2002/892/EC: Commission Decision of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Álava (notified under document number C(2001) 1760) (Text with EEA relevance)

• Articles: 6

Article 1

The State aid in the form of a reduction in the tax base, unlawfully put into effect by Spain in the Province of Álava, in breach of Article 88(3) of the Treaty, through Article 26 of Provincial Law No 24/1996 of 5 July 1996, is incompatible with the common market.

Article 2

Spain shall abolish the aid scheme referred to in Article 1 in so far as it is continuing to produce effects.

Article 3

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 implementation 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.

Article 4

Spain shall inform the Commission, within two months of the date of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it.

Article 5

This Decision does not relate to the aid granted under the scheme in question to Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing España SA and to Ramondín SA and Ramondín Cápsulas SA.

Article 6

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 del Territorio Histórico de Álava, of 5 Aril 2000.

(6) Territorio Histórico de Álava: Norma Foral 24/1996 del Impuesto sobre Sociedades of 5 July 1996.

(7) Boletín Oficial del Territorio Histórico de Álava, of 9 August 1996.

(8) See in this connection Commission Decision 1999/718/EC concerning State aid granted by Spain to Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing España SA (Demesa).

(9) See point 3.2 of the Community guidelines on aid for SMEs (OJ C 213, 19.8.1992) and the Commission notice on the de minimis rule for State aid (OJ C 68, 6.3.1996).

(10) 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 a reduction of the corporation tax base by 95 % in the tax years 1994 to 1996 for firms set up in 1994 which invested at least ESP 15 million and created at least three but less than twenty jobs.

(11) OJ C 384, 10.12.1998, p. 3.

(12) Judgment No 718/1999 of 30 September 1999.

(13) See in this respect the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case C-241/94 France v Commission [1996] ECR I-4551.

(14) See the judgments of 30 September and 7 October 1999 on the tax measures in question.

(15) Commission letter to Member States (SG(89) D/5521) of 27 April 1989.

(16) Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Joined Cases C-278/92, C-279/92 and C-280/92 Spain v Commission [1994] ECR I-4103.

(17) The deadline for submitting comments was one month from the date of publication of the notice in the Official Journal of the European Communities, i.e. 26 February 2000.

(18) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

(19) Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 248/84 Germany v Commission [1994] ECR 4013.

(20) Paxti Garrido Espinosa and 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.

(21) 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.

(22) Estadística de Comercio Exterior para la Comunidad Autónoma de Euskadi en el año 1998, prepared by EUSTAT.

(23) Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 17 June 1999 in Case C-75/97 (Maribel) Belgium v Commission, paragraphs 48 and 51; Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2002 in Case T-298/97 Alzetta Mauro and others v Commission, paragraphs 80 to 82; the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo of 17 May 2001 in Case C-310/99 Italy v Commission, paragraphs 54 and 55; and the Opinion of Advocate General Saggio of 27 January 2000 in Case C-156/98 Germany v Commission, paragraph 31, 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."

(24) Enterprises in Europe. Fifth report, Eurostat.

(25) Taken from the data in the table on p. 31 of the report.

(26) Taken from the data in the table on p. 224 of the report.

(27) Taken from the data in the table on p. 73 of the report.

(28) Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 22 March 1977 in Case C-78/76 Steinike & Weinlig v Federal Republic of Germany, paragraph 24. On the other hand, Judgment of 24 March 1993 in Case C-313/90 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.

(29) See paragraph 27 of the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo in Case C-6/97.

(30) Article 31 of the Spanish Constitution.

(31) 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, p. 9) 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).

(32) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 Decembre 1999 in Joined Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96 Freistaat Sachsen and others v Commission [1999] ECR II-3663, paragraph 300.

(33) OJ L 134, 3.6.1993, p. 25.

(34) Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics.

(35) Per capita gross domestic product (GDP) measured in purchasing power standards (PPS).

(36) The references to the regional rules are confined 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).

(37) OJ C 25, 31.1.1996, p. 3.

(38) It is not in the list of outermost regions in Article 299 of the Treaty.

(39) According to point 3.10.4 of the guidelines on national regional aid (98/C 74/06).

(40) 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/.

(41) Commission letter to Member States of 4 March 1991 (SG(91)D/4577). See also Judgment of the Court of Justice of 21 March 1990 in Case 142/87 Belgium v Commission [1990] ECR I-950.

(42) Commission Decisions 1999/718/EC (OJ L 292, 13.11.1999, p. 1) and 2000/795/EC (OJ L 318, 16.12.2000, p. 36).