2002/806/EC: Commission Decision of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Vizcaya (Spain) (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2001) 1763)
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 State aid in the form of a reduction of the tax base, unlawfully put into effect by Spain in the Province of Vizcaya, in breach of Article 88(3) of the Treaty, through Article 26 of Norma Foral 3/1996 of 26 June 1996, is incompatible with the common market.
Spain shall abolish the aid scheme referred to in Article 1 in so far as it is continuing to produce effects.
1. Spain shall take all necessary measures to recover from the recipients the aid referred to in Article 1 which has been unlawfully made available to them. Spain shall cancel all payment of outstanding aid. 2. Recovery shall be effected without delay in accordance with the procedures of national law, provided these allow the immediate and effective execution of this Decision. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were available to the recipients until their actual recovery. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the reference rate used for calculating the grant equivalent of regional aid.
Spain shall inform the Commission, within two months of the date of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.
This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Spain. Done at Brussels, 11 July 2001. For the Commission Mario Monti Member of the Commission (1) OJ C 55, 26.2.2000, p. 2. (2) Commission Decision 1999/718/EC (OJ L 292, 13.11.1999, p. 1). (3) Commission Decision 2000/795/EC (OJ L 318, 16.12.2000, p. 36). (4) See footnote 1. (5) Boletín Oficial de Bizkaia, 11.7.1996. (6) Only the parts essential to the assessment of the aid are cited. (7) See point 3.2 of the Community guidelines on aid for SMEs (OJ C 213, 19.8.1992) and the communication by the Commission on the de minimis rule for State aid (OJ C 68, 6.3.1996). (8) Law 22/1993 of 29 December 1993 on tax measures and the reform of the legal system of the public service and unemployment protection (BOE, 31.12.1993). The measure consisted in the reduction of the corporation tax base by 95 % in the tax years 1994 to 1996 of firms set up in 1994 which invested at least ESP 15 million and created at least three, but less than twenty, jobs. (9) OJ C 384, 10.12.1998, p. 3. (10) Judgement No 718/1999 dated 30 September 1999. (11) See in this respect the judgment by the Court of Justice of the European Communities dated 26 September 1996 in Case C-241/94. (12) See opinion in Joined Cases C-400/97, C-401/97 and C-402/97. (13) See the judgements of 30 September and 7 October 1999 on the tax measures in question. (14) Commission letter to Member States dated 30.10.1985. (15) Joined Cases C-278/92, C-279/92 and C-280/92 dated 14 September, Spain v Commission, [1994] ECR I-4103. (16) The deadline was one month after the date of publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities (26 February 2000) of the call for observations. (17) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1. (18) See Case 248/84 dated 24 October 1987, Germany v. Commission [1987] ECR 4013. (19) Mr. Patxi Garrido Espinosa and Ms Victoria García Olea, "La dependencia exterior vasca en el periodo 1990-1995", Euskal Estatistika-Erakundea/Instituto Vasco de Estadística (Eustat), the statistical office of the Basque Government. (20) Exports abroad accounted for 28,5 % of total exports (including sales to the rest of Spain) in 1990, and for 40,8 % five years later in 1995. (21) "Estadística de Comercio Exterior para la Comunidad Autónoma de Euskadi en el año 1998" prepared by Eustat. (22) See Case C-75/97 (Maribel) Belgium v Commission, paragraphs 48 and 51 (17 June 1999); Case T-298/97 Alzetta Mauro and others v Commission, paragraphs 80 to 82 (15 June 2000); the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo in Case C-310/99 Italy v Commission, paragraphs 54 and 55 (17 May 2001); and the Opinion of Advocate General Saggio in Case C-156/98 Germany v Commission, paragraph 31 (27 January 2000), which ran thus: "It should be pointed out in this respect that, with regard to a general aid scheme, to be able to determine the effect of that scheme on trade, it is sufficient if, from an ex ante assessment, it can reasonably be considered that the said effect may come about." If the position of a firm (or, as in the present case, an indefinite number of firms) is reinforced by an aid scheme, this privilege may in principle affect competition between Member States. (23) Companies in Europe, fifth report, Eurostat. (24) Taken from the data in the table on p. 31 of the report. (25) Taken from the data in the table on p. 224 of the report. (26) Taken from the data in the table on p. 73 of the report. (27) See Case C-78/76 dated 22 March 1977, Steinike & Weinlig v Federal Republic of Germany, paragraph 24. On the other hand, Case C-313/90 dated 24 March 1993, Comité International de la rayonne et des fibres synthétiques and others v Commission, paragraph 45, states that "neither the principle of equal treatment nor that of the protection of legitimate expectations may be relied upon in order to justify the repetition of an incorrect interpretation of a measure". (28) See the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo in the abovementioned Case C-6/97. (29) Article 31 of the Spanish Constitution. (30) The result of the assessment of the aid is the same, whether that assessment is based on the Commission notice on the de minimis rule for State aid (OJ C 68, 6.3.1996) or on Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to de minimis aid (OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 30). (31) Joined Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96 dated 15 December 1999, Freistaat Sachsen and others v. Commission [1999] ECR II-3663. (32) OJ L 134, 3.6.1993, p. 25. (33) Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics. (34) Per capita gross domestic product (GDP) measured in purchasing power standards (PPS). (35) The references to the regional rules are confined, in the following recitals, to the Guidelines on national regional aid (98/C 74/06). In any event, the result of the assessment would be the same if the analysis were based on the earlier rules. See point 3.5 of the Guidelines on national regional aid (98/C 74/06). (36) See 96/C 25/03. (37) It is not in the list of outermost regions in Article 299 of the Treaty. (38) According to point 3.14 of the Guidelines on national regional aid (98/C 74/06). (39) For the sectoral rules currently in force see, in addition to the Official Journal of the European Communities, the website of the Directorate-General for Competition: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/state_aid/legislation/ (40) Commission letter to Member States of 29.3.1977. See also Case 142/87 dated 21 March 1990, Belgium v. Commission [1990] ECR I-950.
Source: EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the EU), © European Union, reuse permitted under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU.