92/266/EEC: Commission Decision of 27 November 1991 on the conversion activities of French public industrial groups outside the steel and coal industries and excluding the Compagnie Générale Maritime, pursuant to Articles 92 to 94 of the EEC Treaty (Only the French text is authentic)
Data as of 2026-07-04 · Compiled from an official source version. Later amendments or repeals may not be reflected; the official text prevails. · Read the official text ↗
The conversion activities concerned by this Decision and untertaken by: - Electricité de France (Délégation aux implantations industrielles and Safidi), - Elf-Aquitaine (BDE and Sofrea), - Thomson (Geris), - Péchiney (Sofipe), - Rhône-Poulenc (Sopran), - Entreprise Minière et Chimique (Sidiv), up to and including 1990, do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 92 (1) of the Treaty.
The French authorities shall notify the Commission, before its adoption, of the annual budget earmarked for conversion activities by each of the groups listed in Article 1. They shall also furnish the Commission with an annual report on the conversion activities of the groups in question and on those of private groups. The report shall have to reach the Commission no later than 31 March of each year and cover the activities of the preceding year. The section of the report concerning the groups listed in Article 1 shall be drawn up in accordance with the layout given in the Annex to this Decision.
The French Government shall inform the Commission no later than two months from the date of this Decision of the internal measures it has taken to comply with Article 2 of this Decision.
This Decision is addressed to the French Republic. Done at Brussels, 27 November 1991. For the Commission Leon BRITTAN Vice-President (1) Decision not published in the Official Journal. (2) Commission Decision 85/18/EEC (OJ No L 11, 12. 1. 1985), as amended and supplemented on several occasions, most recently on 28 March and 4 April 1990 (Decision not published). (3) Unpublished Decision, communicated to Member States by letter of 28 February 1985. (4) OJ No C 105, 20. 4. 1991, p. 5. (5) The plan has since apparently been dropped.
REPORT ON YEAR n FOR SUBMISSION TO THE COMMISSION BY 31 MARCH OF YEAR n + 1 GROUP . . . . . . (1) A. Degree of State control (2) 1. Were the conversion activities ordered by the State? 2. Do the statutory bodies of the conversion companies include members appointed by the State? (3) 3. Are there any specific monitoring bodies (State controller, government commissioner)? (4) 4. Do the planning contracts concluded between the State and the groups provide for conversion activities? 5. Has the conversion been used for conversion operations outside the company group? (5) 6. Has the State exercised control over the company by any other means? (6) B. State resources 1. Capital contributions or other resources granted for year n by the State to the group. (7) 2. Was part of the amount in B.1 specifically earmarked for conversion? (8) 3. Has the group received a specific 'conversion' contribution? (9) 4. Ratio of conversion expenditure to self-financing capacity of the group. C. Conversion operations 1. Nature of conversion activities undertaken. (10) 2. Resources allocated to conversion. (11) 3. Grant equivalent of those resources. (12) 4. Past and expected future job losses at the sites. (13) Footnotes (1) Complete one form per group. (2) The term 'State' has the meaning given in the case-law of the Court concerning Articles 92 to 94 of the EEC Treaty. (3) If the answer is in the affirmative, state their absolute and relative number and their role. (4) Cf. (3). (5) If the answer is in the affirmative, state which ones and under what conditions. (6) For example, seconding of staff, etc. (7) Means total resources allocated to the group and not those relating to conversion. (8) Answer yes if contracts between the State and the group, Parliamentary debates or other sources indicate that overall amounts granted comprise an amount specifically intended for conversion. State the amount. (9) Answer yes if amounts not included in point B.1 (footnote (7)) were granted to the group for conversion activities. (10) This should include a description of the type of measure (loan, direct grant, etc.) and the terms. (11) Indicate the resources intended for conversion in year n and total expenditure since the conversion operation started (give date) up to year n inclusive. (12) Resources should be converted into grant equivalent. The aggregate total defined in footnote (11) should also be given. (13) It is necessary to distinguish between: - job losses offset through transfers within the group, and - job losses which have given rise to social measures (e. g. early retirement). The aggregate total (see footnote (11)) should also be given.
Source: EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the EU), © European Union, reuse permitted under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU.