My bookmarksSign up free
Source

2012/26/EU: Commission Decision of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08)) (notified under document C(2011) 4483) Text with EEA relevance

2012/26/EU: Commission Decision of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08)) (notified under document C(2011) 4483) Text with EEA relevance

Decision · 13 articles

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 ↗

Article 1

Open ↗

1.   The status of publicly owned industrial and commercial establishment granted by France to IFP conferred on IFP, from 7 July 2006 onward, an unlimited public guarantee (‘the State guarantee’) covering the totality of its activities. 2.   The cover provided by the State guarantee for the non-economic activities of the publicly owned establishment IFP, in particular its training activities with a view to increased, better qualified human resources, its independent R&D activities with a view to more extensive knowledge and better understanding, and its activities for the dissemination of research results, does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. 3.   The cover provided by the State guarantee for the technology transfer activities carried out by the publicly owned establishment IFP in the fields provided for by the exclusive development, marketing and use agreement concluded with its subsidiary Beicip-Franlab does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. 4.   The cover provided by the State guarantee for the technology transfer activities carried out by the publicly owned establishment IFP in the fields provided for by the exclusive agreements concluded with its subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat referred to in Article 3(1) of the Commission decision of 16 July 2008 on the aid measure implemented by France for the IFP group (‘decision C 51/2005’) constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. 5.   The cover provided by the State guarantee for the contract research and other services performed by the publicly owned establishment IFP, on behalf of both third parties and the subsidiaries, constitutes State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU.

Article 2

Open ↗

In the event of any amendment of the agreement between the publicly owned establishment IFP and its subsidiary Beicip-Franlab referred to in Article 1(3), France shall notify the agreement to the Commission, taking account of any impact of the State guarantee in order to assess the total amount of any public funding, unless the new contractual terms allow the presence of State aid to be ruled out.

Article 3

Open ↗

In the period between 7 July 2006 and 31 December 2009, the cover provided by the State guarantee for the economic activities referred to in Article 1(4) and (5) constituted aid compatible with the internal market.

Article 4

Open ↗

From 1 January 2010 onward, and until the date of expiry of the exclusive agreements between the publicly owned establishment IFP and its subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat referred to in Article 3(1) of decision C 51/2005, the cover provided by the State guarantee for the economic activities referred to in Article 1(4) of this decision constitutes aid compatible with the internal market, subject to compliance with the conditions in Articles 5 and 6 of this decision.

Article 5

Open ↗

1.   The annual financial report referred to in Article 4(2) of decision C 51/2005 shall include, in addition to the information already mentioned in Article 5(1) of that decision, the information listed in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article. 2.   The annual financial report shall include the value, interest rate and contractual terms of the loans subscribed to by the publicly owned establishment IFP during the year under review, and an estimate of the gross grant equivalent of any interest rate subsidy deriving from the State guarantee, unless proof is supplied that these loan contracts are in accordance with normal market conditions, either by comparing their terms with those obtained by the publicly owned establishment IFP before its change of legal form, or on the basis of a more precise methodology approved in advance by the Commission. 3.   The annual financial report shall include the value of goods and services obtained by the publicly owned establishment IFP from suppliers to carry out the economic activities referred to in Article 1(4) and (5), during the year under review, and a maximum estimate of the gross grant equivalent of the aid resulting from a more favourable assessment by suppliers of the risk of default of the establishment. This estimate shall be made either by applying a flat rate of 2,5 % to the value of acquisitions made, or on the basis of a more precise methodology approved in advance by the Commission. 4.   The annual financial report shall include the value of the economic activities referred to in Article 1(4) and (5) carried out by the publicly owned establishment IFP during the year under review, and a maximum estimate of the gross grant equivalent of the aid resulting from the lack of payment of a premium corresponding to a performance bond or, at the very least a best efforts guarantee, offered to the beneficiaries of the above-mentioned economic services. This estimate shall be made either by applying a flat rate of 5 % to the value of the services provided or on the basis of a more precise methodology approved in advance by the Commission.

Article 6

Open ↗

1.   The total amount of public funding allocated to the activities of the publicly owned establishment IFP in the exclusive fields of activity of Axens and Prosernat, including the maximum impact of the State guarantee as estimated in Article 5(2), (3) and (4), must be lower than the maximum intensity permitted by the Community framework for State aid for research and development and innovation. 2.   If the threshold referred to in paragraph 1 is exceeded, the surplus aid shall, where appropriate, be refunded by the subsidiary concerned, Axens or Prosernat, to the publicly owned establishment IFP.

Article 7

Open ↗

From 1 January 2010, the cover provided by the State guarantee for the economic activities referred to in Article 1(5) constitutes State aid which is compatible with the internal market, subject to compliance with the conditions in Article 8.

Article 8

Open ↗

1.   The contract research activities and the provision of services carried out by the publicly owned establishment IFP referred to in Article 1(5) shall remain ancillary to its principal activity of independent public research. 2.   To be considered ancillary, the contract research activities and the provision of services by the publicly owned establishment IFP must: — not prejudice the normal functioning, independence and neutrality of the publicly owned establishment IFP; — be charged for at a market price, or in the absence of a market price, at a price which reflects the totality of the costs, plus a reasonable margin, net of the potential impact of the State guarantee; — be the subject of accounting separate from that of the independent public research activities (accounting separation of their respective costs and funding), and the profits they generate must be reinvested in full in the principal activity of independent public research; — be intrinsically linked to the principal activity of independent public research of the publicly owned establishment IFP by reason in particular of the use of the same infrastructures, equipment, materials or technologies, or the use of the same researchers, scientists, engineers, designers or technicians; — be outside the scope of the exclusive agreements concluded between the publicly owned establishment IFP and its subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat referred to in Article 3(1) of decision C 51/2005, where appropriate extended or amended in accordance with Article 3(2) of decision C 51/2005 and Article 12(2) of the present decision; — represent only a residual proportion of the budget devoted by the publicly owned establishment IFP to its independent public research activities. 3.   France shall submit each year to the Commission a report on the contract research activities and provision of services carried out by the publicly owned establishment IFP which specifies the ratio of their value to the budget devoted by the publicly owned establishment IFP to its independent public research activities.

Article 9

Open ↗

1.   The French authorities and the publicly owned establishment IFP shall include the following written statement in the financing contract for each transaction (for all instruments covered by a contract): ‘The issue/programme/loan does not enjoy any form of direct or indirect State guarantee. In the event of insolvency, the State would not be obliged to act as financial substitute for the publicly owned establishment IFP for payment of the claim.’ 2.   The French authorities shall have a similar clause, ruling out State liability, included in any contract relating to contract research services or other services referred to in Article 1(5). 3.   The French authorities shall have a similar clause, ruling out liability of the publicly owned establishment IFP and the State, included in any contract involving a claim concluded by the public limited companies Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat. 4.   The publicly owned establishment IFP shall refrain from issuing any form of suretyship, endorsement, guarantee, or letter of intent or comfort in favour of the public limited companies Axens, Beicip-Franlab and Prosernat which does not comply with normal market terms.

Article 10

Open ↗

France shall notify individually to the Commission any aid of an amount in excess of the thresholds laid down in the Community framework for State aid for research and development and innovation, taking account of any impact of the State guarantee.

Article 11

Open ↗

France shall inform the Commission, within two months from the date of notification of this decision, of the measures it has taken to comply herewith.

Article 12

Open ↗

1.   Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the present decision shall apply until the date of expiry of the exclusive agreements referred to in Article 3(1) of decision C 51/2005 between the publicly owned establishment IFP and its subsidiaries Axens and Prosernat. 2.   Where they notify the Commission of an extension of, or amendment to, the above-mentioned exclusive agreements, in accordance with Article 3(2) of decision C 51/2005, the French authorities shall take account of the impact of the State guarantee in order to assess the total amount of public funding.

Other acts of the same type
Council Decision (CFSP) 2016/119 of 28 January 2016 amending Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in TunisiaCommission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/120 of 28 January 2016 on the identification of the extensible Business Reporting Language 2.1 for referencing in public procurement (Text with EEA relevance)Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/107 of 27 January 2016 not approving cybutryne as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products for product-type 21 (Text with EEA relevance)Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/108 of 27 January 2016 not approving 2-Butanone, peroxide as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products for product-types 1 and 2 (Text with EEA relevance)Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/109 of 27 January 2016 not to approve PHMB (1600; 1.8) as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products for product-types 1, 6 and 9 (Text with EEA relevance)Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/110 of 27 January 2016 not approving triclosan as an existing active substance for use in biocidal products for product-type 1 (Text with EEA relevance)Decision of the General Court of 27 January 2016 on judicial vacationsCommission Decision of 26 January 2016 amending the Annex to the Monetary Agreement between the European Union and the Principality of AndorraCouncil Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2016/78 of 22 January 2016 implementing Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against IranCommission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/87 of 22 January 2016 on the withdrawal from the market of existing products derived from MON 863 (MON-ØØ863-5) and repealing Decisions 2010/139/EU, 2010/140/EU, 2010/141/EU authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of, or produced from genetically modified maize MON863×MON810×NK603 (MON-ØØ863-5×MON-ØØ81Ø-6×MON-ØØ6Ø3-6), MON863×MON810 (MON-ØØ863-5×MON-ØØ81Ø-6) and MON863×NK603 (MON-ØØ863-5×MON-ØØ6Ø3-6) pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (notified under document C(2016) 204) (Text with EEA relevance)Commission Decision (EU) 2016/634 of 21 January 2016 on aid measure SA.25338 (2014/C) (ex E 3/2008 and ex CP 115/2004) implemented by the Netherlands — Corporate tax exemption for public undertakings (notified under document C(2016) 167) (Only the Dutch text is authentic)Text with EEA relevancePolitical and Security Committee Decision (CFSP) 2016/118 of 20 January 2016 concerning the implementation by EUNAVFOR MED operation SOPHIA of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2240 (2015) (EUNAVFOR MED operation SOPHIA/1/2016)

Source: EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the EU), © European Union, reuse permitted under Commission Decision 2011/833/EU.

Contents

What to look at next