2002/778/EC: Commission Decision of 9 April 2002 on the aid schemes C 74/2001 (ex NN76/2001) implemented by Belgium and which Belgium is planning to implement for the diamond industry (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 1345)
Data as of 2026-07-04 Β· Compiled from an official source version. Later amendments or repeals may not be reflected; the official text prevails. Β· Read the official text β
The aid scheme which Belgium has implemented for diamond firms, in so far as it does not comply with the conditions set out in the Commission Regulation on de minimis aid, and the aid scheme which Belgium intends to implement for diamond firms are incompatible with the common market.
Belgium shall take all necessary measures to recover from the beneficiaries the aid referred to in Article 1 and unlawfully made available to them. Recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance with the procedures of national law provided that they allow the immediate and effective execution of the Decision. The aid to be recovered shall include interest from the date on which it was at the disposal of the beneficiaries until the date of its recovery. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the reference rate used for calculating the grant equivalent of regional aid.
Belgium shall inform the Commission, within two months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium. Done at Brussels, 9 April 2002. For the Commission Mario Monti Member of the Commission (1) OJ C 363, 19.12.2001, p. 11. (2) See footnote 1. (3) Belgian Official Gazette, 1.4.1999. (4) Belgian Official Gazette, 22.6.1999, p. 23426. (5) Belgian Official Gazette, 8.12.1960. (6) As a result, the levy is also payable on exports but not on imports. (7) NB: In the Antwerp diamond trade, it is fairly standard practice for a consignment of diamonds to be sold to various brokers and dealers in succession, thus giving rise to several transactions, before a final purchaser is found. However, the levy is not charged on transactions which do not result in added value being created. (8) Business secret. (9) Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ L 10, 13.1.2002, p. 30). (10) Case C-379/98 PreussenElektra AG v Schleswag AG [2001] ECR I-2099. (11) The De Beers company has an effective monopoly. Some 40 "supervisors" sell rough diamonds in Antwerp. There are no such "supervisors" in the other Member States. (12) Case C-68/99 Commission v Germany [2001] ECR I-1865. (13) See in particular the judgment handed down on 22 March 1977 in Case 78/76 Steinike & Weinlig v Germany [1997] ECR 595. In paragraphs 21 and 22, the Court establishes the following: "The prohibition contained in Article 92(1) covers all aid granted by a Member State or through State resources without its being necessary to make a distinction whether the aid is granted directly by the State or by public or private bodies established or appointed by it to administer the aid. In applying Article 92 regard must primarily be had to the effects of the aid on the undertakings or producers favoured and not the status of the institutions entrusted with the distribution and administration of the aid. A measure adopted by the public authority and favouring certain undertakings or products does not lose the character of a gratuitous advantage by the fact that it is wholly or partially financed by contributions imposed by the public authority and levied on the undertakings concerned". (14) See footnote 9. (15) Case C-251/97 France v Commission [1999] ECR I-6639, paragraph 36. This paragraph refers to the judgments in Case 173/73 Italy v Commission [1974] ECR 709, paragraph 33, and in Case C-301/87 France v Commission [1990] ECR I-307, paragraph 41. (16) Case C-75/97 Belgium v Commission [1999] ECR I-3671, paragraph 39. (17) Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport (OJ C 205, 5.7.1997). (18) Case 730/79 Philip Morris v Commission [1980] 2671, paragraph 11, and Case T-214/95 Vlaams Gewest v Commission [1998] II-717, paragraph 50. (19) Most Belgian firms are very small as well, and there are also "medium-sized" firms in Amsterdam. (20) The Belgian authorities have not demonstrated that the medical use of diamonds is totally distinct from other segments of the diamond industry nor shown that no Belgian company operates in that segment. Even if all these conditions were met, it would still be an exception, even in Germany: Idar-Oberstein is known mainly for its precious stones industry, not for surgical instruments. (21) This figure does not take account of the different employment ratios or of the fact that a substantial part of diamond processing is done by the black economy. (22) OJ C 334, 12.12.1995, p. 4. The extension of the period of validity was published in OJ C 371, 23.12.2000, p. 12. (23) OJ C 1, 3.1.1997, p. 10. (24) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.
Source: EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the EU), Β© European Union, reuse permitted under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU.