title: Regolamento (CE) n. 827/1999 della Commissione, del 21 aprile 1999, che stabilisce in che misura possono essere accolte le domande di titoli di importazione presentate nel mese di aprile 1999 per i contingenti tariffari supplementari di carni bovine previsti dal regolamento (CE) n. 1279/98 per la Repubblica di Polonia, la Repubblica di Ungheria, la Repubblica ceca, la Slovacchia, la Bulgaria e la Romania

eurovoc_concepts:
Central and Eastern Europe
beef
import licence
quantitative restriction
tariff quota

text: L 105/8 IT Gazzetta ufficiale delle Comunit(cid:133) europee 22. 4. 1999 REGOLAMENTO (CE) N. 827/1999 DELLA COMMISSIONE del 21 aprile 1999 che stabilisce in che misura possono essere accolte le domande di titoli di importazione presentate nel mese di aprile 1999 per i contingenti tariffari supplementari di carni bovine previsti dal regolamento (CE) n. 1279/98 per la Repubblica di Polonia, la Repubblica di Ungheria, la Repubblica ceca, la Slovac- chia, la Bulgaria e la Romania LA COMMISSIONE DELLE COMUNIT(cid:211) EUROPEE, visto il trattato che istituisce la Comunit(cid:133) europea, visto il regolamento (CE) n. 1279/98 della Commissione, del 19 giugno 1998, che stabilisce le modalit(cid:133) di applica- zione relative ai contingenti tariffari di carni bovine previsti dal regolamento (CE) n. 3066/95 del Consiglio per la Repubblica di Polonia, la Repubblica d’Ungheria, la la e Repubblica Romania (1), in particolare l’articolo 4, paragrafo 4, la Bulgaria Slovacchia, ceca, la considerando che agli articoli 1 e 2 del regolamento (CE) n. 1279/98 sono state fissate le quantit(cid:133) di carni bovine fresche, refrigerate o congelate, originarie della Polonia, dell’Ungheria, della Repubblica ceca, della Slovacchia, della Bulgaria e della Romania, nonch(cid:130) per la Polonia, la quantit(cid:133) equivalente di carne, espressa in peso di prodotti trasformati che possono essere importati a condizioni speciali nel periodo dal 1o aprile al 30 giugno 1999; che (cid:138) possibile soddisfare integralmente le domande di titoli di importazione di carni bovine fresche, refrigerate o conge- late originarie dell’Ungheria e della Repubblica ceca; che, le quantit(cid:133) indicate nelle domande di carni tuttavia, bovine originarie della Polonia e di prodotti trasformati originari della Polonia devono essere ridotte proporzional- mente, a norma dell’articolo 4, paragrafo 4, dello stesso regolamento; che non sono stati chiesti titoli d’importa- zione per le carni bovine originarie della Slovacchia, della Romania e della Bulgaria, HA ADOTTATO IL PRESENTE REGOLAMENTO: Articolo 1 Le domande di titoli di importazione presentate per il periodo dal 1o aprile al 30 giugno 1999 nel quadro dei contingenti previsti dal regolamento (CE) n. 1279/98 sono soddisfatte nella seguente misura: a) il 100 % dei quantitativi richiesti per i prodotti di cui ai codici NC 0201 e 0202, originari dell’Ungheria e della Repubblica ceca; b) 2,307 % dei quantitativi richiesti dei prodotti di cui ai codici NC 0201, 0202, 1602 50 31 e 1602 50 39 origi- nari della Polonia. Articolo 2 Il presente regolamento entra in vigore il 22 aprile 1999. Il presente regolamento (cid:138) obbligatorio in tutti i suoi elementi e direttamente applicabile in ciascuno degli Stati membri. Fatto a Bruxelles, il 21 aprile 1999. Per la Commissione Franz FISCHLER Membro della Commissione (1) GU L 176 del 20. 6. 1998, pag. 12


title: Regulamento (CE) n° 833/1999 da Comissão, de 21 de Abril de 1999, que fixa as restituições à exportação no sector da carne de suíno

eurovoc_concepts:
export refund
pigmeat
third country

formats: pdf print

text: L 105/26 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias 22. 4. 1999 REGULAMENTO (CE) N. o 833/1999 DA COMISS(cid:212)O de 21 de Abril de 1999 que fixa as restitui(cid:135)(cid:210)es (cid:133) exporta(cid:135)(cid:209)o no sector da carne de su(cid:146)no A COMISS(cid:212)O DAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEIAS, Tendo em conta o Tratado que institui a Comunidade Europeia, Tendo em conta o Regulamento (CEE) n. o 2759/75 do Conselho, de 29 de Outubro de 1975, que estabelece uma organiza(cid:135)(cid:209)o comum de mercado no sector da carne de su(cid:146)no (1), com a (cid:156)ltima redac(cid:135)(cid:209)o que lhe foi dada pelo Acto de Ades(cid:209)o da (cid:214)ustria, da Finl(cid:131)ndia e da Su(cid:130)cia e pelo Regulamento (CE) n. o 3290/94 (2), e, nomeadamente, o n. o 3, segundo par(cid:145)grafo, do seu artigo 13. o, Considerando que, nos termos do artigo 13. o do Regula- mento (CEE) n. o 2759/75, a diferen(cid:135)a entre os pre(cid:135)os dos produtos referidos no n. o 1 do artigo 1. o daquele regula- mento, no mercado mundial e na Comunidade, pode ser coberta por uma restitui(cid:135)(cid:209)o (cid:133) exporta(cid:135)(cid:209)o; Considerando que a aplica(cid:135)(cid:209)o destas regras e crit(cid:130)rios (cid:133) situa(cid:135)(cid:209)o actual dos mercados no sector da carne de su(cid:146)no implica a fixa(cid:135)(cid:209)o da restitui(cid:135)(cid:209)o do modo que se segue; Considerando que em rela(cid:135)(cid:209)o aos produtos do c(cid:155)digo NC 0210 19 81 (cid:130) conveniente fixar a restitui(cid:135)(cid:209)o a um n(cid:146)vel que tenha em conta, por um lado, as caracter(cid:146)sticas quali- tativas dos produtos deste c(cid:155)digo e, por outro, a evolu(cid:135)(cid:209)o previs(cid:146)vel dos custos de produ(cid:135)(cid:209)o no mercado mundial; que (cid:130) conveniente, no entanto, assegurar a manuten(cid:135)(cid:209)o da participa(cid:135)(cid:209)o da Comunidade no com(cid:130)rcio internacional em rela(cid:135)(cid:209)o a determinados produtos t(cid:146)picos italianos do c(cid:155)digo NC 0210 19 81; Considerando que, devido (cid:133)s condi(cid:135)(cid:210)es de concorr(cid:136)ncia existentes em determinados pa(cid:146)ses terceiros que s(cid:209)o tradi- cionalmente os importantes dos importadores mais produtos do c(cid:155)digo NC 1601 00 e do c(cid:155)digo NC 1602, (cid:130) conveniente prever, em rela(cid:135)(cid:209)o a estes produtos, um montante que tenha em conta esta situa(cid:135)(cid:209)o; que (cid:130) conve- niente, no entanto, assegurar que a restitui(cid:135)(cid:209)o s(cid:155) seja concedida sobre o peso l(cid:146)quido das mat(cid:130)rias comest(cid:146)veis, excluindo-se o peso dos ossos eventualmente contidos nestes preparados; Considerando que, por for(cid:135)a do artigo 3. o do Regulamento (CEE) n. o 2759/75, a situa(cid:135)(cid:209)o do mercado mundial ou as exig(cid:136)ncias espec(cid:146)ficas de certos mercados podem tornar necess(cid:145)ria a diferencia(cid:135)(cid:209)o da restitui(cid:135)(cid:209)o aos produtos enumerados no artigo 1. o do Regulamento (CEE) n. o 2759/ /75 segundo o seu destino; Considerando que (cid:130) conveniente fixar as restitui(cid:135)(cid:210)es, tendo em conta as altera(cid:135)(cid:210)es da nomenclatura para as restitui(cid:135)(cid:210)es, estabelecida pelo Regulamento (CEE) n. o 3846/87 da Comiss(cid:209)o (3), com a (cid:156)ltima redac(cid:135)(cid:209)o que lhe foi dada pelo Regulamento (CE) n. o 565/1999 (4); Considerando que o Comit(cid:130) de Gest(cid:209)o da Carne de Su(cid:146)no n(cid:209)o emitiu qualquer parecer no prazo limite estabelecido pelo seu presidente, ADOPTOU O PRESENTE REGULAMENTO: Artigo 1. o A lista dos produtos para a exporta(cid:135)(cid:209)o dos quais (cid:130) conce- dida a restitui(cid:135)(cid:209)o referida no artigo 13. o do Regulamento (CEE) n. o 2759/75 e os montantes dessa restitui(cid:135)(cid:209)o s(cid:209)o fixados no anexo. Artigo 2. o O presente regulamento entra em vigor em 22 de Abril de 1999. O presente regulamento (cid:130) obrigat(cid:155)rio em todos os seus elementos e directamente aplic(cid:145)vel em todos os Estados-membros. Feito em Bruxelas, em 21 de Abril de 1999. Pela Comiss(cid:209)o Franz FISCHLER Membro da Comiss(cid:209)o (1) JO L 282 de 1. 11. 1975, p. 1. (2) JO L 349 de 31. 12. 1994, p. 105. (3) JO L 366 de 24. 12. 1987, p. 1. (4) JO L 70 de 17. 3. 1999, p. 3. 22. 4. 1999 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias L 105/27 do regulamento da Comiss(cid:209)o, de 21 de Abril de 1999, que fixa as restitui(cid:135)(cid:210)es (cid:133) exporta(cid:135)(cid:209)o no sector da carne de su(cid:146)no ANEXO (Em EUR/100 kg, peso l(cid:146)quido) (Em EUR/100 kg, peso l(cid:146)quido) C(cid:155)digo do produto Destino das restitui(cid:135)(cid:210)es (1) Montante das restitui(cid:135)(cid:210)es C(cid:155)digo do produto Destino das restitui(cid:135)(cid:210)es (1) Montante das restitui(cid:135)(cid:210)es 0203 11 10 9000 0203 12 11 9100 0203 12 19 9100 0203 19 11 9100 0203 19 13 9100 0203 19 15 9100 0203 19 55 9110 0203 19 55 9310 0203 21 10 9000 0203 22 11 9100 01 02 03 01 02 03 01 02 03 01 02 03 01 02 03 01 02 01 02 03 01 02 01 02 03 01 02 03 20,00 40,00 70,00 20,00 40,00 70,00 20,00 40,00 70,00 20,00 40,00 70,00 20,00 40,00 70,00 13,00 25,00 20,00 40,00 70,00 13,00 25,00 20,00 40,00 70,00 20,00 40,00 70,00 0203 22 19 9100 0203 29 11 9100 0203 29 13 9100 0203 29 15 9100 0203 29 55 9110 0210 11 31 9110 0210 11 31 9910 0210 12 19 9100 0210 19 81 9100 0210 19 81 9300 1601 00 91 9000 1601 00 99 9110 1602 41 10 9210 1602 42 10 9210 1602 49 19 9120 01 02 03 01 02 03 01 02 03 01 02 01 02 03 04 04 04 04 04 04 03 04 03 04 04 03 04 03 20,00 40,00 70,00 20,00 40,00 70,00 20,00 40,00 70,00 13,00 25,00 20,00 40,00 70,00 90,00 90,00 20,00 95,00 76,00 28,00 50,00 25,00 40,00 62,00 34,00 50,00 25,00 45,00 (1) Os destinos s(cid:209)o identificados do seguinte modo: 01 Pol(cid:155)nia, Rep(cid:156)blica Checa, Rep(cid:156)blica Eslovaca, Hungria, Rom(cid:130)nia, Bulg(cid:145)ria, Eslov(cid:130)nia, Let(cid:155)nia, Litu(cid:131)nia, Est(cid:155)nia, 02 todos os destinos, com excep(cid:135)(cid:209)o dos destinos 01, 03 R(cid:156)ssia, 04 todos os destinos. NB: Os c(cid:155)digos dos produtos, incluindo as remiss(cid:210)es em p(cid:130)-de-p(cid:145)gina, s(cid:209)o definidos no Regulamento (CEE) nº 3846/87 da Comiss(cid:209)o


title: 1999/600/EC: Commission Decision of 21 April 1999 on the state aid granted by Germany to Dieselmotorenwerk Rostock GmbH (notified under document number C(1999) 1121) (Text with EEA relevance) (Only the German version is authentic)

eurovoc_concepts:
Germany
State aid
application of EU law
control of State aid
diesel fuel
engine

formats: html pdf print

text: L 232/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2. 9. 1999 II (Acts whose publication is not obligatory) COMMISSION COMMISSION DECISION of 21 April 1999 on the state aid granted by Germany to Dieselmotorenwerk Rostock GmbH (notified under document number C(1999) 1121) (Only the German version is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (1999/600/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 93(2)(1) thereof, Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof, Having called on interested parties to submit their comments on the aid, Whereas: Germany replied by letters of 30 April, 14 July and 10 and 12 September 1997, in which it also informed the Commission of additional aid granted and of a restructuring plan. Further particulars were provided at a meeting on 15 October 1997 between representatives of the Commission and the German authorities. By letter of 17 December 1997, the Commission informed Germany of its decision to extend the procedure laid down in Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty to the aid measures taken in the meantime and of its continuing doubts as to the compatibility of the total amount of restructuring aid with the internal market. I. PROCEDURE the Bundesanstalt By letter of 25 April 1996, Germany informed the Commission that für vereinigungsbedingte Sonderauf- gaben (BvS, the successor to the Treuhand privatisation agency) had granted DEM 20 million in rescue aid in form of a loan to Dieselmotorenwerk Vulkan GmbH (DMV). By letter of 11 February 1997, the Commission informed Germany of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of this aid. In so doing, the Commission gave Germany formal notice to provide it with all the information needed for examining the aid within one month of being notified of the decision. The Commission decision to extend the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (2) The Commission again invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid. II. DETAILED DESCRIPTION 1. Dieselmotorenwerk Rostock GmbH (DMR), which was known as Dieselmotorenwerk Vulkan from 1995 until 31 July 1997, was divided until recently into four locations: The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (1). The Commission invited interested parties to submit their comments on the aid. — the head office and the engine factory in Rostock-Warne- münde and in the city of Rostock, with a workforce of about 360; the main activity is the production, testing and repair of heavy two-stroke diesel engines for cargo vessels, (1) OJ C 119, 17. 4. 1997, p. 8. (2) OJ C 169, 4. 6. 1998, p. 8. 2. 9. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 232/25 — the erstwhile engine factory in Bremen-Vegesack, which produced ship engines until August 1997; is now primarily a foundry and a facility for heavy steel construc- tion which produces a number of basic components for the engines mounted in Warnemünde as well as foundry and steel products for other customers; its present workforce is about 155, it — Mecklenburger Metallguß GmbH (MMG) in Waren, a medium-sized company producing mainly fixed-pitch propellers for vessels, with a workforce of about 110; DMR sold MMG on 27 January 1999 to Walzengießerei Coswig GmbH and Herzberg & Partner GmbH, — Wismarer Propeller and Maschinenbau GmbH (WPM) in Wismar, a medium-sized manufacturer of shafts and controllable-pitch propellers for vessels, with a workforce of about 50; this company was sold in October 1998 to Schottel-Werft Josef Becker GmbH & Co. KG and Schottel Antriebstechnik GmbH. The scope of this decision is limited to the parent company DMR, with its factories in Rostock and Bremen. As WPM and MMG were sold during the state aid proceedings and as their restructuring entails separate restructuring aid, the Commission will take separate decisions on the rescue and restructuring aid for them. 2. The origins of DMR date back to 1947, when motor production began in Rostock in the former German Demo- cratic Republic (GDR). After the unification of Germany, DMR was part of the Deutsche Maschinen and Schiffbau AG (DMS). DMR was first privatised in 1992 and sold to Bremer Vulkan Verbund AG (BVV) (3). By a contract dated 16 December 1994, DMR was merged with the engine manufacturing department of Bremer Vulkan Werft GmbH in Bremen to form the new company DMV. After its first privatisation, DMR/DMV carried out an invest- ment programme DEM 192,5 million primarily for the construction of a new engine plant in Rostock-Warnemünde which was commissioned in 1994-96. The investment cost exceeds the minimum amount specified in the privatisation agreement of 1992. DMR underwent restructuring on several occasions after 1990, and the situation was exacerbated on account of the purchase of the loss-making engine factory in Bremen at its book value (3) The sales agreement (Kauf- and Abtretungsvertrag) of 11 August 1992 was concluded between the Treuhandanstalt and DMS, on the one hand, and BVV and Schichau Seebeckwerft AG, on the other. This privatisation was governed by the Treuhand regime of 1992 (Commission Decision of 8 December 1992). An individual notifica- tion to the Commission was not required under those rules since the size of DMR and the financial transactions involved were below the relevant thresholds. for of DEM 65 million. According to the auditor's report 1995, DMV had been in severe economic difficulties since 1994. The company had to report for 1995 a loss of DEM 165 million, with its equity (capital and reserves) being reduced from DEM 178 million to DEM 12,9 million. The liquidity of the company was ensured primarily by loans of DEM 52,6 million (4) under BVV's cash concentration system and by a loan of DEM 25 million granted by BvS in 1994. 3. Towards the end of 1995 BVV, DMV's parent company, ran into severe financial difficulties. It had to apply for a debt composition procedure (Vergleich) on 21 February 1996 and went into receivership on 1 May 1996. BVV's cash concentra- tion system was terminated at the end of 1995. At the end of March 1996 DMR faced a liquidity gap of some DEM 18 million, which threatened to rise to about DEM 30 million by end of April 1996. No commercial bank was prepared to provide fresh money to the company. 4. In order to rescue the DMR group and to ensure continua- tion of the restructuring, BvS and the Land of Mecklenburg- Western Pomerania provided the following aid by end of 1998: 1. a loan of DEM 30 million (DEM 20 million from BvS and DEM 10 million from the Land authorities), originally at an interest rate of 3 % above the discount rate, was disbursed on 2 April 1996, originally to fall due on 31 December 1998; 2. a loan of DEM 19,5 million (BvS, DEM 13 million; Land authorities, DEM 6,5 million), was disbursed in July 1996, on the same terms as at 1; 3. a credit line of DEM 25 million (again jointly financed by BvS and the Land authorities): first tranche of DEM 15 million disbursed in June 1997; second tranche not yet fully disbursed; maturity: 31 December 1999; 4. state guarantees for an amount of up to DEM 15 million, increased in September 1997 to a maximum of DEM 60 million. These guarantees are counter guarantees (Avale) for advance payments received as well as performance bonds and post-delivery guarantees to be provided by DMR in the context of contracts for ship engines; the guarantees were originally valid until privatisation or until 31 December 1999 at the latest; 5. a 100 % state guarantee (5) provided on 22 February 1996 by the Land authorities to secure a commercial bank loan of DEM 10 million; 6. a 100 % state guarantee provided by BvS and the Land authorities in the autumn of 1997 and running until 31 December 1998 to secure a credit line of DEM 10 million. (4) As at 31 December 1995. See Commission Decision 98/2405/EC of 22 July 1998 (not yet published in the Official Journal) on the misuse of restructuring aid for MTW-Schiffswerft and Volkswerft Stralsund, two companies formerly belonging to Bremer Vulkan Verbund, and on the unauthorised provision of an investment loan of DEM 112,4 million to MTW. Section II. 5 of that decision contains a detailed description of the cash concentration system. As stated in Section IV of that decision, it is very likely that the main debtors, one of these being DMR, received some of the misused aid. However, since the funds were mixed, it has not been possible to obtain evidence in full. (5) This guarantee is fully secured by land charges (Grundschulden) amounting to DEM 35 million. L 232/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities By letter of 10 September 1997, Germany informed the Commission that BvS and the Land authorities had waived payment of interest and redemption for the loans mentioned at points 1 to 3 and that these loans could be converted into subordinate shareholder loans if the need arose. According to loans for an amount of the auditor's report DEM 49,5 million had been declared subordinate in order that DMR need not go into receivership (Gesamtvollstreckung). By the same letter, Germany also announced that BvS had waived interest on the investment loan of DEM 25 million granted in 1994 and that this loan would be converted into equity. The original interest rate was 8,5 % per annum. The principal was to be repaid on 30 October 2000. for 1997 (6), By letter of 21 December 1998, Germany notified the intention of BVS and the Land authorities to grant DEM 10 million in social aid to the 140 or so staff to be laid off in 1999. The detailed restructuring plan annexed to that also mentioned the need to prolong the state guarantees amounting to DEM 60 million until at least the end of 2001 (7). letter Since 1996 DMR has taken a number of financial meas- 5. ures in favour of its subsidiaries WPM and MMG. As the present decision does not extend to WPM and MMG, the amounts involved have to be deducted. It is obvious from Germany's letters of 10 September 1997 and 14 December 1998 (8) as well as from the auditor's reports that at least the waiver of claims and the capital increases in cash in favour of WPM and MMG were refinanced with aid given to DMR. Therefore an amount of DEM 10,0 million has to be deducted from the aid specified in point 4 above, as this amount was not used for DMR proper but for its subsidiaries (9). 6. DMR's financial results for the period 1994-98 show sharp fluctuations reflecting the changes in its main activity (produc- tion and repair of ship engines), which contributes more than 80 % of turnover. The figures shown in the following table are, however, not fully comparable as there was a radical change in accounting practices between the business years 1994 and 1995. The positive annual result in 1997 is caused mainly by the debt waiver agreed at the time of the separation of DMR from BVV. DMR/DMV: Turnover and financial results 1994-98 Year Turnover Operating result 180,5 4,4 (million DEM) Annual result 4,1 1994 1995 1996 1997 181,4 – 165,2 – 165,2 252,7 210,7 – 70,5 – 26,3 – 71,0 30,1 (6) Received by the Commission on 6 October 1998. (7) Arthur D. Little, Überarbeitete Geschäftsplanung 1999–2001 (Chapter 3. 4). (8) Notification of the privatisation of WPM. (9) For information purposes: (a) WPM Liquidity aid: DEM 1,5 million Supplies and services: DEM 0,6 million User fees: DEM 0,2 million (b) MMG Increase in capital (physical assets, land): DEM 1,7 million Increase in capital (capital contribution): DEM 6,00 million. Year Turnover 1998 (p) (1) 194,1 1998 (e) (2) [. ] (*) Operating result 12,7 n. a. 1999 (p) 2000 (p) 2001 (p) [. ] [. ] [. ] n. a. n. a. n. a. 2. 9. 1999 (million DEM) Annual result 4,2 [. ] [. ] [. ] [. ] (1) Planned results according to the 1997 restructuring plan. (2) Estimated results according to the revised plan of December 1998 (DMR without WPM and MMG); the deterioration in 1998 was caused mainly by loss provisions for the planned redundancies in the following years. (*) Business secret. 7. The number of ship engines delivered was 19 in 1994, 17 in 1995, 29 in 1996, 18 in 1997 and 17 in 1998. DMR plans to produce [. ] in 1999, [. ] in 2000 and [. ] in 2001. In the period 1993-97 DMR was the largest supplier of large two-stroke diesel engines in the Community. In Germany it had a market share of between 53 % (1995) and 83 % (1996). For the period 2000/2001 DMR hopes to retain a market share in Germany of some 50 %. for 8. The two-stroke diesel engines produced by DMR are used for cargo vessels. Normally tankers, bulk carriers and container vessels are equipped with two-stroke engines while most other types are equipped with four-stroke engines. The engines are produced under licence. On a worldwide basis, there are three licensors such engines: MAN B & W AG (based in Germany), Wärtsilä NSD Oy AB (based in Finland) and Mitsu- bishi Heavy Industries (based in Japan). DMR has a licensing agreement with all three, but the Mitsubishi licence has not been exploited. The agreements cover Germany and eastern Europe except Poland and Croatia. Hence, the demand for engines from DMR depends basically on the contracts for cargo vessels awarded to German yards. As long as DMR was linked to Bremer Vulkan, the company obtained almost all the engine contracts for new ships built at Bremer Vulkan yards, and the original business concept was based on the expectation that this would secure full capacity utilisation for DMR. On the other hand, DMR had hardly any access to orders from other yards as these were very reluctant to place orders with a competitor. 2. 9. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 232/27 In 1995 the Bremer Vulkan yards (10) had received a large number of orders for container vessels. Although some of these orders were later cancelled, this provided DMR with a very healthy order book extending in some cases until 1999. Never- theless as regards new contracts, DMR's position has changed totally with the collapse of BVV. It is now forced to bid for contracts on the open market, often in direct competition with yards in eastern Asia licensed by Man B & W or Wärtsilä NSD. Apart from problems caused by its weak financial standing, DMR's position is difficult because it is almost the only engine builder linked neither to a licensor nor to a major shipyard. The number of cargo vessels built in the Community is decreasing. The European market share is almost negligible for tankers and bulk carriers. The market for container vessels, the mainstay of German shipbuilding, has become very difficult as well, with a sharp decrease in new orders in 1996 and again in 1998. Most of the German yards are attempting to address this problem by producing different types of ship or offshore equipment, although this does not produce any orders for engines from DMR. The prices of engines in German mark terms were under heavy pressure in 1994/95 and again in 1998. DMR's consultant expects the price level to remain at the present low level until the end of 2001 (final year of the investigation period). The main competition now comes from Korea, where a few large engine factories have come on stream in recent years. European manufacturers, and in particular DMR's new plant, do though enjoy advantages when it comes to servicing European yards on account of their closeness to customers, which bears fruit in the mounting and testing period. The financial results of most players on this market were unsatisfactory in 1998. Profits come less from the sale of new engines than from the delivery of spare parts and repair works. There is fierce competition between the licensors and, despite the licensing agreements, fierce competition as well between engine manufacturers, although this is felt mostly outside the Community. Following the collapse of the BVV group in February 9. 1996, BvS and the Land authorities entered into negotiations with the administrator of BVV with a view to its separation from the group. These negotiations were held up because of parallel negotiations on an early sale of DMR to one of the licensors (MAN B & W) which broke up in September 1996. By an agreement of 28 April 1997, the shares were transferred at a symbolic price from BVV's intermediate holding company Vulkan Industrie Holding GmbH in Konkurs (VIH) to BvS (51 %) and to the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (49 %). At the same time it was agreed, subject to approval from the European Commission, that VIH would waive repay- ment of about DEM 54,8 million of claims against DMV (10) The main yards were: Bremer Vulkan Werft, Schichau Seebeckwerft, Flender Werft, MTW-Schiffswerft and Volkswerft. related to the cash concentration system that operated until the beginning of 1996 (11). According to the auditor's report for 1996, bankruptcy of DMR in that year was avoided only by making VIH's claims subordinate and by the informal declaration by BvS and the Land authorities that they would acquire DMR. 10. BvS and the Land authorities acquired DMR with the firm intention of reprivatising it as soon as possible. Back in 1996 they had concluded an agreement with Goldman, Sachs & Co. OHG to assist them in the search for potential buyers. The sale proved, however, to be extremely difficult. First, owing to the high degree of concentration in this industry, the number of potential buyers is very small. Second, it was necessary to begin by renegotiating the licensing agreements. The previous agree- ments had been concluded with DMV when still a subsidiary of BVV and their transfer to DMR needed the approval of the licensors. Third, a sale of DMR was hardly possible as long as the fate of its main customers, the former BVV yards, was unresolved. Volkswerft GmbH and MTW-Schiffswerft GmbH were reprivatised only in early 1998. Discussions with potential investors started in early 1998. Until now no tangible results have been achieved. According to Germany's letter of 30 September 1998, negotiations on a privatisation are taking place with H. Cegielski-Poznan SA (HCP), a Polish engine builder. However, HCP is itself in the process of being privatised and restructured. All the other plans mentioned, such as discussions with two consortia of medium- sized mechanical engineering firms who would use DMR's facilities mainly for the manufacture of other products, remain rather vague. It must therefore be concluded that the prospects for a privatisation of DMR in its present form are remote. Germany expects that privatisation will not be possible without additional aid in the form of a debt waiver and in respect of the costs of further redundancies. 11. DMR's attempt to draw up a restructuring plan with assistance of the management consultant Arthur D. Little (ADL) was considerably delayed by the privatisation negotiations in 1996, which finally collapsed. The plan, which has been partly implemented since the autumn of 1996 and was finalised by ADL in July 1997, was based mainly on the assumptions of an annual production of 15 to 18 engines per year and stable (1997) prices in German mark terms. The plan contains 56 different measures for achieving a sharp reduction in produc- tion costs and the generation of operating profits from 1997 onwards. DMR managed to implement virtually all of these measures, except the planned reduction in wages. It was there- fore able to reduce operating losses in its ship-engine-related activities from DEM 31,7 million (1996) to DEM 22,1 million (1997) and it would have achieved an operating profit of DEM 9,4 million in 1998 if special depreciation and loss provisions for the coming years had not proved necessary. (11) See footnote 4. More than 99 % of the shares of VIH had been held by BVV, which exercised full financial and operational control over the group. VIH's and BVV's bankruptcy procedures are being overseen by the same administrator. L 232/28 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2. 9. 1999 The Asian crisis and in particular the developments in the Korean maritime industry caused at the beginning of 1998 a sharp drop in the prices for ship engines, and German yards won very few orders for cargo vessels equipped with two- stroke engines. Consequently, DMR too was awarded very few orders in 1998. The owners of DMR thus asked ADL to review the July 1997 restructuring plan. The latest revised plan dates from 21 December 1998. ADL expects the market to remain very difficult until 2001, with low prices and depressed demand. Production is to be reduced to only [. ] engines in 1999, [. ] in 2000 and [. ] in 2001, this being regarded as the bare minimum from a commercial point of view. Apart from another 140 to 150 redundancies, the plan foresees temporary closures in 1999, a wage freeze until the end of 2000 and some diversification of production. The business plan is expli- citly geared towards overcoming the present crisis, minimising losses in 1999/2000 and breaking even in 2001. It does not discuss the DMR's prospects in the medium and long term. 12. The Commission had opened and extended the proceed- ings primarily because it had doubts whether: (a) the commercial viability of DMR could be restored by means of the planned restructuring; (b) the very high level of aid granted was limited to the amount absolutely necessary and whether the abnormally low financing costs would cause distortive effects on competition on the markets for ship engines and foundry products. III. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES The Commission received comments on the opening of proceedings from one Member State, which in its letter of 16 May 1997 supported the Commission's position. By letter of 6 June 1997, the Commission forwarded these comments to Germany, which was given the opportunity to react. No such reaction was forthcoming. The Commission received no comments from interested parties on the extension of the proceedings. IV. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY The comments received from Germany prior to the Commis- sion's decision to extend the proceedings are quoted and discussed in that decision (12). By letter dated 20 February 1998, Germany provided detailed information on DMR's the restructuring production programme, the progress of (12) See footnote 2. programme and its financing, and the status of the negotiations with potential investors. At a meeting on 1 July 1998 in DMR's head office, the restruc- turing programme was discussed by the German Government, the Land Government of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, BvS, DMR and the Commission. It was concluded that the business plan set out in the 1997 restructuring programme no longer reflected market conditions, which had dramatically changed since the end of 1997. It was agreed that the business plan should be extensively revised. By letter of 30 September 1998, Germany submitted a revised provisional plan (13) based on an annual production of 10 engines. In its reply of 30 November 1998, the Commission expressed strong doubts as to the viability of the plan, which could not, in its view, restore a sound financial structure and would necessitate open-ended financial support from the State. By letter of 21 December 1998, received by the Commission on 30 December 1998, Germany gave details of further changes to the business plan to cope with the continuing deterioration on the market. DMR's board had decided on these changes at its meeting on 7 December 1998. In its reply of 26 January 1999, the Commission informed Germany of its posi- tion regarding the latest changes. While it accepted that the revised plan was more realistic, it pointed out that the plan more closely resembled a temporary rescue plan than a genuine restructuring plan. The basic problem, namely that DMR would need further state aid and that there were no realistic prospects for a successful privatisation, remained. V. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID MEASURES 1. The loans totalling DEM 74,5 million and the subsequent waiver of interest on them granted by BvS and the Land authorities since April 1996 constitute state aid. The state guarantees amounting to DEM 80 million also rank as state aid. In their report for 1995, the auditors explicitly state that the continued operation of DMR (then DMV) was possible only if the State provided the necessary loans and/or guarantees (14). Consequently, DMR was not able to receive loans from commercial financial institutions. A further loan of DEM 25 million granted on 6 July 1994 by BvS on market terms was converted into state aid in June 1997. At the time, BvS waived interest payments on this loan and announced that it would be converted into equity if this proved necessary (15). The intended grant of DEM 10 million to finance the volun- tary payments under the ‘social plan’ for employees to be made redundant in 1999 represents new state aid as these payments result from a specific agreement with the workforce and the trade union. This aid was not covered by the extension of proceedings as it was notified only on 21 December 1998. (13) In the interests of a comprehensive presentation of the restruc- the letters of 30 the detailed contents of turing programmes, September and 21 December 1998 are discussed in Section II of this Decision. (14) C & L Treuarbeit Deutsche Revision AG, Bericht No 18 10 0147, Jahres- Dieselmotorenwerk Vulkan GmbH Rostock, Prüfung des abschlusses zum 31. 12. 1995 (paragraph 125). (15) See Section II. 4. 2. 9. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 232/29 2. Under the agreement of 28 April 1997 on the takeover of DMR (then DMV) by BvS and the Land of Mecklenburg- Western Pomerania, VIH would dispose of DMV at a zero price and waive its claims of DM 54,8 million (including accrued interest) on DMV. These claims result from the cash concentra- tion system practised in the Bremer Vulkan group until early 1996. The market value of VIH's claims was certainly very much lower than the nominal value of DEM 54,8 million and was probably even close to zero as the loans would have ranked as equity in a bankruptcy procedure. VIH and its administrator could therefore hardly expect any income to accrue from their claims if they had retained ownership of DMR. Any other private buyer of DMR would also have required that the seller VIH waive its claims on DMR as the company clearly had a negative value. BvS and the Land authorities behaved therefore in this respect as a private investor. The Commission can therefore accept this measure as being in conformity with the private investor principle. It does not constitute state aid. and all subsequent aid as restructuring aid within the meaning of the guidelines. 5. According to the guidelines, rescue aid must: (i) consist of liquidity help in the form of loan guarantees or loans bearing normal commercial interest rates State aid was provided in this form during the rescue period. The loans from BvS carried an interest rate that was three percentage points higher than the discount rate; this can be regarded as a market rate given the originally very short maturity of the loans. The credit line secured by the state guarantee also carried a market interest rate. The originally DEM 15 million counter (comprising for the most part Avale) secures business activ- ities on commercial terms as well; most of them back bank guarantees required to secure advance payments received for ship engines under construction; guarantees of 3. The above aid is to be assessed under Article 92 of the Treaty and in the light of the criteria set out in the Community guidelines on state aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (‘the guidelines’) (16). Except for the DEM 10 million grant notified on 21 December 1998, all the aid has to be regarded as non-notified aid since all the measures were imple- mented before the Commission was able to take a position on them. Germany failed to respect its notification obligations under Article 93(3) of the Treaty. 4. The guidelines distinguish between rescue and restruc- turing aid. In the present case this distinction is difficult to apply because DMR was already being restructured when the Bremer Vulkan group collapsed at the beginning of 1996. Until the autumn of 1996 there were good reasons to believe that DMR could be sold to one of the licence holders and, conse- quently, the preparation of a new restructuring plan and the separation of DMR from VIH were deferred. The basic elements of the restructuring plan were agreed on 11 February 1997 (17). On that basis BvS and the Land authorities took over the shares of DMR by means of an agreement dated 28 April 1997 and the Commission was informed of the agreed restructuring plan by Germany by letter of 10 September 1997. As the measures taken immediately after the takeover by the new owners for a financial restructuring of DMR were clearly intended to cover a longer period, it is considered appropriate to consider the aid granted prior to the agreement of 28 April 1997 as rescue aid (ii) be restricted to the amount needed to keep a firm in business Germany provided evidence that the funds were limited to the minimum and disbursed only when the payment ob- ligations became due. With the exception of very minor amounts, the loans and guarantees served to finance DMR's day-to-day business since the company, as a part of its the bankrupt Bremer Vulkan group, had lost all working capital in the group and had virtually no access to commercial financing. Its clients were mainly the shipyards of the former Bremer Vulkan group, which were finan- cially strained and also had to undergo financial restruc- turing; (iii) be paid only for the time needed (generally not exceeding six months) to devise the necessary and feasible recovery plan As explained above, the Commission can accept in this particular case the delays in drawing up a feasible restruc- turing plan, primarily because the intended sale of the enterprise failed at the last minute in September 1996 owing to a commercial decision taken by the administrator of BVV (18) but also because of the extreme complexity caused by the disintegration of the Bremer Vulkan group; (iv) be warranted on the grounds of serious social difficulties and have no undue adverse effects on the industrial situation in other Member States The main part of DMR is located in Rostock, a smaller part in Bremerhaven. Both regions are classified as assisted areas and suffer from very high unemployment. In addi- tion, both were particularly affected by the collapse of Bremer Vulkan as this group was one of their main indus- trial employers. The rescue aid is therefore justified on social grounds. (16) OJ C 368, 23. 12. 1994, p. 12. (17) KPMG Deutsche Treuhand Gesellschaft, Prüfungsbericht zum Jahres- abschluß 1996. (18) The administrator decided not to sell VIH's shares in Neue Sulzer in this way, a higher Diesel together with the DMR shares since, price could be obtained. L 232/30 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2. 9. 1999 engine The analysis of the impact of the aid on the industry in other Member States can concentrate on the German market for ship engines as DMR's activities did not extend beyond this market at the time (19). As described in Section II. 8, market access for engine producers is limited by the licensing agreements, which usually delineate the territory for the producer's activities. However, these agreements do not grant a territorial monopoly. In practice, each engine is put up for tender by the relevant shipyard in consultation with the shipowner, and there is fierce competition for the contracts worldwide. DMR and other larger Community engine builders have to compete primarily against ‘trade engines’ (‘Handelsmotoren’) produced under licence by east Asian, primarily Korean, manufacturers. The prices are therefore more or less set by these leaders on the world market and the competitiveness of European manufacturers for standard types of engine depends a great deal on the exchange rate and the capacity utilisation in Asia. Producing a ship diesel engine takes about one year, the full process from contract negotiations until delivery two years. In the relevant rescue period (1996 to spring 1997), DMR received no new orders but lived on the backlog of orders placed during the container ship boom at the end of 1995. In view of this specific situation, it can be assumed that the rescue aid had no adverse effect on European competitors. Although the rescue aid was not notified and was therefore granted illegally, the Commission has been able to declare it compatible with the common market given the specific circum- stances described above. The financial measures were taken to ensure the short-term survival of DMR and, in view of their characteristics, they satisfy the criteria laid down in the guide- lines. 6. The restructuring aid replaced the rescue aid, since all the measures were prolonged on more favourable terms, and comprised (20): — the waiver of interest and the suspension of repayment of the loans granted during the rescue period and under the previous privatisation plan of 1994, — the provision of fresh loans and the increase in the ceiling for counter guarantees from DEM 15 million to DEM 60 million. Land authorities had become subordinate and could be converted into a participating interest. The credit line of DEM 25 million created and partly disbursed in June 1997 has also been given subordinate status. By letter of 20 February 1998, Germany stated that a repayment as from 1 January 1999 can be made only in so far as the enterprise was not overindebted. This measure too is to be considered as a grant to the extent of the amount disbursed, with an aid intensity of 100 %, since DMR is overindebted. According to the auditor's reports for 1996 and 1997, the equity is negative. The total cash aid amounts therefore to DEM 99,5 million, of which DEM 10 million needs to be deducted as it was used for the subsidiaries WPM and MMG. The counter guarantees of DEM 60 million provided by BvS and the Land authorities cover in essence the completion and post-delivery risks associated with DMR's contracts. Given the nature of the activities, a total loss is very unlikely since, even in case of bankruptcy, most contracts will be settled. In consid- eration of the deficiencies to be normally expected in such situations, the Commission estimated an aid intensity of 20 %, corresponding to an aid equivalent of DEM 12 million. The guarantee of DEM 10 million provided by the Land authorities to secure a bank loan of originally the same amount has been reduced to DEM 6,85 million in view of the repay- ments made by DMR according to Germany's letter of 20 February 1998. The aid intensity is 100 % of the outstanding amount. The same applies to the guarantee of DEM 10 million granted by BvS to secure short-term bridging loans. 8. The total aid equivalent of the restructuring aid provided in the form of loans converted into grants and in the form of guarantees is therefore put at DEM 118,35 million, equivalent to some EUR 60,5 million. (On account of the conversion the rescue aid has no aid element as the aid intensity cannot logically exceed 100 %. ) This figure can be reduced by the amounts not disbursed by the date of this decision under the lines provided. An additional amount of DEM 10 credit million is provided for to finance redundancy costs under the social plan in 1999. 9. The aid has to be assessed in the light of the following criteria for restructuring aid laid down in the guidelines: 7. The suspension of interest and redemption of the principal on the loans described in detail in Section II. 4 and totalling DEM 74,5 million and the announcement that these loans might be given subordinate status are to be regarded as consti- tuting conversion from loans into grants with an aid intensity of 100 %. By letter of 10 September 1997, Germany had informed the Commission that these loans from BvS and the (19) As stated above, the decision does not extend to the subsidiaries. (20) For a detailed description of the measures, see Sections II. 4 and II. 9. (i) restoration of viability At the time the procedure was extended, the Commission had doubts about DMR's capability to cover all its costs and in particular its financing costs. Developments in 1998 and the latest revision of the restructuring plan as communicated in Germany's letter of 21 December 1998 (and described in Section II of this decision) show that DMR is not financially viable. The company has suffered extremely high losses since 1995 which have led to its overindebtedness. 2. 9. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities L 232/31 Additional losses are expected in 1999 and 2000, and in 2001 the company will be unable to pay interest on its shareholder loans. The company remains dependent at least on the operating aid being extended into the distant future. Germany stated that a privatisation without addi- tional state aid appeared impossible. The prospects for a recovery on the market for two-stroke ship diesel engines in the Community are bleak in the medium term. Since, therefore, no return to viability can be expected in the foreseeable future, this condition of the guidelines is not met; (ii) avoidance of undue distortions of competition through the aid Although competition on the market for ship diesel the market structure engines is limited on account of described in Section II. 8, the permanent financing of DMR by means of state aid must be regarded as a distortion of competition primarily because the orders in hand do not cover costs. Adverse effects on European competitors, which are mostly in a difficult situation as well, cannot be excluded, particularly as most of the remaining engine producers in Europe have lower capacity and were not able to modernise. The reduction in DMR's capacity that is planned in view of the present emergency situation cannot the be regarded as irreversible within the meaning of guidelines. remains unchanged, DMR could return to its original capacity at short notice by re-employing the necessary personnel; installed capacity Since plant with the common market. The intended payment of DEM 10 million in social aid in 1999 can be regarded as being compat- ible with the common market. VI. CONCLUSIONS The Commission finds that Germany has unlawfully imple- mented a series of measures for rescuing and restructuring DMR in breach of Article 93(3) of the Treaty. However, the loans and guarantees provided before April 1997 for the rescue of the company and the takeover of DMR by BvS and the Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania can be regarded as being compatible with the common market in view of the particular difficulties caused by the collapse of the Bremer Vulkan group in 1996. However, the subsequent waiver of interest and the suspension of repayments on loans amounting to DEM 89,5 million, as well as the continuing provision of state guarantees for a nominal amount of DEM 80 million, cannot be regarded as being compatible with the common market since the meas- ures in question do not satisfy the criteria laid down in the guidelines. These measures must therefore, be terminated and the aid recovered. The intended payment of DEM 10 million in social aid, in 1999, can be regarded as being compatible with the common market, HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION: (iii) aid in proportion to the restructuring costs and benefits Article 1 The aid has been limited to the minimum necessary for the company's continued operation. The recipient has not been able to make a significant contribution to the restruc- turing costs and it cannot be expected that DMR can be sold at a positive price. The benefits consist essentially in the (temporary) maintenance of employment in two regions suffering from severe unemployment. Nevertheless, the guidelines recall that ‘it does not help a region to prop up artificially companies which, for structural or other reasons, are ultimately doomed to failure’. In line with its position on aid to meet the social costs of restructuring measures, in particular in regions with a low standard of living and with severe underemployment as described in the guidelines (21) and in the guidelines on national regional aid (22), the Commission can, however, accept the intended payment of DEM 10 million in social aid in 1999. The financial measures which Germany implemented between February 1996 and April 1997 for the rescue of Dieselmotor- enwerk Rostock GmbH (at the time Dieselmotorenwerk Vulkan GmbH), including the provisions on the transfer of ownership of this enterprise contained in the agreement of 28 April 1997, are compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 92(3)(c) of the EC Treaty. Article 2 The state aid of up to DEM 118,35 million which Germany has granted for restructuring of Dieselmotorenwerk Rostock GmbH since May 1997 is incompatible with the common market. the Accordingly, the Commission has concluded that the restruc- turing aid already granted and the intended prolongation of the measures are not in line with the guidelines and not compatible (21) See footnote 18 (point 3. 2. 5). (22) OJ C 74, 10. 3. 1998, p. 9 (point 4. 15). The state aid of DEM 10 million which Germany intends to grant for social measures linked to the redundancies at Diesel- motorenwerk Rostock GmbH is compatible with the common market within the meaning of Article 92(3)(a) of the EC Treaty. Article 3 L 232/32 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2. 9. 1999 Article 4 Germany shall take the necessary measures to recover from the recipient the aid referred to in Article 1. 2 and unlawfully made available to it. Recovery shall be effected in accordance with the procedures of national 2. law. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date on which they were made available to the recipient until their actual recovery. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of the reference rate used for calculating the grant equivalent of regional aid. Germany shall inform the Commission, within two months following notification of this Decision, of the measures taken to comply with it. Article 5 This decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany. Article 6 Done at Brussels, 21 April 1999. For the Commission Karel VAN MIERT Member of the Commission


title: Reglamento (CE) n° 824/1999 de la Comisión, de 21 de abril de 1999, por el que se fija el importe máximo de la restitución a la exportación del azúcar blanco para la trigésima quinta licitación parcial efectuada en el marco de la licitación permanente contemplada en el Reglamento (CE) n° 1574/98

eurovoc_concepts:
award of contract
export refund
white sugar

text: 22. 4. 1999 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas L 105/3 REGLAMENTO (CE) No 824/1999 DE LA COMISI(cid:222)N de 21 de abril de 1999 por el que se fija el importe m(cid:145)ximo de la restituci(cid:155)n a la exportaci(cid:155)n del az(cid:156)car blanco para la trig(cid:130)sima quinta licitaci(cid:155)n parcial efectuada en el marco de la licitaci(cid:155)n permanente contemplada en el Reglamento (CE) no 1574/98 LA COMISI(cid:222)N DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS, Visto el Tratado constitutivo de la Comunidad Europea, Visto el Reglamento (CEE) no 1785/81 del Consejo, de 30 de junio de 1981, por el que se establece una organizaci(cid:155)n com(cid:156)n de mercados en el sector del az(cid:156)car (1), cuya (cid:156)ltima modificaci(cid:155)n la constituye el Reglamento (CE) no 1148/98 de la Comisi(cid:155)n (2), y, en particular, la letra b) del p(cid:145)rrafo segundo del apartado 5 de su art(cid:146)culo 17, Considerando que, en virtud de lo dispuesto en el Regla- mento (CE) no 1574/98 de la Comisi(cid:155)n, de 22 de julio de 1998, relativo a una licitaci(cid:155)n permanente para la deter- minaci(cid:155)n de las exacciones reguladoras y/o de las restitu- se ciones procede a licitaciones parciales para la exportaci(cid:155)n de dicho az(cid:156)car; sobre la exportaci(cid:155)n de az(cid:156)car blanco (3); Considerando que, de acuerdo con lo dispuesto en el apartado 1 del art(cid:146)culo 9 del Reglamento (CE) no 1574/98, debe fijarse en su caso un importe m(cid:145)ximo de la restitu- ci(cid:155)n a la exportaci(cid:155)n para la licitaci(cid:155)n parcial de que se trate, teniendo en cuenta en particular la situaci(cid:155)n de la evoluci(cid:155)n previsible del mercado del az(cid:156)car en la Comu- nidad y en el mercado mundial; Considerando que, previo examen de las ofertas, es conve- niente adoptar para la trig(cid:130)sima quinta licitaci(cid:155)n parcial las disposiciones contempladas en el art(cid:146)culo 1; Considerando que las medidas previstas en el presente Reglamento se ajustan al dictamen del Comit(cid:130) de gesti(cid:155)n del az(cid:156)car, HA ADOPTADO EL PRESENTE REGLAMENTO: Art(cid:146)culo 1 Para la trig(cid:130)sima quinta licitaci(cid:155)n parcial de az(cid:156)car blanco efectuada en el marco del Reglamento (CE) no 1574/98, se fija un importe m(cid:145)ximo de la restituci(cid:155)n a la exportaci(cid:155)n de 53,458 EUR/100 kg. Art(cid:146)culo 2 El presente Reglamento entrar(cid:145) en vigor el 22 de abril de 1999. El presente Reglamento ser(cid:145) obligatorio en todos sus elementos y directamente aplicable en cada Estado miembro. Hecho en Bruselas, el 21 de abril de 1999. Por la Comisi(cid:155)n Franz FISCHLER Miembro de la Comisi(cid:155)n (1) DO L 177 de 1. 7. 1981, p. 4. (2) DO L 159 de 3. 6. 1998, p. 38. (3) DO L 206 de 23. 7. 1998, p. 7


title: 1999/597/CECA: Decisión de la Comisión de 21 de abril de 1999 relativa a un procedimiento con arreglo al artículo 88 del Tratado CECA, sobre una ayuda estatal de Alemania a la empresa Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH [notificada con el número C(1999) 1123] (El texto en lengua alemana es el único auténtico)

eurovoc_concepts:
Germany
State aid
aid to industry
control of State aid
infringement procedure (EU)
iron and steel industry

text: L 230/4 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 31. 8. 1999 II (Actos cuya publicación no es una condición para su aplicabilidad) COMISIÓN DECISIÓN DE LA COMISIÓN de 21 de abril de 1999 relativa a un procedimiento con arreglo al artículo 88 del Tratado CECA, sobre una ayuda estatal de Alemania a la empresa Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH [notificada con el número C(1999) 1123] (El texto en lengua alemana es el único auténtico) (1999/597/CECA) LA COMISIÓN DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS, Visto el Tratado constitutivo de la Comunidad Europea del Carbón y del Acero y, en particular, sus artículos 86 y 88, Considerando lo siguiente: I. PROCEDIMIENTO la Comisión incoó el El 16 de diciembre de 1998, procedimiento del artículo 88 del Tratado CECA con respecto a Alemania. Tras evaluar la información de que disponía, había llegado a la conclusión de que este país había infringido el artículo 86 del Tratado CECA al no haber dado cumplimiento a unas decisiones que le obli- gaban a recuperar unas ayudas estatales por un importe total de 74 millones de marcos alemanes de la empresa beneficiaria, Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH (NMH). El 1 de febrero de 1999, la Comisión comunicó por escrito a Alemania su posición y le ofreció la posibilidad de pronunciarse al respecto. Las observaciones de Alemania fueron recibidas por la Comisión el 5 de marzo de 1999. II. HECHOS (1) (2) (3) — Rosenberg y Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH, Meitingen- Herbertshofen (1) (en lo sucesivo, «la Decisión NMH I»), la Comisión concluyó que las medidas notificadas, entre las que figuraba un préstamo participativo del Estado federado de Baviera, constituían una ayuda estatal incompatible con el mercado común, que, por tanto, no debía concederse. (4) Sin embargo, Baviera otorgó a NMH una serie de prés- tamos participativos entre 1993 y 1995 sin informar previamente de ello a la Comisión. A este respecto, la Comisión adoptó dos decisiones: a) la Decisión 96/178/CECA, de 18 de octubre de 1995, relativa a una ayuda del Estado federado de Baviera a la empresa siderúrgica CECA Neue Maxhütte Stahl- werke GmbH, Sulzbach-Rosenberg (2) (en lo sucesivo, «la Decisión NMH II»), en la que concluyó que 49,9 millones de marcos alemanes concedidos por el Estado federado de Baviera a NMH en forma de préstamos participativos ayuda estatal incompatible con el mercado común y prohi- bida en virtud del Tratado CECA y de la Decisión no 3855/91/CECA de la Comisión, de 27 de noviembre de 1991, por la que se establecen normas comunitarias relativas a las ayudas para la side- rurgia (3); constituían una b) la Decisión 96/484/CECA, de 13 de marzo de 1996, relativa a una ayuda del Estado federado de Baviera a la empresa siderúrgica CECA Neue Maxhütte GmbH, Sulzbach-Rosenberg (4) (en lo sucesivo, «la Decisión NMH III»), en la que concluyó que 24,1 millones de Mediante Decisión 95/422/CECA, de 4 de abril de 1995, relativa a una ayuda estatal que el Estado federado de Baviera había previsto conceder a las empresas siderúr- gicas CECA Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH, Sulzbach (1) DO L 253 de 21. 10. 1995, p. 22. (2) DO L 53 de 2. 3. 1996, p. 41. (3) DO L 362 de 31. 12. 1991, p. 57. (4) DO L 198 de 8. 9. 1996, p. 40. 31. 8. 1999 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas L 230/5 (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) marcos alemanes concedidos por el Estado federado de Baviera a NMH en forma de préstamos participa- tivos constituían una ayuda estatal incompatible con el mercado común y prohibida en virtud del Tratado CECA y de la Decisión 3855/91/CECA (la Decisión NMH III). Dada la incompatibilidad de las ayudas consideradas con el mercado común, se instó a Alemania en ambos casos —Decisiones NMH II y NMH III— a exigir a la empresa beneficiaria el reembolso de los fondos aportados. Alemania impugnó las tres decisiones ante el Tribunal de Justicia de las Comunidades Europeas (asuntos C-158/ 95; C-399/95 y C-195/96). El Tribunal suspendió los procedimientos hasta que el Tribunal de Primera Instancia de las Comunidades Europeas resolviera los recursos interpuestos por NMH con respecto a las mismas decisiones (asuntos acumulados T-129/95, T-2/ 96 y T-97/96) (1). Mediante sentencia de 21 de enero de 1999, el Tribunal de Primera Instancia desestimó los recursos de NMH y ratificó plenamente las decisiones de la Comisión. En el asunto C-399/95, Alemania solicitó la suspensión de la ejecución de la Decisión NMH II, pues albergaba dudas en cuanto a su legalidad y temía que su ejecución inmediata le causara perjuicios directos. El presidente del Tribunal desestimó esta solicitud mediante auto de 3 de mayo de 1996 (2), pues los motivos alegados por Alemania no eran suficientes para justificar la suspen- sión de la ejecución de la Decisión de la Comisión sobre el reembolso de las ayudas concedidas por el Estado federado de Baviera a NMH. El 6 de diciembre de 1996, Alemania comunicó a la Comisión que el Estado federado de Baviera había exigido a NMH el reembolso de los fondos recibidos para el 15 de octubre de 1996 y que se estaba prepa- rando el procedimiento relativo a dicho reembolso de conformidad con las decisiones NMH II y NMH III. Según información facilitada por Alemania el 25 y el 27 de junio de 1997, el Estado federado de Baviera puso en marcha el procedimiento de reembolso en febrero de 1997 solicitando al juzgado de primera instancia (Amts- gericht) de Ratisbona que dictara una orden de pago. Como NMH recurrió contra la orden de pago, la compe- tencia sobre el litigio pasó a la audiencia provincial (Landgericht) de Amberg. (10) De la fundamentación de la reclamación y de la solicitud se desprende que el Estado federado de Baviera reclama 14,8 millones de marcos alemanes más intereses, lo que representa únicamente el 20 % del importe de las ayudas consideradas incompatibles con el mercado común en las decisiones NMH II y NMH III. Según la fundamenta- ción de la reclamación y la solicitud, así como a juzgar por los datos facilitados por Alemania, el Estado fede- rado de Baviera dio este paso de forma unilateral para (1) El fundamento jurídico es el artículo 47 del Protocolo sobre el Esta- tuto del Tribunal de Justicia de la CECA. (2) Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de 3 de mayo de 1996 en el asunto C-399/95: Alemania contra Comisión (Recopilación 1996, p. I-2444), apartado 76. ahorrar costes, asumiendo que NMH reembolsará espon- táneamente el 80 % restante en caso de que prospere la reclamación. (11) El 27 de noviembre de 1997, Alemania informó a la Comisión de que NMH había introducido su escrito de oposición el 8 de julio de 1997. La empresa niega haber llegado a cualquier tipo de acuerdo con el Estado fede- rado sobre el reembolso del importe restante, que no estaba incluido en el procedimiento judicial de reclama- ción. Esto significa que el reembolso del 80 % de las ayudas incompatibles con el mercado común queda completamente a discreción de la empresa. (12) En su escrito, NMH también solicita suspender el proce- dimiento hasta que el Tribunal de Justicia de las Comu- nidades Europeas adopte una decisión. (13) Alemania no informó a la Comisión hasta el 14 de julio de 1998 de que la audiencia provincial de Amberg ya había ordenado la suspensión del procedimiento el 5 de marzo de 1998. El texto del auto de suspensión no fue transmitido a la Comisión hasta el 23 de noviembre de 1998. El auto se fundamenta exclusivamente en el artículo 148 de la ZPO (Ley de enjuiciamiento civil), según el cual el tribunal puede suspender el procedimiento cuando haya una causa pendiente ante otro tribunal cuya resolución revista importancia para el procedimiento en cuestión. (14) El 20 de octubre de 1998 Alemania confirmó por telé- fono que Baviera no había recurrido contra este auto. Sin embargo, de la carta del Gobierno federal de 23 de noviembre de 1998 se deduce que podía haberlo impug- nado —mediante un simple recurso— sin límite temporal alguno, y que aún puede hacerlo. Hasta el momento, las ayudas no han sido reembolsadas. El 23 de noviembre de 1998, el Gobierno federal comu- nicó a la Comisión que NMH había solicitado la apertura de procedimiento de declaración de quiebra. III. RAZONES EN LAS QUE SE BASA LA INCOACIÓN DEL PROCEDIMIENTO (15) Según el artículo 86 del Tratado, los Estados miembros están obligados a adoptar todas las medidas necesarias para asegurar el cumplimiento de las obligaciones que se derivan de las decisiones de la Comisión. Han de abste- nerse de adoptar cualquier medida que sea incompatible con los artículos 1 y 4. Según la letra c) del artículo 4, las subvenciones o ayudas están prohibidas. En caso de que la Comisión considere que un Estado ha incumplido una de las obligaciones que le incumben en virtud de este Tratado, incoará el procedimiento previsto en el artículo 88 del Tratado CECA. (16) incoación del procedimiento, En la la Comisión concluyó que, a la luz de los hechos que se describen a continuación, Alemania había incumplido las obliga- ciones que le incumbían en virtud del artículo 86 del Tratado CECA: L 230/6 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 31. 8. 1999 a) Para ahorrar gastos procesales, Baviera decidió unila- teralmente limitar la reclamación ante los tribunales al 20 % de las ayudas incompatibles con el mercado común, confiando en que NMH reembolsaría espon- táneamente el importe restante. La reducción de la cuantía del litigio por razones de ahorro de costes es una práctica habitual en Alemania, pero que sólo es lícita cuando las partes fijan en común la reducción en un acuerdo notarial para evitar problemas de ejecución tras la publicación de la sentencia. Como, en su escrito, NMH rebatió la existencia de tal acuerdo, Alemania debería haber sabido que no podía confiar en el importe restante tras la decisión judicial sobre el reembolso parcial. reembolso voluntario del b) Ni Alemania ni Baviera han adoptado medida alguna con objeto de obtener medidas cautelares para la recuperación de las ayudas —por ejemplo, requeri- miento para la satisfacción de importes provisionales o para la puesta a disposición de garantías o la constitución de avales, orden de embargo, etc. — que garanticen que las decisiones de la Comisión sean ejecutadas lo antes posible. c) Baviera no ha presentado recurso contra el auto de suspensión de la Audiencia Provincial de Amberg de 5 de marzo de 1998, aunque dicho auto no estaba en consonancia con la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia en relación con la ejecución de decisiones de reembolso de fondos y con la suspensión de la ejecu- ción de decisiones de la Comunidad. Alemania no adoptó medida alguna con respecto a Baviera para conseguir el levantamiento de la suspensión. IV. OBSERVACIONES DE ALEMANIA Y SU EVALUA- CIÓN POR PARTE DE LA COMISIÓN IV. a. Incumplimiento de la obligación de recuperar la totalidad de los importes reclamados o de garantizar su reembolso (17) Alemania considera haber respetado el artículo 86 del Tratado CECA en todas las fases del procedimiento. a) A su juicio, la limitación de la reclamación es una práctica común en Alemania cuyo objetivo es limitar los gastos procesales y los honorarios de los abogados. Asegura que la fundamentación de la sentencia cubrirá todos los préstamos en litigio. Un acuerdo notarial sólo hubiera ocasionado gastos adicionales. Alemania alega que, como no hay riesgo de prescripción y cabe interponer recurso en cual- quier momento, Baviera ha hecho lo necesario para garantizar la flexibilidad del procedimiento en el futuro. b) Además, aduce Alemania, la Comisión ya tuvo cono- cimiento de la limitación de la reclamación en marzo de 1997 y debiera haberse pronunciado al respecto en aquel momento. c) En tercer lugar, aduce que Baviera ha incluido en el procedimiento de quiebra la totalidad de los importes reclamados. La Comisión considera que estos argumentos no son convincentes. Tal y como se explica en la incoación del procedimiento, la Comisión no formula objeciones contra la práctica de la limitación de la cuantía del litigio, pero exige que, conforme a lo que es habitual en estos casos, se suscriba un acuerdo (notarial) para evitar problemas de ejecución. De faltar tal acuerdo, la posible sentencia no abarcará la reclamación del 80 % restante, de modo que conforme a Derecho faltará el título juris- diccional necesario para la ejecución a este respecto. En este caso, NMH tendría la facultad discrecional de decidir si se atiene o no a la sentencia en lo que respecta al importe restante. El hecho de que Baviera pueda reclamar en todo momento el 80 % restante es irrele- vante en el presente caso, pues no se ha adoptado tal medida. Es cierto que la Comisión no reaccionó formalmente a esta cuestión específica antes de incoar el procedimiento, pero ello no le impide determinar que se ha infringido el artículo 86 del Tratado CECA. La Comisión insiste en que, cuando Alemania remitió la fundamentación de la reclamación y la solicitud el 25 de julio de 1997, confirmó plenamente la opinión de las autoridades bávaras de que NMH reembolsaría las ayudas en su totalidad. Sólo cuando la Comisión recibió el escrito de oposición presentado por NMH el 8 de julio de 1997, que pese a numerosas peticiones no le fue enviado hasta el 27 de noviembre de 1997, pudo comprobar que no se habían adoptado las medidas necesarias. Como el escrito contenía, además, una solicitud de suspensión del procedimiento, la Comisión deseaba ser informada sobre la evolución del caso para poder cerciorarse de la obser- vancia del artículo 86 del Tratado CECA. Sin embargo, no fue informada del auto de suspensión hasta el 14 de julio de 1998, y no recibió copia de dicho auto hasta el 23 de noviembre de 1998. Em estas condiciones, Alemania no puede alegar que se ha vulnerado el prin- cipio de protección de la confianza. La inclusión de la reclamación en el procedimiento de quiebra de NMH el 19 de enero de 1999 no descarta la existencia de una infracción, pues no se produjo hasta después de incoado el procedimiento. Por tanto, la Comisión considera que Alemania ha infringido el artículo 86 del Tratado CECA al no reclamar la totalidad de las ayudas ilegales e incompati- bles con el mercado común o no haber fijado la reduc- ción de la reclamación en un acuerdo notarial para garantizar la ejecución inmediata y completa de las deci- siones de la Comisión tras promulgarse la decisión judi- cial sobre el reembolso parcial. (18) (19) (20) (21) 31. 8. 1999 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas L 230/7 1. Renuncia a obtener medidas cautelares para la recuperación (29) de las ayudas (22) Alemania expone que, con arreglo a las disposiciones jurídicas aplicables (artículos 916 y 917 de la ZPO), sólo se pueden dictar medidas cautelares (embargo preven- tivo) en caso de que se impida o se dificulte de forma considerable la ejecución de la sentencia, en particular si existe sospecha de ocultación de bienes. Pero, a su juicio, estas disposiciones sólo pueden aplicarse con criterio restrictivo. Como en aquella fase del procedimiento todos los bienes de NMH tenían sobre sí un gravamen, no hubiera sido posible un embargo preventivo. (23) En opinión de la Comisión, Alemania ha probado que el derecho procesal nacional aplicable excluye el embargo en este supuesto, independientemente de si la deuda es de origen interno o comunitario. Por tanto, considera que el no haber solicitado medidas cautelares para la recuperación de las ayudas no infringe el artículo 86 del Tratado CECA. 2. La no interposición de recurso contra el auto de suspensión (24) Alemania no refuta la conclusión de la Comisión según la cual el hecho de no haber interpuesto recurso supone una infracción del artículo 86 del Tratado CECA. Por tanto, queda determinada la existencia de tal infracción. (25) (26) (27) (28) El escrito de respuesta de Alemania se acompaña de unas observaciones de Baviera que refutan la opinión de la Comisión. A juicio de las autoridades bávaras, el auto de suspensión de la Audiencia provincial de Amberg es conforme a derecho. Según el artículo 148 de la ZPO, el Tribunal no sólo estaba facultado para dictar la suspen- sión, sino que en el presente caso incluso estaba obli- gado a ello: sólo el Tribunal de Justicia de las Comuni- dades Europeas es competente para decidir sobre la lega- lidad de la ayuda, de modo que la audiencia provincial no podía incurrir en el riesgo de adoptar una decisión incompatible con una posible sentencia del Tribunal. Además, cabe interponer recurso en todo momento contra el auto de suspensión, de modo que no hay riesgo de que expire el plazo. En segundo lugar, el auto de suspensión no debe evaluarse con arreglo a los criterios del asunto Zuckerfa- brik, en el que se trata meramente de la suspensión de decisiones administrativas, sino exclusivamente sobre la base de los criterios del Tribunal de Justicia relativos al reembolso de fondos, según los cuales la aplicación del derecho procesal nacional no puede imposibilitar o difi- cultar en una medida considerable la recuperación. No ocurre así en el presente caso. El artículo 148 de la ZPO se ajusta a la legislación comunitaria, de modo que no hay motivo alguno para su inobservancia, de confor- midad con la doctrina Factortame I. Por las razones que se exponen a continuación, la Comi- sión estima que procedía recurrir contra el auto de suspensión. La audiencia provincial de Amberg fundamentó el auto de suspensión exclusivamente en el artículo 148 de la ZPO, con arreglo al cual un tribunal tiene la facultad discrecional de suspender el procedimiento cuando considere que la resolución del litigio depende del resul- tado de otra causa pendiente. Sin embargo, el artículo 148 de la ZPO no obliga a hacerlo, de modo que la legislación comunitaria también puede aplicarse sin que ello suponga la inobservancia de disposiciones del Derecho nacional. Los argumentos de Baviera no son pertinentes para el presente caso y lleva- rían a la suspensión automática de la ejecución de deci- siones CECA en cuanto se interpusiera un recurso ante el Tribunal de Justicia. Esta interpretación contraviene a la legislación comunitaria. (30) En la misma medida, tampoco puede invocarse el artí- culo 148 de la ZPO en tanto que disposición que pres- cribe obligatoriamente la suspensión sobre la base de la legislación comunitaria. La legislación comunitaria esta- blece más bien lo siguiente: a) En primer lugar, los tribunales nacionales han de garantizar la aplicación plena de las disposiciones del Derecho comunitario que surten efecto directo. En caso necesario, han de excluir toda aplicación de disposiciones del Derecho nacional que sea incompa- tible con la aplicación de aquellas disposiciones (1). Además, un tribunal nacional ha de ordenar el reem- bolso de ayudas ilegales aun cuando no medie deci- sión de la Comisión, salvo en el supuesto de que el reembolso resultara inadecuado debido a circunstan- cias excepcionales (2). b) En segundo lugar, la exigencia de que la recuperación de las ayudas se ajuste a las normas de procedimiento del Derecho nacional (3) no puede, por las razones expuestas, justificar la aceptación de una suspensión cuando la legislación permite la interposición de recurso y éste resulta pertinente a la luz del Derecho comunitario. Además, la facultad de los tribunales nacionales de suspender la ejecución de una medida nacional basada en el Derecho comunitario sólo es aceptable dentro de determinados límites y con arreglo a determinados requisitos (4) que en el presente caso no se cumplían. Uno de estos requisitos es que se tenga en cuenta el interés común y que el tribunal nacional observe las sentencias o autos (en procedimientos de protección jurídica provisional) del Tribunal de Justicia (5). En el presente caso no se cumplió este requisito, pues no se observó en abso- luto la sentencia del presidente del Tribunal de Justicia de 3 de mayo de 1996. (31) Además, había razones suficientes para interponer recurso. Por consiguiente, la Comisión estima que el hecho de que Baviera no recurriera contra el auto de suspensión de la Audiencia Provincial de Amberg de 5 de marzo de 1998 en el procedimiento relativo a la reclamación de la ayuda a NMH vulnera el artículo 86 del Tratado CECA. (1) Sentencia de 19 de junio de 1990 en el asunto C-213/89: Factor- tame I (Recopilación 1990, p. I-2433. (2) Sentencia de 11 de julio de 1996 en el asunto C-39/94: SFEI y otros (Recopilación 1996, p. I-3547). (3) Sentencia de 20 de marzo de 1997 en el asunto C-24/95: Alcan Deutschland (Recopilación 1997, p. I-1591) (4) Sentencia de 21 de febrero de 1991 en los asuntos acumulados C-143/88 y C-92/89: Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen/Hauptzollamt Itzehoe y Zuckerfabrik Soest/Hauptzollamt Paderbor (Recopilación 1991, p. I-415). (5) Sentencia de 9 de noviembre de 1995 en el asunto C-465/93: Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellschaft y otros (Recopilación 1995, p. I- 3761). L 230/8 ES Diario Oficial de las Comunidades Europeas 31. 8. 1999 (32) (33) (34) (35) (36) (37) Con respecto a la conclusión de que las autoridades alemanas no adoptaron con respecto al Estado federado de Baviera las medidas necesarias para garantizar la interposición de un recurso, Alemania objeta que la Comisión no conoce las relaciones internas entre el Gobierno federal y el Gobierno del Estado federado bávaro, y que la recriminación en relación con estas relaciones es incomprensible. En opinión de la Comisión, de esta objeción no se desprende ninguna información sobre las medidas adop- tadas por Alemania. En el procedimiento administrativo previo a la incoación del procedimiento del artículo 88 del Tratado CECA, la Comisión ya preguntó expresa- mente por las medidas adoptadas sin recibir respuesta. Por tanto, asume que no se adoptó medida alguna. Alemania es responsable de la aplicación del Derecho comunitario en el conjunto de su territorio nacional y no puede eludir esta responsabilidad basándose en circunstancias internas. En consecuencia, también el hecho de que Alemania no adoptara las medidas necesa- rias contra el auto de suspensión supone una infracción del artículo 86 del Tratado CECA. V. PLAZO PARA EL CUMPLIMIENTO DE OBLIGA- CIONES Con arreglo a la segunda frase del apartado 1 del artí- culo 88 del Tratado CECA, la Comisión impone un plazo al Estado miembro de que se trate para que cumpla sus obligaciones. El 31 de diciembre de 1998, la Comisión fue informada de que NMH ha sido declarada insolvente y de que, en caso de quiebra, se interrumpirá automáticamente el procedimiento con arreglo al artí- culo 240 de la ZPO. Por tanto, todo recurso quedaría sin efecto. Además, Alemania comunicó a la Comisión que, el 18 de enero de 1999, Baviera inscribió en la lista de acreedores de NMH un crédito por el importe total de la ayuda ilegal e incompatible con el mercado común. En consecuencia, Alemania solicita poner fin al procedi- miento con arreglo al artículo 88 del Tratado CECA sin que se adopte una decisión en el presente asunto. En opinión de la Comisión, como los hechos descritos han surgido después de la incoación del procedimiento el 16 de diciembre de 1998, ya no hay motivo alguno para fijar un plazo con objeto de que Alemania cumpla las obligaciones que, tal y como se demuestra en la presente Decisión, ha incumplido. Sin embargo, no considera que la quiebra de NMH anule la infracción del Derecho comunitario. La reclamación del crédito en el procedimiento de quiebra no obsta para que la Comisión adopte una decisión sobre la infracción del artículo 86 del Tratado CECA antes de la quiebra. Aunque la quiebra debiera considerarse como remedio, no se declaró hasta después del envío de las observa- ciones de la Comisión. En consonancia con la jurispru- dencia del Tribunal de Justicia, ha de proseguirse el procedimiento, pues con él se obtiene la base para deter- minar la responsabilidad en que ha podido incurrir Alemania como consecuencia del incumplimiento de sus obligaciones con respecto a otros Estados miembros, la Comunidad o personas concretas. VI. CONCLUSIÓN (38) La Comisión concluye que se han cometido las siguientes infracciones del artículo 86 del Tratado CECA: a) Alemania (el Estado federado de Baviera) ha omitido reclamar en su totalidad las ayudas ilegales e incom- patibles con el mercado común o fijar la reducción de la reclamación en un acuerdo notarial para garan- tizar la ejecución inmediata y completa de las deci- siones de la Comisión tras la promulgación de la decisión judicial sobre la reclamación parcial. b) Alemania —o Baviera— se ha abstenido de inter- poner recurso contra el auto de suspensión del proce- dimiento civil de reclamación contra NMH dictado por la Audiencia Provincial de Amberg el 5 de marzo de 1998, HA ADOPTADO LA PRESENTE DECISIÓN: Artículo 1 Alemania ha infringido las obligaciones que le incumben en virtud de las Decisiones 96/178/CECA y 96/484/CECA, así como del artículo 86 del Tratado CECA, al no haber reclamado ante el tribunal competente el reembolso de la totalidad de los 74 millones de marcos alemanes, más intereses, concedidos a la empresa Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH, en tanto que ayuda estatal incompatible con el Tratado CECA, o no haber fijado la reducción de la reclamación en un acuerdo suscrito ante notario para garantizar la ejecución inmediata y plena de las Decisiones de la Comisión tras la promulgación de la decisión judicial sobre la reclamación parcial. Artículo 2 Alemania ha incumplido las obligaciones que le incumben en virtud de las Decisiones 96/178/CECA y 96/484/CECA, así como del artículo 86 del Tratado CECA, al no haber inter- puesto (Baviera) recurso contra el auto de la Audiencia Provin- cial (Landgericht) de Amberg de 5 de marzo de 1998 por el que se suspende la causa pendiente ante dicho tribunal. Artículo 3 El destinatario de la presente Decisión será la República Federal de Alemania. Hecho en Bruselas, el 21 de abril de 1999. Por la Comisión Karel VAN MIERT Miembro de la Comisión


title: Regulamento (CE) n° 827/1999 da Comissão, de 21 de Abril de 1999, que determina em que medida podem ser aceites os pedidos de certificados de importação apresentados em Abril de 1999 para os contingentes pautais de carnes de bovino previstos pelo Regulamento n° 1279/98 para a República da Polónia, a República da Hungria, a República Checa, a Eslováquia, a Bulgária e a Roménia

text: L 105/8 PT Jornal Oficial das Comunidades Europeias 22. 4. 1999 REGULAMENTO (CE) N. o 827/1999 DA COMISS(cid:212)O de 21 de Abril de 1999 que determina em que medida podem ser aceites os pedidos de certificados de importa(cid:135)(cid:209)o apresentados em Abril de 1999 para os contingentes pautais de carnes de bovino previstos pelo Regulamento n. o 1279/98 para a Rep(cid:156)blica da Pol(cid:155)nia, a Rep(cid:156)blica da Hungria, a Rep(cid:156)blica Checa, a Eslov(cid:145)quia, a Bulg(cid:145)ria e a Rom(cid:130)nia A COMISS(cid:212)O DAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEIAS, Tendo em conta o Tratado que institui a Comunidade Europeia, Tendo em conta o Regulamento (CE) n. o 1279/98 da Comiss(cid:209)o, de 19 de Junho de 1998, que estabelece as normas de execu(cid:135)(cid:209)o respeitantes aos contingentes pautais de carne de bovino previstos pelo Regulamento (CE) n. o 3066/95 do Conselho para a Rep(cid:156)blica da Pol(cid:155)nia, a Rep(cid:156)blica da Hungria, a Rep(cid:156)blica Checa, a Rep(cid:156)blica Eslovaca, a Bulg(cid:145)ria e a Rom(cid:130)nia (1), e, nomeadamente, o n. o 4 do seu artigo 4. o; Considerando que o artigo 1. o e o artigo 2. o do Regula- mento (CE) n. o 1279/98 fixaram as quantidades de carne de bovino fresca, refrigerada ou congelada, origin(cid:145)ria da Pol(cid:155)nia, da Hungria, da Rep(cid:156)blica Checa, da Eslov(cid:145)quia, da Bulg(cid:145)ria e da Rom(cid:130)nia e, no caso da Pol(cid:155)nia, o equiva- lente da quantidade de carne expressa em peso dos produtos transformados que podem ser importados, em condi(cid:135)(cid:210)es especiais, a t(cid:146)tulo do per(cid:146)odo compreendido entre 1 de Abril e 30 de Junho de 1999; que as quanti- dades de carne de bovino fresca, refrigerada ou congelada origin(cid:145)ria da Hungria e da Rep(cid:156)blica Checa em rela(cid:135)(cid:209)o (cid:133)s quais foram pedidos certificados de importa(cid:135)(cid:209)o permitem a integral satisfa(cid:135)(cid:209)o dos mesmos pedidos; que, no entanto os pedidos relativos (cid:133) carne de bovino origin(cid:145)ria da Pol(cid:155)nia e aos produtos transformados devem ser redu- zidos, em conformidade com o n. o 4 do artigo 4. o do referido regulamento de forma proporcional; que n(cid:209)o foram pedidos certificados de importa(cid:135)(cid:209)o para a carne de bovino, origin(cid:145)rios da Eslov(cid:145)quia, da Rom(cid:130)nia e da Bulg(cid:145)ria, ADOPTOU O PRESENTE REGULAMENTO: Artigo 1. o Cada pedido de certificado de importa(cid:135)(cid:209)o apresentado a t(cid:146)tulo do per(cid:146)odo compreendido entre 1 de Abril e 30 de Junho de 1999, no (cid:131)mbito dos contingentes referidos no Regulamento (CE) n. o 1279/98, (cid:130) satisfeito at(cid:130) ao limite das quantidade seguintes: a) 100 % das quantidades pedidas de produtos dos c(cid:155)digos NC 0201 e 0202 origin(cid:145)rios da Hungria e da Rep(cid:156)blica Checa; b) 2,307 % das quantidades pedidas de produtos dos c(cid:155)digos NC 0201, 0202, 1602 50 31 e 1602 50 39 origin(cid:145)rios da Pol(cid:155)nia. Artigo 2. o O presente regulamento entra em vigor em 22 de Abril de 1999. O presente regulamento (cid:130) obrigat(cid:155)rio em todos os seus elementos e directamente aplic(cid:145)vel em todos os Estados-membros. Feito em Bruxelas, em 21 de Abril de 1999. Pela Comiss(cid:209)o Franz FISCHLER Membro da Comiss(cid:209)o (1) JO L 176 de 20. 6. 1998, p. 12


title: Règlement (CE) n° 831/1999 de la Commission du 21 avril 1999 modifiant le règlement (CE) n° 1489/97 établissant les modalités d'application du règlement (CEE) n° 2847/93 du Conseil en ce qui concerne les systèmes de surveillance de navires par satellite

eurovoc_concepts:
data transmission
exchange of information
fishing area
fishing controls
fishing vessel
satellite

text: L 105/20 FR Journal officiel des Communaut(cid:130)s europ(cid:130)ennes 22. 4. 1999 R(cid:221)GLEMENT (CE) No 831/1999 DE LA COMMISSION du 21 avril 1999 modifiant le r(cid:138)glement (CE) no 1489/97 (cid:130)tablissant les modalit(cid:130)s d’application du r(cid:138)glement (CEE) no 2847/93 du Conseil en ce qui concerne les syst(cid:138)mes de surveillance de navires par satellite LA COMMISSION DES COMMUNAUT(cid:144)S EUROP(cid:144)ENNES, vu le trait(cid:130) instituant la Communaut(cid:130) europ(cid:130)enne, vu le r(cid:138)glement (CEE) no 2847/93 du Conseil du 12 octobre 1993 instituant un r(cid:130)gime de contr(cid:147)le applicable (cid:133) la politique commune de la p(cid:136)che (1), modifi(cid:130) en dernier lieu par le r(cid:138)glement (CE) no 2846/98 (2), et notamment son article 3, paragraphe 10, (CE) no 1489/97 de la consid(cid:130)rant que le r(cid:138)glement Commission du 29 juillet 1997 (cid:130)tablissant les modalit(cid:130)s d’application du r(cid:138)glement (CEE) no 2847/93 du Conseil en ce qui concerne les syst(cid:138)mes de surveillance de navires par satellite (3), reprend, (cid:133) l’annexe III, les coordonn(cid:130)es de l’autorit(cid:130) comp(cid:130)tente des (cid:144)tats membres qui est respon- sable du Centre de surveillance des p(cid:136)cheries (CSP); que ces coordonn(cid:130)es sont indispensables pour la transmission simultan(cid:130)e des donn(cid:130)es pertinentes au CSP de l’(cid:144)tat membre c(cid:147)tier; consid(cid:130)rant qu’il est n(cid:130)cessaire de modifier le r(cid:138)glement (CE) no 1489/97 afin de compl(cid:130)ter l’annexe III (cid:133) ce r(cid:138)gle- ment avec les coordonn(cid:130)es des CSP r(cid:130)cemment (cid:130)tablis par certains (cid:144)tats membres; consid(cid:130)rant que les mesures pr(cid:130)vues au pr(cid:130)sent r(cid:138)glement sont conformes (cid:133) l’avis du comit(cid:130) de gestion de la p(cid:136)che et de l’aquaculture, A ARR(cid:219)T(cid:144) LE PR(cid:144)SENT R(cid:221)GLEMENT: Article premier L’annexe III du r(cid:138)glement (CE) no 1489/97 est remplac(cid:130) par l’annexe du pr(cid:130)sent r(cid:138)glement. Article 2 Le pr(cid:130)sent r(cid:138)glement entre en vigueur le septi(cid:138)me jour suivant celui de sa publication au Journal officiel des Communaut(cid:130)s europ(cid:130)ennes. Le pr(cid:130)sent r(cid:138)glement est obligatoire dans tous ses (cid:130)l(cid:130)ments et directement applicable dans tout (cid:144)tat membre. Fait (cid:133) Bruxelles, le 21 avril 1999. Par la Commission Emma BONINO Membre de la Commission (1) JO L 261 du 20. 10. 1993, p. 1. (2) JO L 358 du 31. 12. 1998, p. 5. (3) JO L 202 du 30. 7. 1997, p. 18. 22. 4. 1999 FR Journal officiel des Communaut(cid:130)s europ(cid:130)ennes L 105/21 ANEXO (cid:190) BILAG (cid:190) ANHANG (cid:190) PAQAQTGLA (cid:190) ANNEX (cid:190) ANNEXE (cid:190) ALLEGATO (cid:190) BIJLAGE (cid:190) ANEXO (cid:190) LIITE (cid:190) BILAGA BELGI(cid:220)/BELGIQUE Benaming/Nom: Adres/Adresse: Dienst voor de zeevisser¶ Administratief Centrum Vr¶havenstraat 5 8400 Oostende Telefoon/T(cid:130)l(cid:130)phone (32-59) 50 89 66; 51 29 94 Fax: Telex: DANMARK Navn: Adresse: Tlf. Fax: Telex: X. 25: E-post: DEUTSCHLAND Name: Anschrift: Telefon: Telefax: Telex: X. 25: EKKADA (cid:133)mola: Die(cid:151)humsg: Tgk(cid:146)vymo: Van: T(cid:146)ken: (32-59) 51 45 57 81075 dzvost Fiskeridirektoratet Stormgade 2 DK-1470 København K (45) 33 96 36 09 (45) 33 96 39 00 16144 fm dk 238 301 023 8535 (til Fiskeridirektoratet) 238 301 023 853 (fra Fiskeridirektoratet) fd@fd. dk Bundesanstalt f(cid:129)r Landwirtschaft und Ern(cid:132)hrung Palmaille 9 22767 Hamburg (49-40) 3 89 05-173 -180 (49-40) 3 89 05-128 -160 0214/763 0 262 45 4001 20221 Upouqce(cid:148)o Elpoqij(cid:147)r Mautik(cid:148)ar/Die(cid:151)humsg Kilemij(cid:147)r Astumol(cid:148)ar Cq. Kalpq(cid:145)jg 150/GR-18518 Peiqai(cid:145)r (30-1) 419 14 14 (30-1) 419 15 61-422 04 66 21 22 39-21 22 73 Die(cid:151)humsg W. 25: 22 100 256-32 102 208 E-mail: yen@yen. gr L 105/22 FR Journal officiel des Communaut(cid:130)s europ(cid:130)ennes 22. 4. 1999 ESPA(cid:158)A Nombre: Direcci(cid:155)n: Tel. : Fax: Secretar(cid:146)a General de Pesca Mar(cid:146)tima Coraz(cid:155)n de Mar(cid:146)a, 8 E-28002 Madrid (34) 913 47 36 70 (34) 913 47 36 63 Direcci(cid:155)n X. 25: 214531713858 FRANCE Nom: Adresse: T(cid:130)l(cid:130)phone: Fax: Telex: IRELAND Name: Address: Tel. : Fax: X. 25: ITALIA Nome: Indirizzo: Telefono: Telefax: Telex: E-mail: NEDERLAND Benaming: Adres: Telefoon: Fax: X. 25: E-mail: Cross Atlantique Ch(cid:131)teau de la Garenne Avenue Louis Bougo F-56410 Etel (33 2) 97 55 35 35 (33 2) 97 55 49 34 95 05 19 National Supervisory Centre Naval Base Haulbowline County Cork (353 21) 86 48 30 / 86 48 31 (353 21) 37 80 96 23 78 59 01 02 01 Comando generale del Corpo delle Capitanerie di porto (cid:190) Guardia costiera Viale dell’Arte n. 16 I-00144 Roma (39-6) 59 23 569 - 59 24 145 - 59 08 45 27 (39-6) 59 22 737 - 59 08 47 93 (39-6) 61 41 56 - 61 41 03 - 61 11 72 cogecap3@flashnet. it Algemene Inspectiedienst Kloosterraderstraat 25 Postbus 234 6460 AE Kerkrade (31-45) 546 62 22 (31-45) 546 62 30 (31-45) 546 10 11 0204 14444605 Meldkamer@aid. agro. nl 22. 4. 1999 FR Journal officiel des Communaut(cid:130)s europ(cid:130)ennes L 105/23 PORTUGAL Nome: Morada: Telefone: Telefax: Endere(cid:135)o X-25: SUOMI Name: Address: Telephone: Telefax: X. 25: E-mail: SVERIGE Namn: Adress: Tfn Fax X. 25: E-post: UNITED KINGDOM Name: Address: Tel. : Fax: Telex: X. 25: E-mail: Inspec(cid:135)(cid:209)o-Geral das Pescas Av. de Bras(cid:146)lia 1400-038 Lisboa (351-1) 302 51 00 (cid:190) 302 51 90 (351-1) 302 51 01 268096110344 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Fisheries and Game Hallituskatu 3 A 00170 Helsinki (358-9) 160 1 (358-9) 160 22 84 (0) 244 20 10 01 31 ali. lindahl@mmm. fi Fiskeriverket Box 423 S-401 26 G(cid:148)teborg (46-31) 743 03 00 (46-31) 743 04 44 2043 7 201034 fiskeriverket@fiskeriverket. se Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Fisheries IV Division Nobel House 17, Smith Square London SW1P 3JR (44 171) 238 56 92 (44 171) 238 64 74 21274 423 36 59 10 r. crooks@fish. maff. gov. uk (not for data transmission)


title: Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 831/1999 af 21. april 1999 om ændring af forordning (EF) nr. 1489/97 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser til Rådets forordning (EØF) nr. 2847/93 for så vidt angår satellitbaserede fartøjsovervågningssystemer

text: L 105/20 DA De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende 22. 4. 1999 KOMMISSIONENS FORORDNING (EF) Nr. 831/1999 af 21. april 1999 om ændring af forordning (EF) nr. 1489/97 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser til R(cid:134)dets forordning (EØF) nr. 2847/93 for s(cid:134) vidt ang(cid:134)r satellitbaserede fartøjsover- v(cid:134)gningssystemer KOMMISSIONEN FOR DE EUROPÆISKE FÆLLESSKABER HAR (cid:190) under henvisning til Europæiske Fællesskab, traktaten om oprettelse af Det under henvisning til R(cid:134)dets forordning (EØF) nr. 2847/93 af 12. oktober 1993 om indførelse af en kontrolordning senest ændret ved fiskeripolitik (1), under den fælles forordning (EF) nr. 2846/98 (2), særlig artikel 3, stk. 10, og ud fra følgende betragtninger: juli 1997 om gennemførelsesbestemmelser Bilag III til Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1489/97 af 29. til R(cid:134)dets forordning (EØF) nr. 2847/93 for s(cid:134) vidt ang(cid:134)r satellitbaserede fartøjsoverv(cid:134)gningssystemer (3) indeholder navn og adresse p(cid:134) de myndigheder i medlemsstaterne, der er ansvarlige for fiskerioverv(cid:134)gningscentret (FOC); disse navne og adresser er nødvendige for simultan frem- sendelse af data vedrørende FOC i en kystmedlemsstat; det er nødvendigt at ændre forordning (EF) nr. 1489/97 for at supplere bilag III til nævnte forordning med navn og adresse p(cid:134) de FOC’er, der for nylig er blevet oprettet i nogle medlemsstater; de i denne forordning fastsatte foranstaltninger er i over- ensstemmelse med Forvaltningskomit(cid:130)en for Fiskeri og Akvakultur (cid:190) UDSTEDT FØLGENDE FORORDNING: Artikel 1 Bilag III til forordning (EF) nr. 1489/97 affattes som angivet i bilaget til nærværende forordning. Artikel 2 Denne forordning træder i kraft p(cid:134) syvendedagen efter offentliggørelsen i De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende. Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart medlemsstat. i hver Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 21. april 1999. P(cid:134) Kommissionens vegne Emma BONINO Medlem af Kommissionen (1) EFT L 261 af 20. 10. 1993, s. 1. (2) EFT L 358 af 31. 12. 1998, s. 5. (3) EFT L 202 af 30. 7. 1997, s. 18. 22. 4. 1999 DA De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende L 105/21 ANEXO (cid:190) BILAG (cid:190) ANHANG (cid:190) PAQAQTGLA (cid:190) ANNEX (cid:190) ANNEXE (cid:190) ALLEGATO (cid:190) BIJLAGE (cid:190) ANEXO (cid:190) LIITE (cid:190) BILAGA BELGI(cid:220)/BELGIQUE Benaming/Nom: Adres/Adresse: Dienst voor de zeevisser¶ Administratief Centrum Vr¶havenstraat 5 8400 Oostende Telefoon/T(cid:130)l(cid:130)phone (32-59) 50 89 66; 51 29 94 Fax: Telex: DANMARK Navn: Adresse: Tlf. Fax: Telex: X. 25: E-post: DEUTSCHLAND Name: Anschrift: Telefon: Telefax: Telex: X. 25: EKKADA (cid:133)mola: Die(cid:151)humsg: Tgk(cid:146)vymo: Van: T(cid:146)ken: (32-59) 51 45 57 81075 dzvost Fiskeridirektoratet Stormgade 2 DK-1470 København K (45) 33 96 36 09 (45) 33 96 39 00 16144 fm dk 238 301 023 8535 (til Fiskeridirektoratet) 238 301 023 853 (fra Fiskeridirektoratet) fd@fd. dk Bundesanstalt f(cid:129)r Landwirtschaft und Ern(cid:132)hrung Palmaille 9 22767 Hamburg (49-40) 3 89 05-173 -180 (49-40) 3 89 05-128 -160 0214/763 0 262 45 4001 20221 Upouqce(cid:148)o Elpoqij(cid:147)r Mautik(cid:148)ar/Die(cid:151)humsg Kilemij(cid:147)r Astumol(cid:148)ar Cq. Kalpq(cid:145)jg 150/GR-18518 Peiqai(cid:145)r (30-1) 419 14 14 (30-1) 419 15 61-422 04 66 21 22 39-21 22 73 Die(cid:151)humsg W. 25: 22 100 256-32 102 208 E-mail: yen@yen. gr L 105/22 DA De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende 22. 4. 1999 ESPA(cid:158)A Nombre: Direcci(cid:155)n: Tel. : Fax: Secretar(cid:146)a General de Pesca Mar(cid:146)tima Coraz(cid:155)n de Mar(cid:146)a, 8 E-28002 Madrid (34) 913 47 36 70 (34) 913 47 36 63 Direcci(cid:155)n X. 25: 214531713858 FRANCE Nom: Adresse: T(cid:130)l(cid:130)phone: Fax: Telex: IRELAND Name: Address: Tel. : Fax: X. 25: ITALIA Nome: Indirizzo: Telefono: Telefax: Telex: E-mail: NEDERLAND Benaming: Adres: Telefoon: Fax: X. 25: E-mail: Cross Atlantique Ch(cid:131)teau de la Garenne Avenue Louis Bougo F-56410 Etel (33 2) 97 55 35 35 (33 2) 97 55 49 34 95 05 19 National Supervisory Centre Naval Base Haulbowline County Cork (353 21) 86 48 30 / 86 48 31 (353 21) 37 80 96 23 78 59 01 02 01 Comando generale del Corpo delle Capitanerie di porto (cid:190) Guardia costiera Viale dell’Arte n. 16 I-00144 Roma (39-6) 59 23 569 - 59 24 145 - 59 08 45 27 (39-6) 59 22 737 - 59 08 47 93 (39-6) 61 41 56 - 61 41 03 - 61 11 72 cogecap3@flashnet. it Algemene Inspectiedienst Kloosterraderstraat 25 Postbus 234 6460 AE Kerkrade (31-45) 546 62 22 (31-45) 546 62 30 (31-45) 546 10 11 0204 14444605 Meldkamer@aid. agro. nl 22. 4. 1999 DA De Europæiske Fællesskabers Tidende L 105/23 PORTUGAL Nome: Morada: Telefone: Telefax: Endere(cid:135)o X-25: SUOMI Name: Address: Telephone: Telefax: X. 25: E-mail: SVERIGE Namn: Adress: Tfn Fax X. 25: E-post: UNITED KINGDOM Name: Address: Tel. : Fax: Telex: X. 25: E-mail: Inspec(cid:135)(cid:209)o-Geral das Pescas Av. de Bras(cid:146)lia 1400-038 Lisboa (351-1) 302 51 00 (cid:190) 302 51 90 (351-1) 302 51 01 268096110344 Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Fisheries and Game Hallituskatu 3 A 00170 Helsinki (358-9) 160 1 (358-9) 160 22 84 (0) 244 20 10 01 31 ali. lindahl@mmm. fi Fiskeriverket Box 423 S-401 26 G(cid:148)teborg (46-31) 743 03 00 (46-31) 743 04 44 2043 7 201034 fiskeriverket@fiskeriverket. se Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food Fisheries IV Division Nobel House 17, Smith Square London SW1P 3JR (44 171) 238 56 92 (44 171) 238 64 74 21274 423 36 59 10 r. crooks@fish. maff. gov. uk (not for data transmission)