----

            COMMISSION DECISION         

of 19 July 2006         

concerning a measure taken by the Netherlands with regard to VAOP

(notified under document number C(2006) 3224)

(Only the Dutch text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/949/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) 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 pursuant to the provisions cited above (1) and having regard to their comments,

Whereas:

1.   PROCEDURE

2.   DESCRIPTION

2.1.   The recipient

2.2.   The market

2.3.   The two measures

3.   GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE

4.   COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES

5.   COMMENTS FROM THE NETHERLANDS

6.   ASSESSMENT

6.1.   Existence of aid

The first measure

The second measure

7.   CONCLUSION

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The measures taken by the Netherlands and Bank Nederlandse Gemeenten with regard to the Association of Suppliers of Waste Paper (Vereniging van Aanbieders van Oud Papier), for amounts respectively of NLG 3 million (EUR 1,3 million) and NLG 16,3 million (EUR 7,4 million), do not constitute aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Done at Brussels, 19 July 2006.

For the Commission

Neelie KROES            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ C 240, 30.9.2005, p. 36.

(2)  See footnote 1.

(3)  VAOP has tendered successfully only once. In recent years, VAOP has decided not to participate in such tenders any more.

(4)  Private sector companies may be vertically integrated to a greater degree than VAOP, but that does not mean they are not in competition with it.

(*1)  covered by the obligation of professional secrecy.

(5)  In the year 2000, VAOP paid the local authorities a total of NLG 40,7 million (EUR 18,5 million).

(6)  Joined Cases C-328/99 and C-399/00 Italy and SIM 2 Multimedia v Commission [2003] ECR I-4035, paragraphs 37 and 38.

(*2)  Business secret

(7)  As already indicated, this can be explained among other things by the securities available to the potential lender and by the fact that at that time the firm was considered to be an expanding enterprise with a stable and cost covering core business.

(8)  Both credit facilities comprise loans of different kinds. The Commission has compared those with similar maturities and conditions.

(9)  In the banking sector, the level of operating costs is often measured by the efficiency ratio, which is defined as operating expenses divided by total revenue. In 1997, [...]'s Netherlands division had an efficiency ratio of 64,8 %. In 1998 and 1999, it was respectively 65,2 % and 62,9 % (source: [...]). BNG's efficiency ratio is one third of that level, indicating a very low cost base. This is explained in part by the fact that it does not have a large network of offices.

(10)  Financial situation at the end of 2000.

(11)  The calculation submitted by the Dutch authorities is optimistic fro the municipalities' point of view among other things because it does not deduct the costs of settling the insolvency. It has already been seen that BNG, which as a financial institution has greater expertise in such calculations, is more prudent regarding the capacity of the liquidated assets to cover the creditors' claims.

----