Article 6
This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Done at Brussels, 19 June 2002. For the Commission Mario Monti Member of the Commission (1) OJ C 73, 17.3.1999, p. 10. (2) OJ C 335, 10.12.1993, p. 7 - Aid N 408/93 - SG(93) D/19245 of 26.11.1993. (3) OJ C 364, 20.12.1994, p. 7 - Aid N 480/94 - SG(94) D/14255 of 10.10.1994. (4) Aid NN 142/97 - SG(98) D/04313 of 2.6.1998. (5) Case C - 47/91 Italian Republic v Commission [1994] ECR I-4635. (6) SG(98) D/11285. (7) Loc. cit. (see footnote 1). (8) OJ C 213, 19.8.1992, p. 8. (9) According to the letter of 5 March 1999, in which Germany corrected the number of cases stated in the annual reports for 1994 and 1996. (10) I.e. up to 8.4.1998, the date on which the aid scheme in its amended version was approved. (11) A number of the firms receiving aid under the scheme are currently being examined by the Commission. (12) OJ C 373, 29.12.1994, p. 3 - Aid N 464/1993 (for the period 1994 to 1996). (13) According to the letter sent by the German authorities on 26 September 2001, only 27 firms were still operating in 2001, four of which are to be regarded as firms in difficulty and 23 as healthy. (14) This firm received aid twice under the scheme. (15) This firm was initially on the list of firms in difficulty. In its letter of 26 September 2001, Germany corrected the list and stated that Kahla was to be regarded as an economically healthy firm at the time the aid was granted. This individual case is currently the subject of proceedings under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (C 62/2000), and the present Decision is without prejudice to the decision which the Commission will take on the case. (16) See footnote 15. (17) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1. (18) Case 248/84 Germany v Commission [1987] ECR 4013, paragraph 17 et seq.; Case C-47/91 Italy v Commission [1994] ECR 1-4635, paragraph 20 et seq.; Case C-75/97 Belgium v Commission [1999] ECR 1-3671, paragraph 48; Joined Cases C-15/98 and C-105/99 Italy and Sardinia Lines v Commission [2000] ECR I-8855, paragraph 51. (19) Aid N 464/93 - SG(94)D/1551 of 4.2.1994 (OJ C 373, 29.12.1994, p. 3). (20) In any case, the application of the currently applicable rules on regional aid would not result in any more favourable assessment of the recipients than application of the rules contained in this Decision. (21) OJ C 119, 22.5.2002, p. 22. (22) OJ C 212, 12.8.1988, p. 2. (23) OJ C 31, 3.2.1979, p. 9. (24) The Commission changed this practice when in 1999 it adopted the guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (OJ C 288, 9.10.1999, p. 2) and proposed appropriate measures under Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty. Since then, any investment aid for a large firm in difficulty has had to be notified individually. (25) See page 21 of the guidelines on national regional aid. The examination relates particularly to determining the strict minimum necessary to allow the viability of the firm to be restored; in this respect, any investment aid granted under a restructuring project must be regarded as forming part of the total aid, and the aid as a whole must not exceed the strict minimum necessary for restoring viability. (26) OJ C 368, 23.12.1994, p. 2. (27) Most of which have since declared bankruptcy.