing year, ‘3. “the equivalent period” referred to in Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2202/96 shall run from: (cid:190) 1 August of the preceding marketing year to 31 July of the current marketing year for oranges, (cid:190) 1 October to 30 June of the current marketing year for mandarins, clementines and satsumas, (cid:190) 1 August of the preceding marketing year to 31 July of the current marketing year for grapefruit and pomelos, (cid:190) 1 April of the preceding marketing year to 31 March of the current marketing year for lemons. '; 2. in Article 3(7), ‘1 June' is replaced by ‘1 July'; 3. Article 5 is amended as follows: (cid:190) paragraph 1(b) is replaced by the following: ‘(b) 1 July for lemons;' (cid:190) in paragraph 2, the first subparagraph is replaced by the following: In the case of contracts covering one ‘2. marketing year, the quantity for each delivery period, within the meaning of Article 3(3)(d), may be amended by means of a written amendment, except the first delivery period,' the quantity for for (cid:190) paragraph 3 is replaced by the following: ‘3. In the case of multiannual contracts, the quantity for each marketing year, within the meaning of Article 3(3)(c), may be amended by means of a written amendment. Such amend- ments shall show the identification number of the contract to which they relate. They shall be concluded before 1 July of the marketing year in question in the case of lemons and before 1 November of the marketing year in question in the case of other products. The quantities to be delivered in each marketing year as stipulated in such amendments may not differ by more than 27. 5. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 131/25 40 % from those originally laid down in the contract for that marketing year. The quantity to be delivered shall be broken down by delivery quarter the marketing year concerned. from the start of A maximum of 25 % of the quantity to be deliv- ered in each delivery period may be transferred to either the preceding or the subsequent delivery period by means of a single written agreement between the parties concerned for each period, provided that the total quantity for the marketing year concerned is respected. forward the The producer organisation shall agreement to the body referred to in Article 6(1), ensuring that it reaches that body before the end of the period concerned in the case of transfer to the subsequent period and 30 days before the end of the preceding period in the case of transfer to the preceding period. '; 4. Article 8(4) is replaced by the following: ‘4. No later than 30 days after the start of the marketing year, the information specified in para- graphs l and 2 and a copy of the agreements referred to in paragraph 3 shall be forwarded to the body designated by the Member State in which the raw materials are harvested. '; 5. Article 12 is replaced by the following: ‘Article 12 Aid applications shall be submitted by the producer organisation per product and per delivery period to the body designated by the Member State on whose territory the raw materials were harvested. A single aid application may be submitted per delivery period for a given basic product. In the case of clementines, separate aid applications must be drawn up for each potential use, that is for juice or segments. '; 6. Article 13 is replaced by the following: ‘Article 13 Each aid application for each product and for each delivery period, shall include inter alia the following: (a) the applicant’s name and address; (b) the identification numbers of the contracts under which the product is delivered, specifying whether the contracts relate to one or more marketing years; (c) the quantity of product delivered under the contracts, thereto, including any amendments during the period concerned. That quantity shall be broken down by contract and according to the amount of the corresponding aid; (d) the quantity of product delivered otherwise than under contracts during the same period; (e) the average prices applying, on the one hand, to products delivered under contracts, distinguishing between multiannual contracts and contracts covering one marketing year, and, on the other hand, to other products delivered otherwise than under contracts during the period concerned; (f) a declaration by the producer organisation to the effect that products referred to in point (c) meet the quality criteria laid down in Article 9. '; 7. Article 14 is replaced by the following: ‘Article 14 Aid applications referred to in Article 13 shall be submitted to the competent body not later than 45 days following the end of the period concerned. '; 8. Article 15 is replaced by the following: ‘Article 15 1. The aid shall be paid by the competent body of the Member State in which the raw material was harvested once the supervisory body of the Member State in which processing takes place has established that the products covered by the application for the aid have been delivered to the processor. Where processing takes place in another Member State, that Member State shall provide the Member State where the product is harvested with proof that the product has in fact been delivered. No aid shall be granted for quantities in respect of which the requisite checks on the conditions under which the aid is granted have not been conducted. 2. Within 15 working days of receipt of the aid, the producer organisation shall pay in full by bank or postal transfer the amounts received to its members or, where the second and third indents of Article 11(1)(c)(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 apply, to the members of the other producer organisations and/or to the individual producers concerned. In cases as provided for in Article 4 of this Regulation, such payments may be credited. '; 9. Article 18(2) is amended as follows: (cid:190) in the first subparagraph, point (e) is replaced by: ‘(e) aid applications for each delivery period,' (cid:190) in point (a) in the second subparagraph, ‘or an advance' is deleted; 10. Article 20 is amended as follows: (cid:190) paragraphs 1 and 2 are replaced by the following: If the aid for a product applied for by a ‘1. producer organisation in respect of a delivery period is found to be greater than the amount due, the latter shall be reduced where the differ- ence is the result of false declarations, false docu- ments or serious negligence on the part of the producer organisation. That reduction shall be equal to twice the difference, plus interest calcu- lated on the period elapsing between payment L 131/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 5. 1999 and reimbursement of received by the recipient. the amount unduly 11. Article 22(1) is replaced by the following: The rate of interest shall be that applied by the European Monetary Institute to transactions in euros, as published in the “C” series of the Offi- cial Journal of the European Communities, in force on the date of undue payment; plus three percentage points. 2. Where paragraph 1 is applied, if the differ- ence between the aid actually paid and the aid due exceeds 20 % of the latter, the recipient shall reimburse the total aid paid, plus interest calcu- lated in accordance with that paragraph; if that the producer organ- difference exceeds 30 %, isation shall also forfeit any entitlement to production aid in the following marketing year. ', (cid:190) in paragraph 7, (cid:190) the following paragraph 8 is added: ‘or advance' is deleted, ‘8. Where a processing contract is cancelled, either in full or in part, before its expiry, the signatory producer organisation shall reimburse 40 % of the aid received for that contract, plus interest calculated in accordance with the second subparagraph of paragraph 1. In addition, in the case of multiannual contracts: (cid:190) a producer organisation which cancels, in full or in part, rivo or more contracts during the same marketing year may not conclude a multiannual contract pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2206/96 for three marketing years the from the time the competent body of Member State concerned notes such cancella- tion, (cid:190) failure to deliver a product during one of the marketing years covered by a contract shall imply cancellation of that contract. '; Each Member State concerned shall notify the ‘1. Commission of: (a) the quantity of each product covered by contracts for the current marketing year, broken down by delivery period and type of contract, by: (i) 15 August in the case of lemons; (ii) 15 December in the case of other products; (b) the quantity of each product delivered for processing pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2202/ 96 during the periods referred to in Article 2(3), by: (i) 1 May of the current marketing year in the case of lemons; (ii) 1 September of the current marketing year in the case of other products. '; 12. Article 23 is replaced by the following: ‘Article 23 As regards grapefruit and pomelos, whether or not the processing threshold laid down in Article 5 of Regu- lation (EC) No 2202/96 for the 1999/2000 marketing year has been exceeded shall be assessed on the basis of the average quantities processed pursuant to Regu- lation (EC) No 2202/96 during the 1997/98 and 1998/99 marketing years. ' Article 2 This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities. It shall apply from the 1999/2000 marketing year. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 26 May 1999. For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission


title: Komission asetus (EY) N:o 1084/1999, annettu 26 päivänä toukokuuta 1999, öljyn ja tiettyjen öljytuotteiden Jugoslavian liittotasavaltaan suuntautuvan myynnin ja toimituksen kieltämistä koskevan neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 900/1999 2 artiklassa tarkoitetun toimivaltaisten viranomaisten luettelon laatimisesta

eurovoc_concepts:
Serbia and Montenegro
international sanctions
market approval
petroleum
petroleum product

text: 27. 5. 1999 FI Euroopan yhteis(cid:148)jen virallinen lehti L 131/29 KOMISSION ASETUS (EY) N:o 1084/1999, annettu 26 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) toukokuuta 1999, (cid:148)ljyn ja tiettyjen (cid:148)ljytuotteiden Jugoslavian liittotasavaltaan suuntautuvan myynnin ja toimituksen kielt(cid:132)mist(cid:132) koskevan neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 900/ 1999 2 artiklassa tarkoitetun toimivaltaisten viranomaisten luettelon laatimisesta joka EUROOPAN YHTEIS(cid:153)JEN KOMISSIO, ottaa huomioon Euroopan yhteis(cid:148)n perustamissopi- muksen, ottaa huomioon (cid:148)ljyn ja tiettyjen (cid:148)ljytuotteiden Jugosla- vian liittotasavaltaan suuntautuvan myynnin ja toimi- tuksen kielt(cid:132)misest(cid:132) 29 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) huhtikuuta 1999 annetun neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 900/1999 (1) ja erityisesti sen 6 artiklan, sek(cid:132) katsoo, ett(cid:132) on v(cid:132)ltt(cid:132)m(cid:132)t(cid:148)nt(cid:132) laatia luettelo toimivaltaisista viranomai- sista, jotka voivat antaa luvan (cid:148)ljyn ja (cid:148)ljytuotteiden myyntiin, toimitukseen tai vientiin asetuksen (EY) N:o 900/1999 2 artiklan 1 kohdassa s(cid:132)(cid:132)dettyihin tarkoituksiin ja siin(cid:132) esitetyin edellytyksin ja joiden olisi vastaanotettava kyseisen asetuksen 2 artiklan 2 kohdassa tarkoitetut ilmoi- tukset, ON ANTANUT T(cid:142)M(cid:142)N ASETUKSEN: 1 artikla Neuvoston asetuksen (EY) N:o 900/1999 2 artiklassa tarkoitettu luettelo toimivaltaisista viranomaisista laadi- taan t(cid:132)m(cid:132)n asetuksen liitteen mukaisesti. 2 artikla T(cid:132)m(cid:132) asetus tulee voimaan p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132), Euroopan yhteis(cid:148)jen virallisessa lehdess(cid:132). jona se julkaistaan T(cid:132)m(cid:132) asetus on kaikilta osiltaan velvoittava, ja sit(cid:132) sovelletaan sellaisenaan kaikissa j(cid:132)sen- valtioissa. Tehty Brysseliss(cid:132) 26 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) toukokuuta 1999. Komission puolesta Leon BRITTAN Varapuheenjohtaja (1) EYVL L 114, 1. 5. 1999, s. 7. L 131/30 FI Euroopan yhteis(cid:148)jen virallinen lehti 27. 5. 1999 LIITE Neuvoston asetuksen (EY) 900/1999 2 artiklassa tarkoitettujen toimivaltaisten viranomaisten nimet ja osoitteet BELGIA Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, Buitenlandse Handel en Ontwikkelingssamenwerking Directie-generaal van de Buitenlandse Economische en Bilaterale Betrekkingen Dienst Centraal en Oost-Europa (B 13) De heer Filip David Karmelietenstraat 15 B-1000 Brussel Minist(cid:138)re des affaires (cid:130)trang(cid:138)res, du commerce ext(cid:130)rieur et de la coop(cid:130)ration au d(cid:130)veloppement Direction g(cid:130)n(cid:130)rale des relations (cid:130)conomiques et bilat(cid:130)rales ext(cid:130)rieures Service ”Europe centrale et orientale” (B 13) M. Filip David Rue des Petits Carmes 15 B-1000 Bruxelles Puhelin: Faksi: (32-2) 501 81 64 (32-2) 501 88 27 TANSKA Erhvervsfremmestyrelsen Tine Friis Hansen Tagensvej 137 DK-2200 København N Puhelin: (45) 35 86 86 86 Faksi: (45) 35 86 86 87 SAKSA Bundesausfuhramt Referat 214, Herr Pietsch Frankfurter Straße 29-35 D-65760 Eschborn Puhelin: Faksi: (49 6196) 908 412 (49 6196) 908 689 KREIKKA J(cid:151)qior Ce(cid:150)qcior Wqistov(cid:147)r Pkgqeno(cid:151)sior Upouqc(cid:149)r BY Cqave(cid:148)o Juq(cid:150)seym Basik(cid:148)ssgr Sov(cid:148)ar 1, 7or (cid:149)qovor GR-106 71 Ah(cid:147)ma Mr. George Christofis, Minister Plenipotentiary BY Sanctions Bureau 1, Vasilissis Sofias, 7th floor GR-106 71 Athens Puhelin: Faksi: (30 1) 368 42 07 (30 1) 368 42 06 ESPANJA Ministerio de Econom(cid:146)a y Hacienda Secretar(cid:146)a General de Comercio Exterior Paseo de la Castellana, n:o 162 E-28046 Madrid Puhelin: Faksi: (34) 914 57 28 63 (34) 913 49 38 60 27. 5. 1999 FI Euroopan yhteis(cid:148)jen virallinen lehti L 131/31 RANSKA Direction g(cid:130)n(cid:130)rale des douanes et des droits indirects Bureau E/2 (cid:190) Cellule ”Embargo” Mlle Diane Foreau 23 bis, rue de l’Universit(cid:130) F-75700 Paris Cedex 07 SP Puhelin: Faksi: (33 1) 44 74 48 97 (33 1) 44 74 48 93 IRLANTI Licensing Unit (Mr Michael Greene) Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment Kildare Street Dublin 2 Ireland Puhelin: Faksi: S(cid:132)hk(cid:148)posti: greenem@entemp. irlgov. ic (353 1) 631 24 46 (353 1) 676 61 54 ITALIA Ministero del Commercio con l’Estero Direzione generale per la politica commerciale e per la gestione del regime degli scambi Divisione IV (UOPAT) Dr. Borghese Viale Boston 25 I-00144 Roma Puhelin: Faksi: (39-06) 59 64 75 06 S(cid:132)hk(cid:148)posti: INFO@MincomesIT (39-06) 59 64 75 34 LUXEMBURG Office des Licences M. A. Paulus BP 113 L-2011 Luxembourg Puhelin: Faksi: S(cid:132)hk(cid:148)posti: andre. paulus@mae. etat. lu (352) 478 23 70 (352) 46 61 38 ALANKOMAAT Ministerie van Economische Zaken Directoraat-generaal van de Buitenlandse Economische Betrekkingen Directie Handelspolitiek en Investeringsbeleid Afdeling Exportcontrole en Sanctiebeleid (BEB/DHI/ES) mw. drs. C. M. van Dantzig Postbus 20101 2500 EC Den Haag Nederland Puhelin: Faksi: S(cid:132)hk(cid:148)posti: e. m. vandantzig@minez. nl (31-70) 379 63 57 / 63 80 (31-70) 379 73 92 IT(cid:142)VALTA Bundesministerium f(cid:129)r wirtschaftliche Angelegenheiten, Gruppe II. a Landstraßer Hauptstraße 55-57 A-1030 Wien Puhelin: Faksi: (43 1) 711 02 / 361 (43 1) 715 83 47 PORTUGALI Minist(cid:130)rio da Economia Direc(cid:135)(cid:209)o-Geral da Rela(cid:135)(cid:210)es Econ(cid:155)micas Internacionais Alice Rodrigues/Jos(cid:130) Gomes Avenida da Rep(cid:156)blica, 79 P-Lisboa Puhelin: Faksi: (351 1) 791 19 43 (351 1) 796 37 23 L 131/32 FI Euroopan yhteis(cid:148)jen virallinen lehti 27. 5. 1999 SUOMI (358-9) 1341-5555 (358-9) 629-840 Ulkoasiainministeri(cid:148) PL 176 SF-00161 Helsinki Puhelin: Faksi: Utrikesministeriet PL 176 SF-00161 Helsingfors Tfn: Fax: (358-9) 1341-5555 (358-9) 629-840 RUOTSI Regeringskansliet Utrikesdepartementet R(cid:132)ttssekretariatet f(cid:148)r EU-fr(cid:134)gor Fredsgatan 6 S-103 39 Stockholm Puhelin: Faksi: (46-8) 405 10 00 (46-8) 453 66 99 YHDISTYNYT KUNINGASKUNTA Export Policy Unit Department of Trade and Industry Kingsgate House 66-74, Victoria Street London SW1E6SW Puhelin: Faksi: (44 171) 215 89 98 (44 171) 215 85 19 EUROOPAN YHTEIS(cid:153) Euroopan komissio P(cid:132)(cid:132)osasto I A. de Vries DM24 5/75 rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200 B-1049 Brussel/Bruxelles Puhelin: (32-2) 295 68 80 Faksi: S(cid:132)hk(cid:148)posti: anthonius. de-vries@dg1. cec. be (32-2) 295 73 31


title: Komission asetus (EY) N:o 1086/1999, annettu 26 päivänä toukokuuta 1999, asetuksessa (EY) N:o 951/1999 tarkoitetulla tarjouskilpailulla myyntiin saatetun naudanlihan vähimmäismyyntihintojen vahvistamisesta

eurovoc_concepts:
award of contract
beef
fixing of prices
minimum price
selling price

text: 27. 5. 1999 FI Euroopan yhteis(cid:148)jen virallinen lehti L 131/35 KOMISSION ASETUS (EY) N:o 1086/1999, annettu 26 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) toukokuuta 1999, asetuksessa (EY) N:o 951/1999 tarkoitetulla tarjouskilpailulla myyntiin saatetun naudanlihan v(cid:132)himm(cid:132)ismyyntihintojen vahvistamisesta EUROOPAN YHTEIS(cid:153)JEN KOMISSIO, joka ottaa huomioon Euroopan yhteis(cid:148)n perustamissopi- muksen, ottaa huomioon naudanliha-alan yhteisest(cid:132) markkinaj(cid:132)r- jestelyst(cid:132) 27 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) kes(cid:132)kuuta 1968 annetun neuvoston asetuksen (ETY) N:o 805/68 (1), sellaisena kuin se on viimeksi muutettuna asetuksella (EY) N:o 1633/98 (2), ja erityisesti sen 7 artiklan 3 kohdan, sek(cid:132) katsoo, ett(cid:132) (1) (2) tietyt komission asetuksessa (EY) N:o 951/1999 (3) vahvistetut m(cid:132)(cid:132)r(cid:132)t naudanlihaa on tarjouskilpailu- tettu, komission asetuksen (ETY) N:o 2173/79 (4), sellai- sena kuin se on viimeksi muutettuna asetuksella (EY) N:o 2417/95 (5), 9 artiklan mukaan v(cid:132)him- tarjouskilpailutetulle naudanli- m(cid:132)ismyyntihinnat halle olisi vahvistettava ottaen huomioon saadut tarjoukset, ja (3) asetuksessa t(cid:132)ss(cid:132) ovat s(cid:132)(cid:132)detyt naudanlihan hallintokomitean lausunnon mukaiset, toimenpiteet ON ANTANUT T(cid:142)M(cid:142)N ASETUKSEN: 1 artikla Naudanlihan v(cid:132)himm(cid:132)ismyyntihinnat asetuksessa (EY) N:o 951/1999 s(cid:132)(cid:132)detty(cid:132) tarjouskilpailua varten, jonka tarjousten j(cid:132)tt(cid:148)aika p(cid:132)(cid:132)ttyi 18 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) toukokuuta 1999 vahvistetaan t(cid:132)m(cid:132)n asetuksen liitteess(cid:132). 2 artikla T(cid:132)m(cid:132) asetus tulee voimaan 27 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) toukokuuta 1999. T(cid:132)m(cid:132) asetus on kaikilta osiltaan velvoittava, ja sit(cid:132) sovelletaan sellaisenaan kaikissa j(cid:132)sen- valtioissa. Tehty Brysseliss(cid:132) 26 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) toukokuuta 1999. Komission puolesta Franz FISCHLER Komission j(cid:132)sen (1) EYVL L 148, 28. 6. 1968, s. 24. (2) EYVL L 210, 28. 7. 1998, s. 17. (3) EYVL L 118, 6. 5. 1999, s. 16. (4) EYVL L 251, 5. 10. 1979, s. 12. (5) EYVL L 248, 14. 10. 1995, s. 39. L 131/36 FI Euroopan yhteis(cid:148)jen virallinen lehti 27. 5. 1999 ANEXO (cid:190) BILAG (cid:190) ANHANG (cid:190) PAQAQTGLA (cid:190) ANNEX (cid:190) ANNEXE (cid:190) ALLEGATO (cid:190) B(cid:246)LAGE (cid:190) ANEXO (cid:190) LIITE (cid:190) BILAGA Estado miembro Medlemsstat Mitgliedstaat Jq(cid:145)tor l(cid:146)kor Member State (cid:144)tat membre Stato membro Lidstaat Estado-membro J(cid:132)senvaltio Medlemsstat Productos (1) Produkter (1) Erzeugnisse (1) Pqo(cid:152)(cid:149)mta (1) Products (1) Produits (1) Prodotti (1) Producten (1) Produtos (1) Tuotteet (1) Produkter (1) Precio m(cid:146)nimo expresado en euros por tonelada Mindstepriser i EUR/ton Mindestpreise ausgedr(cid:129)ckt in EUR/Tonne Ek(cid:145)wister pyk(cid:147)seir ejvqaf(cid:149)lemer se Euq(cid:150) am(cid:145) t(cid:149)mo Minimum prices expressed in EUR per tonne Prix minimaux exprim(cid:130)s en euros par tonne Prezzi minimi espressi in euro per tonnellata Minimumprijzen uitgedrukt in euro per ton Pre(cid:135)o m(cid:146)nimo expresso em euros por tonelada V(cid:132)himm(cid:132)ishinnat euroina tonnia kohden ilmaistuna Minimipriser i euro per ton a) Carne con hueso (cid:190) Kød, ikke udbenet (cid:190) Fleisch mit Knochen (cid:190) Jq(cid:146)ata le j(cid:149)jaka (cid:190) Bone-in beef (cid:190) Viande avec os (cid:190) Carni non disossate (cid:190) Vlees met been (cid:190) Carne com osso (cid:190) Luullinen naudanliha (cid:190) K(cid:148)tt med ben DEUTSCHLAND Vorder- und Hinterviertel, „compens(cid:130)s“ Vorderviertel Hinterviertel FRANCE Quartiers compens(cid:130)s Quartiers avant Quartiers arri(cid:138)re 430 400 450 (cid:190) (cid:190) (cid:190) (1) V(cid:130)anse los anexos V y VII del Reglamento (CEE) no 2456/93 de la Comisi(cid:155)n (DO L 225 de 4. 9. 1993, p. 4), cuya (cid:156)ltima modificaci(cid:155)n la constituye el Reglamento (CE) no 2602/97 (DO L 351 de 23. 12. 1997, p. 20). (1) Se bilag V og VII til Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2456/93 (EFT L 225 af 4. 9. 1993, s. 4), senest ændret ved forordning (EF) nr. 2602/97 (EFT L 351 af 23. 12. 1997, s. 20). (1) Vgl. Anh(cid:132)nge V und VII der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2456/93 der Kommission (ABl. L 225 vom 4. 9. 1993, S. 4), zuletzt ge(cid:132)ndert durch die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2602/97 (ABl. L 351 vom 23. 12. 1997, S. 20). (1) Bk(cid:146)pe paqaqt(cid:147)lata V jai VII tou jamomislo(cid:151) (EOJ) aqih. 2456/93 tgr Epitqop(cid:147)r (EE L 225 tgr 4. 9. 1993, s. 4), (cid:149)pyr tqopopoi(cid:147)hgje tekeuta(cid:148)a ap(cid:149) tom jamomisl(cid:149) (EJ) aqih. 2602/97 (EE L 351 tgr 23. 12. 1997, s. 20). (1) See Annexes V and VII to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2456/93 (OJ L 225, 4. 9. 1993, p. 4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2602/97 (OJ L 351, 23. 12. 1997, p. 20). (1) Voir annexes V et VII du r(cid:138)glement (CEE) no 2456/93 de la Commission (JO L 225 du 4. 9. 1993, p. 4). R(cid:138)glement modifi(cid:130) en dernier lieu par le r(cid:138)glement (CE) no 2602/97 (JO L 351 du 23. 12. 1997, p. 20). (1) Cfr. allegati V e VII del regolamento (CEE) n. 2456/93 della Commissione (GU L 225 del 4. 9. 1993, pag. 4), modificato da ultimo dal regolamento (CE) n. 2602/97 (GU L 351 del 23. 12. 1997, pag. 20). (1) Zie de b¶lagen V en VII b¶ Verordening (EEG) nr. 2456/93 van de Commissie (PB L 225 van 4. 9. 1993, blz. 4), laatstel¶k gew¶zigd b¶ Verordening (EG) nr. 2602/97 (PB L 351 van 23. 12. 1997, blz. 20). (1) Ver anexos V e VII do Regulamento (CEE) n. o 2456/93 da Comiss(cid:209)o (JO L 225 de 4. 9. 1993, p. 4). Regulamento com a (cid:156)ltima redac(cid:135)(cid:209)o que lhe foi dada pelo Regulamento (CE) n. o 2602/97 (JO L 351 de 23. 12. 1997, p. 20). (1) Katso komission asetuksen (ETY) N:o 2456/93 (EYVL L 225, 4. 9. 1993, s. 4), sellaisena kuin se on viimeksi muutettuna asetuksella (EY) N:o 2602/97 (EYVL L 351, 23. 12. 1997, s. 20) liitteet V ja VII. (1) Se bilagorna V och VII i kommissionens f(cid:148)rordning (EEG) nr 2456/93 (EGT L 225, 4. 9. 1993, s. 4), senast (cid:132)ndrad genom f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 2602/97 (EGT L 351, 23. 12. 1997, s. 20)


title: Komission asetus (EY) N:o 1085/1999, annettu 26 päivänä toukokuuta 1999, asetuksessa (EY) N:o 837/1999 tarkoitetulla tarjouskilpailulla myyntiin saatetun naudanlihan vähimmäismyyntihintojen vahvistamisesta

text: 27. 5. 1999 FI Euroopan yhteis(cid:148)jen virallinen lehti L 131/33 KOMISSION ASETUS (EY) N:o 1085/1999, annettu 26 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) toukokuuta 1999, asetuksessa (EY) N:o 837/1999 tarkoitetulla tarjouskilpailulla myyntiin saatetun naudanlihan v(cid:132)himm(cid:132)ismyyntihintojen vahvistamisesta EUROOPAN YHTEIS(cid:153)JEN KOMISSIO, joka ottaa huomioon Euroopan yhteis(cid:148)n perustamissopi- muksen, ottaa huomioon naudanliha-alan yhteisest(cid:132) markkinaj(cid:132)r- jestelyst(cid:132) 27 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) kes(cid:132)kuuta 1968 annetun neuvoston asetuksen (ETY) N:o 805/68 (1), sellaisena kuin se on viimeksi muutettuna asetuksella (EY) N:o 1633/98 (2), ja erityisesti sen 7 artiklan 3 kohdan, sek(cid:132) katsoo, ett(cid:132) (1) (2) tietyt komission asetuksessa (EY) N:o 837/1999 (3) vahvistetut m(cid:132)(cid:132)r(cid:132)t naudanlihaa on tarjouskilpailu- tettu, komission asetuksen (ETY) N:o 2173/79 (4), sellai- sena kuin se on viimeksi muutettuna asetuksella (EY) N:o 2417/95 (5), 9 artiklan mukaan v(cid:132)him- tarjouskilpailutetulle naudanli- m(cid:132)ismyyntihinnat halle olisi vahvistettava ottaen huomioon saadut tarjoukset, ja (3) asetuksessa t(cid:132)ss(cid:132) ovat s(cid:132)(cid:132)detyt naudanlihan hallintokomitean lausunnon mukaiset, toimenpiteet ON ANTANUT T(cid:142)M(cid:142)N ASETUKSEN: 1 artikla Naudanlihan v(cid:132)himm(cid:132)ismyyntihinnat asetuksessa (EY) N:o 837/1999 s(cid:132)(cid:132)detty(cid:132) tarjouskilpailua varten, jonka tarjousten j(cid:132)tt(cid:148)aika p(cid:132)(cid:132)ttyi 17 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) toukokuuta 1999 vahvistetaan t(cid:132)m(cid:132)n asetuksen liitteess(cid:132). 2 artikla T(cid:132)m(cid:132) asetus tulee voimaan 27 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) toukokuuta 1999. T(cid:132)m(cid:132) asetus on kaikilta osiltaan velvoittava, ja sit(cid:132) sovelletaan sellaisenaan kaikissa j(cid:132)sen- valtioissa. Tehty Brysseliss(cid:132) 26 p(cid:132)iv(cid:132)n(cid:132) toukokuuta 1999. Komission puolesta Franz FISCHLER Komission j(cid:132)sen (1) EYVL L 148, 28. 6. 1968, s. 24. (2) EYVL L 210, 28. 7. 1998, s. 17. (3) EYVL L 106, 23. 4. 1999, s. 2. (4) EYVL L 251, 5. 10. 1979, s. 12. (5) EYVL L 248, 14. 10. 1995, s. 39. L 131/34 FI Euroopan yhteis(cid:148)jen virallinen lehti 27. 5. 1999 ANEXO (cid:190) BILAG (cid:190) ANHANG (cid:190) PAQAQTGLA (cid:190) ANNEX (cid:190) ANNEXE (cid:190) ALLEGATO (cid:190) B(cid:246)LAGE (cid:190) ANEXO (cid:190) LIITE (cid:190) BILAGA Estado miembro Medlemsstat Mitgliedstaat Jq(cid:145)tor l(cid:146)kor Member State (cid:144)tat membre Stato membro Lidstaat Estado-membro J(cid:132)senvaltio Medlemsstat Productos (1) Produkter (1) Erzeugnisse (1) Pqo(cid:152)(cid:149)mta (1) Products (1) Produits (1) Prodotti (1) Producten (1) Produtos (1) Tuotteet (1) Produkter (1) Precio m(cid:146)nimo expresado en euros por tonelada Mindstepriser i EUR/ton Mindestpreise ausgedr(cid:129)ckt in EUR/Tonne Ek(cid:145)wister pyk(cid:147)seir ejvqaf(cid:149)lemer se Euq(cid:150) am(cid:145) t(cid:149)mo Minimum prices expressed in EUR per tonne Prix minimaux exprim(cid:130)s en euros par tonne Prezzi minimi espressi in euro per tonnellata Minimumprijzen uitgedrukt in euro per ton Pre(cid:135)o m(cid:146)nimo expresso em euros por tonelada V(cid:132)himm(cid:132)ishinnat euroina tonnia kohden ilmaistuna Minimipriser i euro per ton a) Carne con hueso (cid:190) Kød, ikke udbenet (cid:190) Fleisch mit Knochen (cid:190) Jq(cid:146)ata le j(cid:149)jaka (cid:190) Bone-in beef (cid:190) Viande avec os (cid:190) Carni non disossate (cid:190) Vlees met been (cid:190) Carne com osso (cid:190) Luullinen naudanliha (cid:190) K(cid:148)tt med ben FRANCE (cid:190) Quartiers avant (cid:190) Quartiers arri(cid:138)re (cid:190) (cid:190) b) Carne deshuesada (cid:190) Udbenet kød (cid:190) Fleisch ohne Knochen (cid:190) Jq(cid:146)ata wyq(cid:148)r j(cid:149)jaka (cid:190) Boneless beef (cid:190) Viande d(cid:130)soss(cid:130)e (cid:190) Carni senza osso (cid:190) Vlees zonder been (cid:190) Carne desossada (cid:190) Luuton naudanliha (cid:190) Benfritt k(cid:148)tt IRELAND (cid:190) thick flank (code INT 12) (cid:190) topside (code INT 13) (cid:190) silverside (code INT 14) (cid:190) rump (code INT 16) (cid:190) flank (code INT 18) (cid:190) fore rib (code INT 19) (cid:190) shoulder (code INT 22) (cid:190) brisket (code INT 23) (cid:190) forequarter (code INT 24) 3 350 1 480 (cid:190) 1 368 (cid:190) 3 305 (cid:190) (cid:190) (cid:190) (1) V(cid:130)anse los anexos V y VII del Reglamento (CEE) no 2456/93 de la Comisi(cid:155)n (DO L 225 de 4. 9. 1993, p. 4), cuya (cid:156)ltima modificaci(cid:155)n la constituye el Reglamento (CE) no 2812/98 (DO L 349 de 24. 12. 1998, p. 47). (1) Se bilag V og VII til Kommissionens forordning (EØF) nr. 2456/93 (EFT L 225 af 4. 9. 1993, s. 4), senest ændret ved forordning (EF) nr. 2812/98 (EFT L 349 af 24. 12. 1998, s. 47). (1) Vgl. Anh(cid:132)nge V und VII der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 2456/93 der Kommission (ABl. L 225 vom 4. 9. 1993, S. 4), zuletzt ge(cid:132)ndert durch die Verordnung (EG) Nr. 2812/98 (ABl. L 349 vom 24. 12. 1998, S. 47). (1) Bk(cid:146)pe paqaqt(cid:147)lata V jai VII tou jamomislo(cid:151) (EOJ) aqih. 2456/93 tgr Epitqop(cid:147)r (EE L 225 tgr 4. 9. 1993, s. 4), (cid:149)pyr tqopopoi(cid:147)hgje tekeuta(cid:148)a ap(cid:149) tom jamomisl(cid:149) (EJ) aqih. 2812/98 (EE L 349 tgr 24. 12. 1998, s. 47). (1) See Annexes V and VII to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2456/93 (OJ L 225, 4. 9. 1993, p. 4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2812/98 (OJ L 349, 24. 12. 1998, p. 47). (1) Voir annexes V et VII du r(cid:138)glement (CEE) no 2456/93 de la Commission (JO L 225 du 4. 9. 1993, p. 4). R(cid:138)glement modifi(cid:130) en dernier lieu par le r(cid:138)glement (CE) no 2812/98 (JO L 349 du 24. 12. 1998, p. 47). (1) Cfr. allegati V e VII del regolamento (CEE) n. 2456/93 della Commissione (GU L 225 del 4. 9. 1993, pag. 4), modificato da ultimo dal regolamento (CE) n. 2812/98 (GU L 349 del 24. 12. 1998, pag. 47). (1) Zie de b¶lagen V en VII b¶ Verordening (EEG) nr. 2456/93 van de Commissie (PB L 225 van 4. 9. 1993, blz. 4), laatstel¶k gew¶zigd b¶ Verordening (EG) nr. 2812/98 (PB L 349 van 24. 12. 1998, blz. 47). (1) Ver anexos V e VII do Regulamento (CEE) n. o 2456/93 da Comiss(cid:209)o (JO L 225 de 4. 9. 1993, p. 4). Regulamento com a (cid:156)ltima redac(cid:135)(cid:209)o que lhe foi dada pelo Regulamento (CE) n. o 2812/98 (JO L 349 de 24. 12. 1998, p. 47). (1) Katso komission asetuksen (ETY) N:o 2456/93 (EYVL L 225, 4. 9. 1993, s. 4), sellaisena kuin se on viimeksi muutettuna asetuksella (EY) N:o 2812/98 (EYVL L 349, 24. 12. 1998, s. 47) liitteet V ja VII. (1) Se bilagorna V och VII i kommissionens f(cid:148)rordning (EEG) nr 2456/93 (EGT L 225, 4. 9. 1993, s. 4), senast (cid:132)ndrad genom f(cid:148)rordning (EG) nr 2812/98 (EGT L 349, 24. 12. 1998, s. 47)


title: Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community's railways', the 'Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings', and the 'Proposal for a Council Directive relating to the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification'

eurovoc_concepts:
charges for use of infrastructure
rail transport
trade licence
transport company
transport infrastructure
transport safety

text: C 209/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 7. 1999 The Committee therefore calls on the Council to adopt the proposal as soon as possible, so that it can enter into force on 1 January 2000 [cf. Article 2(1)] as planned. Brussels, 26 May 1999. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on: — the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Community’s railways’, — the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertakings’, and — the ‘Proposal for a Council Directive relating to the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certification’ (1) (1999/C 209/07) On 19 October 1998 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 71 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposals. The Section for Transport, Energy, Infrastructure and the Information Society, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 19 May 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Decaillon. At its 364th plenary session (meeting of 26 May 1999) the Committee adopted the following opinion by 80 votes to 15, with 14 abstentions. 1. Preliminary remarks These proposals constitute a package of legislative 1. 1. measures and ideas on the use of rail infrastructure. 1. 2. They should be viewed: — in the wider context, given the special role played by transport in the matter, of the EU’s approach to growth, competitiveness and employment, sustainable develop- ment and the enlargement process. The proposals represent a step forward and will speed 1. 3. up the restructuring of Europe’s railways. — in the context of all the different texts and proposals on rail transport; The purpose of the proposals is to develop the single 1. 4. market further and provide for greater competition. — in the context of all the different texts and proposals on transport policy in general; 2. Summary of the Commission proposals — in the context of all the different texts and proposals on services of general interest; 2. 1. Amendment of Directive 91/440/EEC (1) OJ C 321, 20. 10. 1998, p. 6, 8, 10. 2. 1. 1. The proposal requires that the accounts for the management of infrastructure be kept completely separate 22. 7. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 209/23 from the accounts for the operation of railway undertakings (profit and loss accounts and balance sheets). The keeping of these accounts must reflect the fact that it is forbidden to transfer public funds between these two areas of activity. In addition, in the organization of railway undertakings, of functions which could lead to discrimination with regard to the use of access rights. the proposal requires the separation, 2. 3. Proposal for a directive replacing the provisions of Directive 95/19/EC 2. 3. 1. The directive is to apply to ‘main-line railway infrastructure used for domestic or international rail services. ’ 2. 1. 2. The terms ‘railway undertaking’ and ‘infrastructure manager’ are defined more precisely. In particular, it is specified that: a) the railway undertaking ‘must ensure traction’; b) the infrastructure manager can be any public or private body or undertaking. ‘Bodies’ or ‘undertakings’ which are independent of 2. 1. 3. transport service providers are to be given responsibility for safety rules. Infrastructure managers must be independent of the 2. 1. 4. state and enjoy managerial freedom; they must draw up their own ‘business plans’. 2. 1. 5. Separate profit and loss accounts and balance sheets must be kept for passenger and freight transport services. Public funds paid to either of these activities must be shown separately and may not be transferred from one activity to the other. 2. 1. 6. sition of the directive into national law. There is to be a one-year deadline for the transpo- 2. 3. 2. definitions and introduces new categories. It provides a number of conceptual and functional The directive defines the principles and rules govern- 2. 3. 3. ing allocation of capacity and the procedures for fixing and levying charges for the use of rail infrastructure, and specifies that the bodies responsible for allocating this capacity must be separate from integrated railway undertakings. 2. 3. 4. These principles, rules and procedures must enable the infrastructure manager to optimize the use of capacity and avoid all discrimination. 2. 3. 5. passenger accounts. The directive calls for the separation of freight and Among the principles of charging, 2. 3. 6. the directive mentions the concept of marginal social costs and the integration of external costs. 2. 3. 7. The directive delimits the role of the state and other public authorities in defining, consolidating and financing infrastructure, and in determining the principles of access and certification, safety rules, compensation systems for external costs and the scope of public service obligations. 2. 3. 8. transport services’ are to comprise. The annex to the directive stipulates what ‘rail 2. 2. Amendment of Directive 95/18/EC 2. 3. 9. to be 1 January 2000. The deadline for implementation of the directive is 2. 2. 1. Channel Tunnel shuttle services and the transport of passengers on local stand-alone networks or by tram or light rail are to be excluded from the scope of the directive. 3. General remarks on the package as a whole 2. 2. 2. Licences for railway undertakings are to be issued by a state-designated body which itself does not provide rail transport services and is independent of all bodies providing such services. The changes to the three directives (91/440, 95/18 and 3. 1. 95/19) represent a coherent package for fostering and speeding up the restructuring of Europe’s rail system. The amendments to the directive do not seek to 2. 2. 3. create new access or transit rights or alter the scope of Directive 91/440/EEC. 2. 2. 4. sition of the directive into national legislation. There is to be a one-year deadline for the transpo- 3. 2. Bearing in mind: — various studies relating to the transposition, application and effects of the three directives in the fifteen countries of the European Union (Directive 95/19/EC, for example, has only been transposed recently and even then not in all Member States), C 209/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 7. 1999 — updated facts and figures about the rail and other transport sectors in the Member States, in the EU’s partner countries (especially Norway and Switzerland) and in the countries seeking to accede to the EU in the near future, — the specific nature of the transport market, which is intermodal and can therefore only be dealt with globally; this supposes the restoration of balance and harmonization of the terms of competition between modes, especially as regards economic, social, working and safety conditions; — the rail networks’ slowness and problems in adapting to developments in transport, the Committee calls for a thorough review involving networks, transport operators, users and the social partners, which will allow the Member States to make an accurate assessment of: — the current state of railway undertakings (financial rehabili- tation, market shares, development potential, agreements, partnerships, cooperation, social conditions, bottlenecks, infrastructure projects, progress towards interoperability and multimodality, etc); — the link which should be established between the initial effects of the three directives, the situation in the rail sector in the various Member States and at Union level and the new measures proposed by the Commission; — transport’s blend of market and non-market aspects, in particular the role played by rail transport in providing services of general interest, and the major distinctions between modes with regard to the generation of external costs and transport safety; — the need to develop trans-European networks (2), to pro- mote infrastructure of Community interest and to increase rail’s share of combined transport; — the fact that by being networks the railways form a highly developed structure, which plays a decisive part in integration and in strengthening economic and social cohesion. This is true not only of the European Union but also of the candidate countries. A detailed analysis should therefore be made of the relations between enlargement and the liberalization of the railways. — the extent to which the guidelines set out in the Com- mission white paper/green papers have been applied, and their initial effect in relation to the objective of promoting a coherent and well-balanced global policy for the sustaina- ble development of the whole of the transport system. 4. 1. The method 4. Specific remarks 3. 3. Using this review as its basis, the Commission should specify very clearly the objectives, likely results and foreseeable or estimated effects (in economic, commercial, financial social, organizational and functional terms) of its new proposals. The Economic and Social Committee has pointed out 3. 4. on several occasions (1) that the restructuring, modernization and revival of rail transport, which is vital for its development and rehabilitation, is conditional on respect for a number of criteria, in particular: — the need for gradual liberalization in stages; The Economic and Social Committee calls for the 4. 1. 1. previous directives to be transposed in full by all Member States. Introducing changes prior to the transportation of these directives may well create general legal, regulatory, institutional and organizational uncertainty, which will be detrimental to the restructuring and revival of the railways and to cooperation between railway undertakings. 4. 1. 2. The extremely detailed, highly complex and often obscure nature of the very precise and binding provisions of the third proposal, for a directive on infrastructure charges, on the one hand, and the numerous questions left unanswered by the proposal’s very general objectives, scope and concepts, on the other hand, could be a source of contradiction, ambiguity and confusion and are likely to result in: — widely varying interpretations, (1) See the ESC opinions on railway licensing (OJ C 393, 31. 12. 1994), the Community’s railways (OJ C 153, the development of 28. 5. 1996, p. 16) and a strategy for revitalizing the Community’s railways (OJ C 206, 7. 7. 1997, p. 23). (2) See the ESC opinion on trans-European rail freight freeways (OJ C 95, 30. 3. 1998, p. 21). 22. 7. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 209/25 — major difficulties with regard to transposition and appli- cation, as numerous Committee opinions have pointed out (1). 4. 1. 3. As a result, the new Commission proposals are in grave danger of conflicting with the principles of progressivity, coherence and equilibrium between modes - principles which the ESC has expounded in numerous opinions (1). 4. 2. 3. As they stand at present, the Commission proposals seem to be highly prescriptive and all-embracing and resemble an attempt at unification (which is more the task of a Community regulation) rather than an attempt at harmon- ization or approximation (which is what a directive sets out to achieve). 4. 2. 4. underlined, difficulties: As most of the hearings the Commission proposals face a number of the evidence taken at 4. 2. Content a) their transposition into Member State legislation; Certain new categories and concepts proposed by 4. 2. 1. the Commission should be justified and explained in more detail so that interpretations do not differ unduly. This is one of the main points to emerge from the various hearings held by the Committee. The following are the main issues involved: — the definition, status and functions of ‘authorized appli- cants’, a matter which raises numerous questions on the part of rail operators, workers’ representatives and rail users’ representatives; — the definition and scope of ‘rail services’, which by their very nature and in accordance with the objectives set in the white paper and green papers are a highly evolutive concept, both in time and in space, and should not therefore be defined too narrowly or irreversibly; — the links between the different organizational, regulatory and operating bodies in rail transport and their precise tasks, in particular as regards the definition, implemen- tation and monitoring of safety standards; — the definition, transparency, responsibility, and monitoring of ‘compensation’ mechan- isms and justifications; allocation procedures, — the more cumbersome instruments, mechanisms, bodies, tasks and forms of organization which may be imposed by the Commission’s proposals and which would undermine the declared objectives by making the railways more complex, more opaque and more bureaucratic at Member State level and even more so at Union level. 4. 2. 2. The rules governing the allocation of train paths and the reservation procedures and charging methods proposed by the Commission should be made clearer and simpler and should more closely reflect the situation in the different rail networks and the principle of subsidiarity. b) their compatibility with — the flexibility needed to cope with the segmentation, complexity and trends in demand, the necessary revival and adaptation of various rail services, the twin commercial and public service demands facing railway undertakings, and the need to develop cooperation and partnership at European level, — the managerial independence of railway undertakings and infrastructure managers, both of whom have been given responsibilities of their own; — the structural differences between rail networks, in the light of their state and development potential and their geography (peripheral, strictly continental or transit countries); — the scope and content of the various national transport policies and the authorities determining these policies. The charging system proposed by the Commission 4. 2. 5. poses special problems. Applying marginal cost charging to the use of rail infrastructure may improve the rail market but will not in itself lead to the optimization of the transport market or other markets, especially as the Commission proposals are aimed at only a part of the infrastructure, that is the ‘main-line railway infrastructure used for domestic or international rail services’. However, the rail system is the sum of all the infrastructure, just as transport as a whole encompasses all modes. However, the imperfections of the proposed system must not provide a pretext for doing nothing and halt efforts to improve the allocation of rail infrastructure as well as road, port, waterway or even air infrastructure. (1) See the ESC opinions on fair payment for infrastructure use (OJ C 101, 12. 4. 1999) and on a strategy for revitalizing the Com- munity’s railways (OJ C 206, 7. 7. 1997, p. 23). 4. 2. 6. There are also other more practical difficulties which make the system proposed by the Commission very difficult C 209/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 7. 1999 to apply in all Member States: — marginal cost charging is a short-term instrument, which is not designed to incorporate the cost of developing infrastructure in the cost of use or to take account of investment and its funding; — rail transport has high fixed costs, but its variable costs rise relatively slowly in line with the use made of the fixed installations. The marginal cost for the use of rail infrastruc- ture is therefore relatively low, especially if there is a large stock of infrastructure. The breakdown between fixed costs and the costs involved in using infrastructure therefore varies considerably from mode to mode and creates major distortions of competition. The hearings revealed certain concerns about the 4. 2. 7. effects of the new Commission proposals, especially on the part of railway undertakings and trade unions: — the risk of the best routes being ‘creamed off’ for the new authorized applicants; — ‘distorted competition’ between commercial and public service requirements; — the risk of the role and functions of the networks being cut back to a point where only traction is provided, at a time when the function of transport organizer is growing in importance; — the fear that the separation of passenger (main-line and local) and freight accounts will automatically lead to a structural split in activities. 5. Conclusions 5. 1. The Economic and Social Committee, drawing heavily on its previous opinions, the results of its hearings and other contributions which it has received, thinks: Brussels, 26 May 1999. — that there is an urgent need to modernize, revitalize and harmonize the activities and management of rail networks by means of: • • • • the better allocation and use of existing infrastructure and the infrastructure required to build proper trans- European networks, the improvement of the railways’ position on the market and of their commercial and financial situation, greater cooperation between railway undertakings and between railway undertakings and other transport operators (waterway, road, air and sea), greater flexibility and transparency and a better service for users and shippers, • more sustainable development of transport systems (internalization of the external costs incurred by the different modes, and consolidation and development of combined transport), • more harmonization of the conditions of competition between modes, especially as regards social, working and safety conditions, — and that the Commission should: • present a prospective step-by-step assessment of the financial and social likely economic, commercial, impact of the new directives, • provide better definitions of certain proposed concepts, tasks, structures and responsibilities, and of the inter- relations between the various players involved in the railways, • • base all of its proposals more on the objective facts with regard to the railways as well as the progress made and the results obtained, simplify its charging system, its system for allocating infrastructure capacity, its management, regulatory and arbitration systems and its system for checking safety and punishing infringements. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI