2002/893/EC: Commission Decision of 11 July 2001 on the State aid scheme applied by Spain to certain newly established firms in Navarre (Spain) (notified under document number C(2001) 1762) (Text with EEA relevance)
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 State aid in the form of a reduction of tax liability, unlawfully put into effect by Spain in the Autonomous Community of Navarre, in breach of Article 88(3) of the Treaty, through Articles 52 to 56 of Provincial Law 24/1996 of 30 December, is incompatible with the common market.
Spain shall abolish the aid scheme referred to in Article 1, since 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 340, 27.11.1999, p. 52. (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) Published in the Diario Oficial de Navarra NΒ° 51, 25.4.2001. (6) Provincial Law 24/1996, BoletΓn Oficial de Navarra NΒ° 159, 31.12.1996. (7) BoletΓn Oficial de Navarra No 159, 31.12.1996. (8) Only the parts essential to the assessment of the aid are cited. (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) Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in Case 248/84, Germany v Commission, [1987] ECR 4013. (11) Navarre's single programming document for Objective 2, 2000 to 2006. (12) Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 19 September 2002 in Case C-156/98, Federal Republic of Germany v Commission, paragraph 32: "As regards the effects of the provision in question on trade between Member States, the Court has consistently held that the relatively small amount of aid or the relatively small size of the undertaking which receives it does not as such exclude the possibility that intra-Community trade might be affected". See also the judgments rendered by the Court of Justice on 21 March 1990 in Case C-142/87, Belgium v Commission ("Tubemeuse"), [1990] ECR I-959, paragraph 43 and on 14 September 1994 in Joined Cases C-278/92 to C-280/92, Spain v Commission, [1992] ECR I-4103, paragraphs 40 to 42. (13) See the the judgment by of Court of Justice dated 24 March 1993 in Case C-313/90, ComitΓ© international de la Rayonne et des Fibres synthΓ©tiques and others v Commission, [1993] ECR I-1125, paragraph 45. (14) See Case C-75/97, Belgium v Commission ("Maribel"), paragraphs 48 and 51, judgment of the Court of Justice of 17 June 1999; Case T-298/97, Alzetta Mauro and others v Commission, paragraphs 80 to 82, judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2000; 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. (15) Enterprises in Europe, Fifth Report, EUROSTAT. (16) Taken from the data in the table on page 31 of the report. (17) Taken from the data in the table on page 224 of the report. (18) Taken from the data in the table on page 73 of the report. (19) See paragraph 27 of the Opinion of Advocate General Ruiz-Jarabo in Case C-6/97. (20) Article 31 of the Spanish Constitution. (21) 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, S.30). (22) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1. (23) Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96, Freistaat Sachsen and others v Commission, [1999] ECR II-3663, paragraph 300. (24) Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics. (25) Per capita gross domestic product (GDP) measured in purchasing power standards (PPS). (26) 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). (27) OJ C 25, 31.1.1996, p. 3. (28) It is not in the list of outermost regions in Article 299 of the Treaty. (29) According to point 3.14 of the guidelines on national regional aid (98/C 74/06). (30) 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/. (31) Commission letter to Member States SG(91)D/4577 of 4 March 1991. See also Case 142/87 of 21 March 1990, Belgium v Commission [1990] ECR I-950.
Source: EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the EU), Β© European Union, reuse permitted under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU.