1999/274/EC: Commission Decision of 22 July 1998 on the misuse of restructuring aid for MTW-Schiffswerft and Volkswerft Stralsund, two companies formerly belonging to Bremer Vulkan Verbund, and the unauthorised provision of an investment loan of DEM 112,4 million to MTW- Schiffswerft (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(1998) 2405)

• Articles: 5

Article 1

The aid which was granted to MTW-Schiffswerft GmbH, Wismar, and Volkswerft GmbH, Stralsund, for their restructuring was disbursed without being notified fully to the Commission in advance. It was therefore granted unlawfully in infringement of Article 11 of Directive 90/684/EEC and Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty. Including interest accruing up until the end of 1995, the two companies received approximately DEM 327 million more in the way of aid than had been authorised by the Commission. The granting of this additional amount of DEM 327 million infringes Articles 6 and 10a of Directive 90/684/EEC. This aid amount is accordingly incompatible with the common market.

Article 2

The aid referred to in Article l and part of the aid which was authorised by the Commission for the restructuring of the two yards was misused elsewhere in the Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG group. On the basis of the analyses submitted by Germany, the-total amount of funds thus misused may be put at DEM 788,7 million. This misuse constitutes a misuse of aid within the meaning of Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty.

Article 3

Germany shall recover the misused aid from Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG as part of the insolvency proceedings concerning that company and shall take all steps required by German law to recover any partial amounts from companies previously belonging to the Bremer Vulkan group should suitable opportunities arise in the course of subsequent inquiries. In the recovery of the aid according to the procedures and rules under German law, accrued interest is to be taken into account.

Article 4

The German Government shall inform the Commission within one month from the date of notification of this Decision of the measures taken to comply therewith and of their outcome.

Article 5

This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.

Done at Brussels, 22 July 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ C 150, 24.5.1996, p. 2.

(2) OJ C 65, 1.3.1997, p. 17.

(3) Case N 692/B/91 (MTW).

(4) Case N 692/F/91 (VWS).

(5) Case N 692/I/91 (MTW).

(6) Case N 84/95 (VWS).

(7) Case N 572/95 (MTW).

(8) Case N 801/95 (VWS).

(9) OJ L 219, 4.8.1992, p. 54.

(10) OJ L 380, 31.12.1990, p. 27.

(11) Case N 207/96. This payment of the balance took place at the end of the reflection period following the hiving-off of MTW from BVV.

(12) See Section II(5) for an explanation of how the system worked.

(13) According to the auditor's report, some further transactions took place up until 21 February 1996, so the balance in favour of the eastern yards on that date was DEM 846,1 million.

(14) As a result of a series of transactions and interest accrued before BVV became insolvent, the total amount of claims by the two yards on BVV increased to DEM 868,9 million (including DEM 596,9 million for MTW and DEM 272,0 million for Volkswerft).

(15) Letter from Germany to the Commission dated 6 February 1997.

(16) The judicial inquiries did not reveal anything new in this respect. It must be assumed at present that, within the group also, the eastern yards' funds were not kept separate; see judgment of the Bremen Regional Court of 8 October 1997, Case No 4-O-1073/96.

(17) The shipping company DSR-Senator Lines did not belong to VSV and did not participate in the cash concentration system, being an "associated company" within the shipbuilding division.

(18) The former category included, for example, STN Atlas Elektronik GmbH, Flender Werft AG and MTW-Schiffswerft GmbH, while the latter category included Dörries Scharmann AG, Dieselmotorenwerk Vulkan GmbH and Schichau-Seebeckwerft AG.

(19) Letter from Germany dated 17 July 1997.

(20) OJ C 153, 22.5.1997, p. 3.

(21) See footnote 2.

(22) OJ L 148, 6.6.1997, p. 1.

(23) Case C 60/96, see OJ C 344, 14.11.1997, p. 2.

(24) Such obligations existed above all in respect of businesses in the new Länder which had been taken over by the Treuhandanstalt.