# Diario Oficial C 9/14 d

| | ISSN 1725-244X |
| --- | --- |
| Diario Oficial
  de la Unión Europea | C 9 |
| | |
| Edición en lengua española | Comunicaciones e informaciones | 49o año14 de enero de 2006 |

ISSN 1725-244X

Diario Oficial

de la Unión Europea

C 9

Edición en lengua española

Comunicaciones e informaciones

49o año14 de enero de 2006

---

| Número de información | Sumario | Página |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Comunicaciones |
| | Comisión |
| 2006/C 009/1 | Tipo de cambio del euro | 1 |
| 2006/C 009/2 | Autorización de las ayudas estatales en el marco de las disposiciones de los artículos 87 y 88 del Tratado CE — Casos con respecto a los cuales la Comisión no presenta objeciones | 2 |
| 2006/C 009/3 | Autorización de las ayudas estatales en el marco de las disposiciones de los artículos 87 y 88 del Tratado CE — Casos con respecto a los cuales la Comisión no presenta objeciones (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2006/C 009/4 | Ayudas estatales — Reino Unido — Ayuda de Estado C 45/2005 (ex N 364/2005) — Programas de acción sobre residuos y recursos: ayudas para capacidad de reprocesado de papel de impresión y escritura — Invitación a presentar observaciones en aplicación del artículo 88, apartado 2 del Tratado CE (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| 2006/C 009/5 | No oposición a una concentración notificada (Asunto no COMP/M.4008 — Logista/Editorial Planeta/JV) (
  1
  ) | 12 |
| 2006/C 009/6 | No oposición a una concentración notificada (Asunto no COMP/M.4058 — Logista/Planeta de Agostini/JV) (
  1
  ) | 12 |

Número de información

Sumario

Página

I   Comunicaciones

Comisión

2006/C 009/1

Tipo de cambio del euro

1

2006/C 009/2

Autorización de las ayudas estatales en el marco de las disposiciones de los artículos 87 y 88 del Tratado CE — Casos con respecto a los cuales la Comisión no presenta objeciones

2

2006/C 009/3

Autorización de las ayudas estatales en el marco de las disposiciones de los artículos 87 y 88 del Tratado CE — Casos con respecto a los cuales la Comisión no presenta objeciones (
  1
  )

1

3

2006/C 009/4

Ayudas estatales — Reino Unido — Ayuda de Estado C 45/2005 (ex N 364/2005) — Programas de acción sobre residuos y recursos: ayudas para capacidad de reprocesado de papel de impresión y escritura — Invitación a presentar observaciones en aplicación del artículo 88, apartado 2 del Tratado CE (
  1
  )

1

6

2006/C 009/5

No oposición a una concentración notificada (Asunto no COMP/M.4008 — Logista/Editorial Planeta/JV) (
  1
  )

o

1

12

2006/C 009/6

No oposición a una concentración notificada (Asunto no COMP/M.4058 — Logista/Planeta de Agostini/JV) (
  1
  )

o

1

12

| | Corrección de errores |
| --- | --- |
| 2006/C 009/7 | Corrección de errores de los días festivos en 2006 (DO C 336 de 31.12.2005) | 13 |

Corrección de errores

2006/C 009/7

Corrección de errores de los días festivos en 2006 (DO C 336 de 31.12.2005)

(DO C 336 de 31.12.2005)

13

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Texto pertinente a efectos del EEE |

---

(1)   Texto pertinente a efectos del EEE

1

| ES | |
| --- | --- |

ES

---

I Comunicaciones

Comisión

| 14.1.2006 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | C 9/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

C 9/1

---

Tipo de cambio del euro (1)

13 de enero de 2006

(2006/C 9/01)

1 euro=

| | Moneda | Tipo de cambio |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | dólar estadounidense | 1,2039 |
| JPY | yen japonés | 138,13 |
| DKK | corona danesa | 7,4592 |
| GBP | libra esterlina | 0,68140 |
| SEK | corona sueca | 9,3063 |
| CHF | franco suizo | 1,5491 |
| ISK | corona islandesa | 74,01 |
| NOK | corona noruega | 8,0475 |
| BGN | lev búlgaro | 1,9558 |
| CYP | libra chipriota | 0,5737 |
| CZK | corona checa | 28,840 |
| EEK | corona estonia | 15,6466 |
| HUF | forint húngaro | 250,51 |
| LTL | litas lituana | 3,4528 |
| LVL | lats letón | 0,6960 |
| MTL | lira maltesa | 0,4293 |
| PLN | zloty polaco | 3,8138 |
| RON | leu rumano | 3,6308 |
| SIT | tólar esloveno | 239,49 |
| SKK | corona eslovaca | 37,520 |
| TRY | lira turca | 1,6160 |
| AUD | dólar australiano | 1,6040 |
| CAD | dólar canadiense | 1,3972 |
| HKD | dólar de Hong Kong | 9,3316 |
| NZD | dólar neozelandés | 1,7344 |
| SGD | dólar de Singapur | 1,9648 |
| KRW | won de Corea del Sur | 1 189,03 |
| ZAR | rand sudafricano | 7,3170 |
| CNY | yuan renminbi | 9,7144 |
| HRK | kuna croata | 7,3750 |
| IDR | rupia indonesia | 11 282,95 |
| MYR | ringgit malayo | 4,502 |
| PHP | peso filipino | 63,072 |
| RUB | rublo ruso | 34,3200 |
| THB | baht tailandés | 47,643 |

Moneda

Tipo de cambio

USD

dólar estadounidense

1,2039

JPY

yen japonés

138,13

DKK

corona danesa

7,4592

GBP

libra esterlina

0,68140

SEK

corona sueca

9,3063

CHF

franco suizo

1,5491

ISK

corona islandesa

74,01

NOK

corona noruega

8,0475

BGN

lev búlgaro

1,9558

CYP

libra chipriota

0,5737

CZK

corona checa

28,840

EEK

corona estonia

15,6466

HUF

forint húngaro

250,51

LTL

litas lituana

3,4528

LVL

lats letón

0,6960

MTL

lira maltesa

0,4293

PLN

zloty polaco

3,8138

RON

leu rumano

3,6308

SIT

tólar esloveno

239,49

SKK

corona eslovaca

37,520

TRY

lira turca

1,6160

AUD

dólar australiano

1,6040

CAD

dólar canadiense

1,3972

HKD

dólar de Hong Kong

9,3316

NZD

dólar neozelandés

1,7344

SGD

dólar de Singapur

1,9648

KRW

won de Corea del Sur

1 189,03

ZAR

rand sudafricano

7,3170

CNY

yuan renminbi

9,7144

HRK

kuna croata

7,3750

IDR

rupia indonesia

11 282,95

MYR

ringgit malayo

4,502

PHP

peso filipino

63,072

RUB

rublo ruso

34,3200

THB

baht tailandés

47,643

---

(1)

Fuente: tipo de cambio de referencia publicado por el Banco Central Europeo.

---

| 14.1.2006 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | C 9/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

C 9/2

---

Autorización de las ayudas estatales en el marco de las disposiciones de los artículos 87 y 88 del Tratado CE

Casos con respecto a los cuales la Comisión no presenta objeciones

(2006/C 9/02)

Fecha de adopción de la Decisión:

Estado miembro: Alemania (Schleswig-Holstein)

Ayuda no: N 9/2004

Denominación: Ayuda para la eliminación de reses muertas

Objetivo: compensar a los ganaderos por la eliminación del ganado muerto en la explotación

Fundamento jurídico:

| — | Richtlinien für die Gewährung von Beihilfen für die Tierkörperbeseitigung (VIII 35 — 7280.321) |
| --- | --- |

—

Richtlinien für die Gewährung von Beihilfen für die Tierkörperbeseitigung (VIII 35 — 7280.321)

| — | § 9, Abs 1 n. 7 «Ausführungsgesetz zum Tierkörperbeseitigungsgesetz» (GVObl. Schl. H.S.) |
| --- | --- |

—

§ 9, Abs 1 n. 7 «Ausführungsgesetz zum Tierkörperbeseitigungsgesetz» (GVObl. Schl. H.S.)

Presupuesto: 5,5 millones de EUR al año

Intensidad de la ayuda: 100 %

Duración: hasta 2013

El texto de la Decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

---

| 14.1.2006 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | C 9/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

C 9/3

---

Autorización de las ayudas estatales en el marco de las disposiciones de los artículos 87 y 88 del Tratado CE

Casos con respecto a los cuales la Comisión no presenta objeciones

(2006/C 9/03)

(Texto pertinente a efectos del EEE)

Fecha de adopción de la Decisión:

Estado miembro: Países Bajos

Ayuda no: N 127/2004

Denominación: Medidas de promoción de la solla

Objetivo: Financiación de medidas de promoción de la solla a través de tasas parafiscales

Fundamento jurídico:

| — | Instellingsverordening Productschap Vis |
| --- | --- |

—

Instellingsverordening Productschap Vis

| — | Wet op de bedrijfsorganisatie |
| --- | --- |

—

Wet op de bedrijfsorganisatie

| — | Verordening instelling van een fonds voor scholpromotie en verordening financiering scholpromotie 2004 |
| --- | --- |

—

Verordening instelling van een fonds voor scholpromotie en verordening financiering scholpromotie 2004

Presupuesto: 200 000 EUR al año

Duración: Ilimitada (el régimen se notificará de nuevo a la Comisión a más tardar diez años después de su entrada en vigor)

Forma e intensidad de la intervención: No rebasa los límites de los importes previstos en las Directrices para el examen de las ayudas estatales en el sector de la pesca y la acuicultura (DO C 19 de 20.1.2001, p. 7)

Otros datos: Informe anual

El texto de la Decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Fecha de adopción:

Estado miembro: España (Principado de Asturias)

Número de la ayuda: N 173/2005

Denominación en el idioma original: Proyecto de ayudas para la ejecución de proyectos de investigación del Plan I+D+I de Asturias. Prolongación y modificación de la ayuda N 716/2001

Objetivo: Investigación y desarrollo (Todos los sectores)

Fundamento jurídico: Propuesta de Resolución de la Consejería de Educación y Ciencia del Gobierno del Principado de Asturias, de marzo de 2005, por la que se convocan ayudas a las empresas para la ejecución de proyectos de investigación en el marco del Plan de I+D+I de Asturias

Presupuesto:

| | 2005: 300 000 EUR |
| --- | --- |

2005: 300 000 EUR

| | 2006: 3 000 000 EUR |
| --- | --- |

2006: 3 000 000 EUR

| | 2007: 3 000 000 EUR |
| --- | --- |

2007: 3 000 000 EUR

Intensidad o importe de la ayuda: 35 % — 60 % — + 10 % — 75 % — 50 %

Duración:

El texto auténtico de la Decisión, de la cual ha sido suprimida toda la información confidencial, puede encontrarse en

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids

Fecha de adopción:

Estado miembro: Dinamarca

Número de la ayuda: N 229/2005

Denominación en el idioma original: Regionale Teknologicentre

Objetivo: Investigación y desarrollo (Todos los sectores)

Fundamento jurídico: Lov nr. 419 af 6.6.2002

Presupuesto:

| | 2005: 4 000 000 EUR |
| --- | --- |

2005: 4 000 000 EUR

| | 2006-2008: 23 000 000 EUR |
| --- | --- |

2006-2008: 23 000 000 EUR

| | 2009: 25 000 000 EUR |
| --- | --- |

2009: 25 000 000 EUR

Intensidad o importe de la ayuda: 60 %

Duración:

El texto auténtico de la Decisión, de la cual ha sido suprimida toda la información confidencial, puede encontrarse en

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids

Fecha de la decisión:

Estado miembro: República Eslovaca

Ayuda no: N 298/2005

Denominación: Ayuda individual para la producción audiovisual a favor de TYZAM s.r.o.

Objetivo: apoyo a la producción de películas

Base jurídica:

| a) | Zákon č. 523/2004 Z.z. o rozpočtových pravidlách verejnej správy a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov |
| --- | --- |

a)

Zákon č. 523/2004 Z.z. o rozpočtových pravidlách verejnej správy a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov

| b) | Zákon č. 231/1999 Z.z. o štátnej pomoci v znení zákona č. 203/2004 – § 4 ods. 1, písm. d) |
| --- | --- |

b)

Zákon č. 231/1999 Z.z. o štátnej pomoci v znení zákona č. 203/2004 – § 4 ods. 1, písm. d)

| c) | Výnos MK SR – 480/2004 – 1 o poskytovaní dotácií v pôsobnosti MK SR |
| --- | --- |

c)

Výnos MK SR – 480/2004 – 1 o poskytovaní dotácií v pôsobnosti MK SR

Presupuesto: 7 millones de SKK

Intensidad o importe de la ayuda: 20 %

Duración: medida única, previa aprobación (31.12.2005)

El texto de la Decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Fecha de la decisión:

Estado miembro: República Eslovaca

Ayuda no: N 299/2005

Denominación: Ayuda individual para la producción audiovisual a favor de TaO Productions s.r.o

Objetivo: Apoyo a la producción de películas

Base jurídica:

| a) | Zákon č. 523/2004 Z.z. o rozpočtových pravidlách verejnej správy a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov |
| --- | --- |

a)

Zákon č. 523/2004 Z.z. o rozpočtových pravidlách verejnej správy a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov

| b) | Zákon č. 231/1999 Z.z. o štátnej pomoci v znení zákona č. 203/2004 – § 4 ods. 1, písm. d) |
| --- | --- |

b)

Zákon č. 231/1999 Z.z. o štátnej pomoci v znení zákona č. 203/2004 – § 4 ods. 1, písm. d)

| c) | Výnos MK SR – 480/2004 – 1 o poskytovaní dotácií v pôsobnosti MK SR |
| --- | --- |

c)

Výnos MK SR – 480/2004 – 1 o poskytovaní dotácií v pôsobnosti MK SR

Presupuesto: 8 millones de SKK

Intensidad o importe de la ayuda: 10 %

Duración: medida única, previa aprobación (31.12.2005)

El texto de la Decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Fecha de la decisión:

Estado miembro: República Eslovaca

Ayuda no: N 300/2005

Denominación: Ayuda individual a la producción audiovisual a favor de ALEF Film& Media Group, s.r.o

Objetivo: apoyo a la producción de películas

Base jurídica:

| a) | Zákon č. 523/2004 Z.z. o rozpočtových pravidlách verejnej správy a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov |
| --- | --- |

a)

Zákon č. 523/2004 Z.z. o rozpočtových pravidlách verejnej správy a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov

| b) | Zákon č. 231/1999 Z.z. o štátnej pomoci v znení zákona č. 203/2004 – § 4 ods. 1, písm. d) |
| --- | --- |

b)

Zákon č. 231/1999 Z.z. o štátnej pomoci v znení zákona č. 203/2004 – § 4 ods. 1, písm. d)

| c) | Výnos MK SR – 480/2004 – 1 o poskytovaní dotácií v pôsobnosti MK SR |
| --- | --- |

c)

Výnos MK SR – 480/2004 – 1 o poskytovaní dotácií v pôsobnosti MK SR

Presupuesto: 11 millones de SKK

Intensidad o importe de la ayuda: 26,2 %

Duración: medida única, previa aprobación (31.12.2005)

El texto de la Decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se El texto de la Decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Fecha de la decisión:

Estado miembro: Francia

Ayuda no: N 337/2004 y N 378/2004

Denominación: Financiación mediante impuestos y dotaciones presupuestarias de los Centros Técnicos Industriales (CTI) y de los Centros Profesionales de Desarrollo Económico (CPDE)

Objetivo: Acciones colectivas de investigación y desarrollo, normalización, formación, promoción e información de las empresas en los sectores de los productos mecánicos, de los bienes de consumo y de los materiales de construcción.

Fundamento jurídico: Loi 2001-692 du 1er août 2001 et loi de finance annuelle

Duración: A partir de la fecha de autorización de la Comisión hasta el 31 de diciembre de 2010

Otros datos: Beneficiario: CTI y CPDE de los sectores de los bienes de consumo, la mecánica y los materiales de construcción

El texto de la Decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Fecha de adopción de la Decisión:

Estado miembro: Dinamarca

Ayuda no: N 374/2002

Denominación: Ayudas destinadas al equipamiento de puertos de pesca, concedidas como parte de las intervenciones estructurales de la Comunidad correspondientes al IFOP para los años 2000-2006

Objetivo: Cofinanciación de las intervenciones estructurales relativas al equipamiento de puertos de pesca en Dinamarca para el periodo 2000-2006

Fundamento jurídico:

| — | Lov nr. 316 om strukturforanstaltninger, offentliggjort den 3. maj 2001 |
| --- | --- |

—

Lov nr. 316 om strukturforanstaltninger, offentliggjort den 3. maj 2001

| — | Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 2792/1999 af 17. december 1999 om de nærmere regler og betingelser for Fællesskabets strukturforanstaltninger for fiskeriet |
| --- | --- |

—

Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 2792/1999 af 17. december 1999 om de nærmere regler og betingelser for Fællesskabets strukturforanstaltninger for fiskeriet

Presupuesto: 27 millones de EUR

Duración: Años 2000 a 2006

Intensidad o importe de la ayuda: Dentro de los límites de los importes determinados en el Reglamento (CE) no 2792/1999

Otros datos: Informe anual

El texto de la Decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Fecha de la decisión:

Ayuda no: N 465/2005

Estado miembro: Países Bajos

Denominación: Ondersteunende maatregelen om de omschakeling te vergemakkelijken van een aanbod- naar een vraagfinanciering voor schoolbegeleidingsdiensten en rechtstreekse betaling van het geoormerkt gedeelte van de begroting voor schoolbegeleidingsdiensten aan deze diensten

Base jurídica: Hoofdstukken VI en VIA, onderdeel a) van de wet tot wijziging van onder meer de wet op het primair onderwijs, de wet op de expertisecentra, en de wet op het voortgezet onderwijs in verband met de vraagfinanciering voor schoolbegeleiding en de bekostiging van het onderwijs aan zieke leerlingen

Objetivo: Formación

Importe total de la ayuda: EUR 53 millones

Gasto anual previsto:

| | 2006: 15 000 000 EUR |
| --- | --- |

2006: 15 000 000 EUR

| | 2007: 35 000 000 EUR |
| --- | --- |

2007: 35 000 000 EUR

| | 2008: 3 000 000 EUR |
| --- | --- |

2008: 3 000 000 EUR

Duración: 1.1.2006 — 31.12.2008

Otros datos:

| | Tipo de ayuda: Régimen |
| --- | --- |

Tipo de ayuda: Régimen

| | Forma de ayuda: Subvención directa |
| --- | --- |

Forma de ayuda: Subvención directa

El texto de la Decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Fecha de la decisión:

Estado miembro: España

Ayuda no: N 499/2004

Denominación: Regímenes de ayudas a la exploración minera, a la protección del medio ambiente y a la seguridad minera relacionada con los minerales no energéticos

Objetivo: Sector de los minerales no energéticos. Modificación del régimen aprobado por la Comisión el 19 de junio de 2002. Las modificaciones se refieren a la forma y a la intensidad de las ayudas a la prospección minera con el fin de hacer esta actividad más atractiva

Intensidad o importe de la ayuda: Ayudas a la prospección: subvención a fondo perdido de un máximo del 20 % de los costes seleccionables (30 % en el caso de las PYME) y/o anticipo reembolsable sin intereses de hasta el 60 % de los costes subvencionables (70 % en el caso de las PYME)

Duración:

El texto de la Decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Fecha de la decisión:

Estado miembro: Alemania

Ayuda no: NN 44/2004

Denominación: Ayuda de salvamento a SVZ Schwarze Pumpe

Objetivo: Ayuda de salvamento

Fundamento jurídico: §2(3) Förderbankgesetz

Presupuesto: EUR 21,028 millones

Duración: Hasta el 31.5.2005

El texto de la Decisión en la lengua o lenguas auténticas, suprimidos los datos confidenciales, se encuentra en:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

---

| 14.1.2006 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | C 9/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

C 9/6

---

AYUDAS ESTATALES — REINO UNIDO

Ayuda de Estado C 45/2005 (ex N 364/2005) — Programas de acción sobre residuos y recursos: ayudas para capacidad de reprocesado de papel de impresión y escritura

Invitación a presentar observaciones en aplicación del artículo 88, apartado 2 del Tratado CE

(2006/C 9/04)

(Texto pertinente a efectos del EEE)

Por carta de 7 de diciembre de 2005, reproducida en la versión lingüística auténtica en las páginas siguientes al presente resumen, la Comisión notificó al Reino Unido su decisión de incoar el procedimiento previsto en el artículo 88, apartado 2, del Tratado CE en relación con la ayuda antes citada.

Las partes interesadas podrán presentar sus observaciones, en un plazo de un mes a partir de la fecha de publicación del presente resumen y de la carta siguiente, enviándolas a:

| Comisión Europea |
| --- |
| Dirección General de Competencia |
| Registro de Ayudas Estatales |
| SPA 3, 6/05 |
| B-1049 Bruselas |
| Fax: (32-2) 296 12 42 |

Comisión Europea

Dirección General de Competencia

Registro de Ayudas Estatales

SPA 3, 6/05

B-1049 Bruselas

Fax: (32-2) 296 12 42

Dichas observaciones serán comunicadas al Reino Unido. Los interesados que presenten observaciones podrán solicitar por escrito que su identidad sea tratada confidencialmente, exponiendo los motivos de su solicitud.

RESUMEN

En julio de 2005, el Reino Unido notificó a la Comisión un régimen de ayudas a la inversión a fin de aumentar la capacidad de fabricación de papel de impresión y escritura a partir de fibra reciclada.

1.   Descripción de la medida

En el Reino Unido no se recogen y reciclan los residuos de papel de las oficinas. Para poner fin a esta situación, el organismo público responsable del Plan de Acción sobre Residuos y Recursos (WRAP) se propone ofrecer subvenciones a las papeleras. Las subvenciones estimularán la demanda de servicios de recogida de residuos de papel de las oficinas mediante la cofinanciación de un aumento de la capacidad de reciclado de papel de impresión y escritura por las papeleras. A cambio de la ayuda, las empresas del sector del papel deben acceder a utilizar mayores cantidades de residuos de papel recuperados del flujo de residuos, con un porcentaje o tonelaje mínimos de residuos de papel de impresión y escritura procedentes de oficinas. Para hacer el mejor uso posible de los residuos de papel de impresión y escritura recogidos, la capacidad adicional de fabricación de papel se utilizará para fabricar nuevo papel de impresión y escritura.

La licitación atenderá a la inclusión de elementos de nuevas tecnologías, demostración e innovación que contribuyan al desarrollo de procesos sostenibles de reciclado de residuos, esto es, procesos que vayan más allá del estado actual de la tecnología. El régimen tiene un presupuesto previsto de entre 6 y 20 millones GBP. Dado que el proceso de licitación determinará los niveles de ayuda, no se conocen todavía las intensidades de ayuda. Menos de diez fabricantes de papel son los beneficiarios previstos. Las autoridades británicas prevén conceder las ayudas antes de abril de 2006.

2.   Evaluación de la medida

La Comisión tiene dudas de que pueda aplicarse al régimen el punto 29 de las Directrices sobre ayudas estatales en favor del medio ambiente (1), pues las inversiones en nueva capacidad de producción de papel a partir de residuos no reducirán la contaminación generada por las propias empresas. Los beneficiarios utilizarán residuos de papel procedentes de cualquier productor.

Por lo que respecta a otras disposiciones, la Comisión tiene dudas de que sean aplicables las excepciones contempladas en el artículo 87, apartados 2 y 3, del Tratado CE. Ahora bien, dado que aún no se ha elegido a los beneficiarios, es imposible evaluar si las inversiones se efectuarán en zonas elegibles para ayudas regionales y si serán aplicables, en todo o en parte, las Directrices sobre ayudas de Estado de finalidad regional (2).

En caso de no ser aplicables las Directrices ambientales, la Comisión debe evaluar el régimen directamente en relación con el artículo 87, apartado 3, letra c). Así ha venido haciéndolo, por ejemplo, en el caso de una ayuda al reciclado (3) y en otros dos asuntos relacionados con el sector papelero (4). Los criterios aplicados por la Comisión se basan en el efecto incentivador de las ayudas, y atienden a si las inversiones necesarias para obtener beneficios ambientales van más allá del estado actual de la tecnología en la UE.

En otros casos en que la Comisión ha evaluado ayudas a la inversión destinadas a la creación de capacidades de reprocesado de papel, los criterios aplicados por la Comisión se basaban en el efecto incentivador de las ayudas y en si las inversiones necesarias para obtener los beneficios ambientales iban más allá del estado actual de la tecnología en la UE. La Comisión duda de la validez del argumento de las autoridades británicas según el cual la escasa utilización actual de contenido reciclado en la producción de papel de impresión y escritura en la UE basta para considerar que la fabricación de este tipo de papel a partir de fibras recicladas va más allá del estado actual de la tecnología en la UE.

La Comisión tiene dudas sobre el efecto incentivador del régimen en la recogida de residuos de papel de impresión y escritura.

También tiene dudas sobre los beneficios ambientales de la fabricación de papel de impresión y escritura en la UE en comparación con el planteamiento, más corriente, de utilizar este tipo de papel para fabricar otros tipos.

La Comisión duda además de que los costes subvencionables se limiten a los costes de inversión adicionales que se requieren para cumplir los objetivos medioambientales, pues el Reino Unido no se propone restar de los costes de inversión subvencionables el coste de inversión de una capacidad comparable, pero sin los mismos beneficios medioambientales. Por lo tanto, no esta claro que, cuando se concedan ayudas para una inversión en nuevas capacidades de papel de impresión y escritura empleando residuos de este mismo tipo de papel, se resten los costes de una instalación convencional de papel de impresión y escritura.

Por último, la Comisión duda de que la medida propuesta por el Reino Unido sea el instrumento menos falseador a fin de abordar este problema. Otros instrumentos, por ejemplo, los centrados en la recogida, podrían falsear en menor medida los mercados de residuos de papel y sus productos finales.

3.   Conclusión

Habida cuenta de las anteriores consideraciones, la Comisión ha decidido incoar el procedimiento contemplado en el artículo 88, apartado 2, del Tratado CE. Se invita a las partes interesadas a presentar sus observaciones, en particular sobre los puntos siguientes: 1) qué debe considerarse «estado actual de la tecnología» en la utilización de residuos de papel (de impresión y escritura) para la producción de papel nuevo de impresión y escritura, 2) necesidad de la ayuda en cuanto al aumento previsto de los índices de recogida de residuos de papel de impresión y escritura, 3) grado de falseamiento de la competencia que cabe esperar, tanto en los mercados de papel nuevo como en los mercados de residuos de papel; y, por último, 4) beneficios ambientales que cabe esperar de la medida notificada en comparación con los que podrían obtenerse mediante otros instrumentos.

TEXTO DE LA CARTA

«The Commission wishes to inform the United Kingdom that, having examined the information supplied by your authorities on the aid referred to above, it has decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

1.   PROCEDURE

| (1) | Following informal discussions, by letter of 22 July 2005, registered in the Commission on 26 July 2005 under number A/6948, the United Kingdom notified to the Commission a scheme for increasing the manufacturing capacity of printing and writings paper from recycled fibre under the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). The notification was registered under number N 364/05. The Commission asked further information by letter dated 9 September 2005, registered under number D/56952. The United Kingdom replied by letter dated 28 October 2005, and registered on 7 November 2002 under number A/38954. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Following informal discussions, by letter of 22 July 2005, registered in the Commission on 26 July 2005 under number A/6948, the United Kingdom notified to the Commission a scheme for increasing the manufacturing capacity of printing and writings paper from recycled fibre under the Waste and Resources Action Programme (WRAP). The notification was registered under number N 364/05. The Commission asked further information by letter dated 9 September 2005, registered under number D/56952. The United Kingdom replied by letter dated 28 October 2005, and registered on 7 November 2002 under number A/38954.

2.   DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE

| (2) | WRAP is an entity established to promote sustainable waste management, and more specifically to promote efficient markets for recycled materials and products. Its central objective is to enable recycled markets to function more effectively by stimulating demand for recycled materials and products, thereby improving the economics of collection. Although WRAP functions as an adjunct to the Government and implements government policies, it has the form of a private company. WRAP's shareholders comprise several representatives of the industries with some interests in waste management, among them the Confederation of Paper Industries and the Chartered Institute of Waste Management, charities like Wastewatch, and representatives of the devolved and British governments. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

WRAP is an entity established to promote sustainable waste management, and more specifically to promote efficient markets for recycled materials and products. Its central objective is to enable recycled markets to function more effectively by stimulating demand for recycled materials and products, thereby improving the economics of collection. Although WRAP functions as an adjunct to the Government and implements government policies, it has the form of a private company. WRAP's shareholders comprise several representatives of the industries with some interests in waste management, among them the Confederation of Paper Industries and the Chartered Institute of Waste Management, charities like Wastewatch, and representatives of the devolved and British governments.

| (3) | In the present case, WRAP has chosen to give support for the creation of printing and writing reprocessing capacity. The definition of printing and writing paper used by the UK authorities includes the following types of papers: paper for printed publications, copier/printer paper and magazine papers. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

In the present case, WRAP has chosen to give support for the creation of printing and writing reprocessing capacity. The definition of printing and writing paper used by the UK authorities includes the following types of papers: paper for printed publications, copier/printer paper and magazine papers.

| (4) | By increasing reprocessing capacity of printing and writing paper (hereinafter “P&W paper”), WRAP wants to address the problems of paper collection and recycling in offices and business. According to the United Kingdom most of the paper produced by businesses and offices is not collected and sorted for recycling. The reasons for this lie in a dual system of waste collection, where city councils are responsible for collecting domestic waste but have no responsibility for collecting waste from businesses and offices, and the low costs of landfill. Businesses and offices pay private waste managers for the collection of their waste. The low costs of landfill, the difficulties experienced in sourcing waste paper in the last decade, and attendant price fluctuations has led to a market failure consisting of a shortage of reprocessing capacity and a preference by waste managers to dump waste paper from offices and businesses in the landfill and to a shortage of reprocessing capacity. In order to correct this market failure, WRAP intends to offer grants to paper manufacturers to increase paper reprocessing capacity which utilises waste paper from offices and businesses as its raw material input. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

By increasing reprocessing capacity of printing and writing paper (hereinafter “P&W paper”), WRAP wants to address the problems of paper collection and recycling in offices and business. According to the United Kingdom most of the paper produced by businesses and offices is not collected and sorted for recycling. The reasons for this lie in a dual system of waste collection, where city councils are responsible for collecting domestic waste but have no responsibility for collecting waste from businesses and offices, and the low costs of landfill. Businesses and offices pay private waste managers for the collection of their waste. The low costs of landfill, the difficulties experienced in sourcing waste paper in the last decade, and attendant price fluctuations has led to a market failure consisting of a shortage of reprocessing capacity and a preference by waste managers to dump waste paper from offices and businesses in the landfill and to a shortage of reprocessing capacity. In order to correct this market failure, WRAP intends to offer grants to paper manufacturers to increase paper reprocessing capacity which utilises waste paper from offices and businesses as its raw material input.

| (5) | WRAP is planning to issue a competitive tender process, inspired by EC public procurement procedures, and grant the aid to paper mills before April 2006. The specific aim expressed in the tender procedure will be to provide a subsidy towards the creation of new P&W paper reprocessing capacity and promote the development of recycled paper technology within this paper grade. Successful bidders will be those whose collections are predominantly from offices and business and are of P&W waste paper. According to the UK authorities, it is highly probable that a bid that included a high proportion of (low quality) household waste, rather than P&W waste paper from offices and/or businesses, will not succeed. According to the order of priority given by WRAP in the tender invitation document to raw material sources, the most important source is offices or business. In return to the grant, the successful paper manufacturers will commit to an increased agreed tonnage of P&W waste paper newly recovered from the waste stream as the raw material for the new facilities, with a minimum percentage or tonnage being recovered printing and writing paper from offices. Tenderers will need to specify the level of support required to bring forward their proposals, and to demonstrate technological developments and environmental benefits. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

WRAP is planning to issue a competitive tender process, inspired by EC public procurement procedures, and grant the aid to paper mills before April 2006. The specific aim expressed in the tender procedure will be to provide a subsidy towards the creation of new P&W paper reprocessing capacity and promote the development of recycled paper technology within this paper grade. Successful bidders will be those whose collections are predominantly from offices and business and are of P&W waste paper. According to the UK authorities, it is highly probable that a bid that included a high proportion of (low quality) household waste, rather than P&W waste paper from offices and/or businesses, will not succeed. According to the order of priority given by WRAP in the tender invitation document to raw material sources, the most important source is offices or business. In return to the grant, the successful paper manufacturers will commit to an increased agreed tonnage of P&W waste paper newly recovered from the waste stream as the raw material for the new facilities, with a minimum percentage or tonnage being recovered printing and writing paper from offices. Tenderers will need to specify the level of support required to bring forward their proposals, and to demonstrate technological developments and environmental benefits.

| (6) | Among the criteria for the selection of the successful tenderers is the inclusion in the facility of elements of new technology or processes, whose trialling or demonstration will assist the development of sustainable processes in waste recycling. In addition, the demonstration by the tenderer that the process used goes beyond current “state of the art”. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

Among the criteria for the selection of the successful tenderers is the inclusion in the facility of elements of new technology or processes, whose trialling or demonstration will assist the development of sustainable processes in waste recycling. In addition, the demonstration by the tenderer that the process used goes beyond current “state of the art”.

| (7) | According to the United Kingdom, the competitive tender will ensure that the minimum necessary is paid to secure the environmental benefits. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

According to the United Kingdom, the competitive tender will ensure that the minimum necessary is paid to secure the environmental benefits.

| (8) | The United Kingdom argues that the investment project would bring about a major environmental benefit consisting in the creation of an increasing demand for a major proportion of office and businesses waste stream. This will bring benefits for the environment, while this will also allow less waste to be disposed in the landfills. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

The United Kingdom argues that the investment project would bring about a major environmental benefit consisting in the creation of an increasing demand for a major proportion of office and businesses waste stream. This will bring benefits for the environment, while this will also allow less waste to be disposed in the landfills.

| (9) | The budget for this measure is between GBP 6 million and GBP 20 millions. The budget will cover a period from the date of clearance to 31 December 2008. The number of beneficiaries is expected to be between two and ten paper mill companies, depending on the quality of the proposals. The aid is financed through the general budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). |
| --- | --- |

(9)

The budget for this measure is between GBP 6 million and GBP 20 millions. The budget will cover a period from the date of clearance to 31 December 2008. The number of beneficiaries is expected to be between two and ten paper mill companies, depending on the quality of the proposals. The aid is financed through the general budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA).

3.   PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE

| (10) | According to Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (5), the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure shall summarise the relevant issues of fact and law, shall include a preliminary assessment of the Commission as to the aid character of the proposed measure, and shall set out the doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

According to Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (5), the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure shall summarise the relevant issues of fact and law, shall include a preliminary assessment of the Commission as to the aid character of the proposed measure, and shall set out the doubts as to its compatibility with the common market.

3.1.   Existence of aid under Article 87(1) EC Treaty

| (11) | Under Article 87(1) EC Treaty, “any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.” |
| --- | --- |

(11)

Under Article 87(1) EC Treaty, “any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market.”

| (12) | In this case, the measure will be funded by resources granted by the State under the WRAP programme. The aid will be granted to individual beneficiaries. The competitive selection procedures may ensure that the amount of the subsidy is limited to the minimum, but does not take away the aid character of the measure. The measure distorts or threatens to distort competition, as it may cover a significant part of investment costs, which would allow the beneficiary to charge a lower price for the P&W paper it produces. The measure will affect the market for new paper, but also the market for waste paper, which is valuable commodity in demand by the paper industry. The measure is likely to affect trade between Member States, since both new paper and waste paper are traded internationally. In fact, a big amount of the UK paper consumption is imported mainly from other Member States and the United Kingdom was the biggest European exporter of waste paper in 2004 (6). |
| --- | --- |

(12)

In this case, the measure will be funded by resources granted by the State under the WRAP programme. The aid will be granted to individual beneficiaries. The competitive selection procedures may ensure that the amount of the subsidy is limited to the minimum, but does not take away the aid character of the measure. The measure distorts or threatens to distort competition, as it may cover a significant part of investment costs, which would allow the beneficiary to charge a lower price for the P&W paper it produces. The measure will affect the market for new paper, but also the market for waste paper, which is valuable commodity in demand by the paper industry. The measure is likely to affect trade between Member States, since both new paper and waste paper are traded internationally. In fact, a big amount of the UK paper consumption is imported mainly from other Member States and the United Kingdom was the biggest European exporter of waste paper in 2004 (6).

| (13) | Therefore, the scheme qualifies as State aid under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Therefore, the scheme qualifies as State aid under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.

| (14) | By notifying to the Commission the current scheme, the United Kingdom has fulfilled with the obligation of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

By notifying to the Commission the current scheme, the United Kingdom has fulfilled with the obligation of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.

3.2.   Compatibility of the aid under the environmental aid guidelines

| (15) | The UK authorities claim that the scheme brings environmental benefits. Therefore, the Commission assessed whether the scheme would be justified under the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (hereinafter the environmental aid guidelines) (7). |
| --- | --- |

(15)

The UK authorities claim that the scheme brings environmental benefits. Therefore, the Commission assessed whether the scheme would be justified under the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (hereinafter the environmental aid guidelines) (7).

| (16) | The Commission does not deny that the reuse of waste paper is more environmentally friendly than putting it into landfill. However, it has doubts that point 29 of the environmental aid guidelines justify the scheme in as far as it increases the recycling rate of P&W paper. Pursuant to this point, the Commission may authorise (1) investment aid enabling firms to improve on the community standards applicable and (2) investment aid where firms undertake investment in the absence of mandatory Community standards or where they have to undertake investments in order to comply with national standards that are more stringent than the applicable Community standards. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The Commission does not deny that the reuse of waste paper is more environmentally friendly than putting it into landfill. However, it has doubts that point 29 of the environmental aid guidelines justify the scheme in as far as it increases the recycling rate of P&W paper. Pursuant to this point, the Commission may authorise (1) investment aid enabling firms to improve on the community standards applicable and (2) investment aid where firms undertake investment in the absence of mandatory Community standards or where they have to undertake investments in order to comply with national standards that are more stringent than the applicable Community standards.

| (17) | First of all, the Commission recalls that according to the general principles of law, an exception should be interpreted in a restrictive manner. The guidelines define the conditions under which the Commission may consider that aid is compatible with the common market in accordance with Article 87(3)(c)of the Treaty, and therefore form an exception to the general prohibition laid down in Article 87(1) of the Treaty. It should also be recalled that the environmental aid guidelines are based on the general principle of “the polluter pays”, and that every interpretation of the guidelines should strictly comply with this underlying principle. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

First of all, the Commission recalls that according to the general principles of law, an exception should be interpreted in a restrictive manner. The guidelines define the conditions under which the Commission may consider that aid is compatible with the common market in accordance with Article 87(3)(c)of the Treaty, and therefore form an exception to the general prohibition laid down in Article 87(1) of the Treaty. It should also be recalled that the environmental aid guidelines are based on the general principle of “the polluter pays”, and that every interpretation of the guidelines should strictly comply with this underlying principle.

| (18) | The scheme may increase the capacity to produce P&W paper, which would lead to increase quantities of waste paper, which would only be partially recycled. In any case, only part of the waste paper used to manufacture P&W paper will be paper sold by each beneficiary itself. Consequently, the Commission has doubts that the investment will reduce the beneficiaries' own pollution. It is more likely that the environmental benefits may derive from indirect effects on supply and demand for waste paper that affect all users and provide of waste paper concerned, not only the beneficiary. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

The scheme may increase the capacity to produce P&W paper, which would lead to increase quantities of waste paper, which would only be partially recycled. In any case, only part of the waste paper used to manufacture P&W paper will be paper sold by each beneficiary itself. Consequently, the Commission has doubts that the investment will reduce the beneficiaries' own pollution. It is more likely that the environmental benefits may derive from indirect effects on supply and demand for waste paper that affect all users and provide of waste paper concerned, not only the beneficiary.

| (19) | The United Kingdom agrees that there are no Community standards applicable to the beneficiaries. Therefore, first situation referred to in point 29 of the environmental aid guidelines, which allows aid to be granted in order to enable firms to improve on Community standards does not apply in this case. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

The United Kingdom agrees that there are no Community standards applicable to the beneficiaries. Therefore, first situation referred to in point 29 of the environmental aid guidelines, which allows aid to be granted in order to enable firms to improve on Community standards does not apply in this case.

| (20) | In relation to the second situation described in the environmental guidelines, concerning aid to firms to undertake investments in absence of Community standards, the Commission also has doubts that it would apply in this case. The Commission considers that point 29 of the environmental aid guidelines concerns cases where an undertaking invests to improve its own environmental record, and to reduce its own pollution. In such cases, aid can be allowed as an incentive to improve the environmental performance of the company. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

In relation to the second situation described in the environmental guidelines, concerning aid to firms to undertake investments in absence of Community standards, the Commission also has doubts that it would apply in this case. The Commission considers that point 29 of the environmental aid guidelines concerns cases where an undertaking invests to improve its own environmental record, and to reduce its own pollution. In such cases, aid can be allowed as an incentive to improve the environmental performance of the company.

| (21) | This interpretation is confirmed by point 18(b) of the environmental aid guidelines, which states that aid “may act as an incentive to firms to improve on standards or to undertake further investment designed to reduce pollution from their plants”. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

This interpretation is confirmed by point 18(b) of the environmental aid guidelines, which states that aid “may act as an incentive to firms to improve on standards or to undertake further investment designed to reduce pollution from their plants”.

| (22) | Other interpretation of the guidelines might result in Member States subsidising large investments, with high intensities, in all those sectors where used products can be used as materials for production or where such use is the general practice in that sector. Such aid could be granted in non-assisted areas or, in any event, without having to comply with regional aid rules and might have serious consequences on the relevant markets. Moreover, following such interpretation, the rules could be circumvented by granting aid not to the polluters, that under Community law would not be obliged to take care of the other company's pollution, but to the companies taking care of the pollution. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

Other interpretation of the guidelines might result in Member States subsidising large investments, with high intensities, in all those sectors where used products can be used as materials for production or where such use is the general practice in that sector. Such aid could be granted in non-assisted areas or, in any event, without having to comply with regional aid rules and might have serious consequences on the relevant markets. Moreover, following such interpretation, the rules could be circumvented by granting aid not to the polluters, that under Community law would not be obliged to take care of the other company's pollution, but to the companies taking care of the pollution.

| (23) | It is not excluded that part(s) of the selected investment projects will be eligible for environmental aid for other reasons, but as the projects have not been selected yet and as the United Kingdom has not guaranteed that aid would be given only in situations foreseen by the environmental guidelines, the Commission doubts whether the aid can be justified under the environmental aid guidelines. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

It is not excluded that part(s) of the selected investment projects will be eligible for environmental aid for other reasons, but as the projects have not been selected yet and as the United Kingdom has not guaranteed that aid would be given only in situations foreseen by the environmental guidelines, the Commission doubts whether the aid can be justified under the environmental aid guidelines.

3.3.   Compatibility of aid under the regional guidelines and other provisions of the Treaty

| (24) | The beneficiaries have not been chosen yet, and therefore it is impossible to assess if the investments will take place in areas eligible for regional aid and that the Guidelines on national regional aid (8) would apply wholly or in part. In fact, it should be noted that similar projects have already been approved by the Commission based on the rules for regional aid, but not as environmental aid (9). |
| --- | --- |

(24)

The beneficiaries have not been chosen yet, and therefore it is impossible to assess if the investments will take place in areas eligible for regional aid and that the Guidelines on national regional aid (8) would apply wholly or in part. In fact, it should be noted that similar projects have already been approved by the Commission based on the rules for regional aid, but not as environmental aid (9).

| (25) | The Commission furthermore doubts that other rules based on Article 87(3)(c) are applicable or that other exemptions set out in Article 87(2) and (3) of the EC-Treaty are applicable. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

The Commission furthermore doubts that other rules based on Article 87(3)(c) are applicable or that other exemptions set out in Article 87(2) and (3) of the EC-Treaty are applicable.

3.4.   Compatibility of aid directly on the basis of Article 87(3)(c)

| (26) | Should the Environmental aid guidelines not be applicable, the case has to be assessed directly on the basis of Article 87(3)(c). In fact, the Commission has done so in the past, notably for a recycling scheme administered by WRAP (10) and two other cases in the paper industry (11). |
| --- | --- |

(26)

Should the Environmental aid guidelines not be applicable, the case has to be assessed directly on the basis of Article 87(3)(c). In fact, the Commission has done so in the past, notably for a recycling scheme administered by WRAP (10) and two other cases in the paper industry (11).

| (27) | In past cases dealing with investment to increase recycling capacity in the paper industry (12), the criteria applied by the Commission was based on the incentive effect of the aid and whether the necessary investments to obtain the environmental benefits were going beyond the “state of the art” at EU level. Since the use of recycled fibre to manufacture paper is common practice in the EU, the Commission has not accepted that the mere fact that the aid aims to increase the amount of recycled paper fibre in the manufacturing of paper is enough to qualify it as environmental aid. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

In past cases dealing with investment to increase recycling capacity in the paper industry (12), the criteria applied by the Commission was based on the incentive effect of the aid and whether the necessary investments to obtain the environmental benefits were going beyond the “state of the art” at EU level. Since the use of recycled fibre to manufacture paper is common practice in the EU, the Commission has not accepted that the mere fact that the aid aims to increase the amount of recycled paper fibre in the manufacturing of paper is enough to qualify it as environmental aid.

Investments going beyond the state of the art?

| (28) | The UK authorities argue that the fact that very small amounts of P&W paper are made from recycled fibre in the EU, qualifies the investments as going beyond the current “state of the art”. The Commission is aware of technological barriers to increased rates of recycled fibres used in particular in P&W paper, like the de-inking of digital print, the removal of ashes with washers and the increased amount of bleaching, flotation, dispersion and sludge disposal. It would, however, normally expect a certain level of innovation from a market operator that wants to compete and be in the vanguard of the product market, in particular in the paper market, where many operators are large multinational producers. In past cases, the Commission concluded that “any paper producer that wishes to remain technologically and environmentally competitive in the long run has to make such investments in innovation from time to time” (13). The relatively small amounts of P&W paper manufactured from waste paper would seem to indicate that it is possible to implement such processes and that the technology exists. According to information available to the Commission the production of P&W papers using recycled fibre has increased by 6,8 % in 2004 (14). The production of P&W paper using recycled fibre is currently the fastest growing type of recycled paper in Europe. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

The UK authorities argue that the fact that very small amounts of P&W paper are made from recycled fibre in the EU, qualifies the investments as going beyond the current “state of the art”. The Commission is aware of technological barriers to increased rates of recycled fibres used in particular in P&W paper, like the de-inking of digital print, the removal of ashes with washers and the increased amount of bleaching, flotation, dispersion and sludge disposal. It would, however, normally expect a certain level of innovation from a market operator that wants to compete and be in the vanguard of the product market, in particular in the paper market, where many operators are large multinational producers. In past cases, the Commission concluded that “any paper producer that wishes to remain technologically and environmentally competitive in the long run has to make such investments in innovation from time to time” (13). The relatively small amounts of P&W paper manufactured from waste paper would seem to indicate that it is possible to implement such processes and that the technology exists. According to information available to the Commission the production of P&W papers using recycled fibre has increased by 6,8 % in 2004 (14). The production of P&W paper using recycled fibre is currently the fastest growing type of recycled paper in Europe.

| (29) | Therefore, the Commission has doubts that the justification used by the UK authorities that the current very low utilisation of recycled content in the production of P&W papers in the EU is enough to state that manufacturing P&W paper using recycle fibre goes beyond the current “state of the art” in the EU. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

Therefore, the Commission has doubts that the justification used by the UK authorities that the current very low utilisation of recycled content in the production of P&W papers in the EU is enough to state that manufacturing P&W paper using recycle fibre goes beyond the current “state of the art” in the EU.

Increasing collection rates?

| (30) | According to information available to the Commission, it seems that the current situation of the market of P&W waste paper is changing fast and that paper companies are becoming very interested on P&W waste paper due to its high quality (15). In fact, in Sweden it is expected that the recycling rate of office papers office will pass from 57 % in 2003 to 75 % in 2006. Given the situation on the waste paper market, it is reasonable to expect increased interest in waste P&W paper from paper producers. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

According to information available to the Commission, it seems that the current situation of the market of P&W waste paper is changing fast and that paper companies are becoming very interested on P&W waste paper due to its high quality (15). In fact, in Sweden it is expected that the recycling rate of office papers office will pass from 57 % in 2003 to 75 % in 2006. Given the situation on the waste paper market, it is reasonable to expect increased interest in waste P&W paper from paper producers.

| (31) | Therefore, the Commission has doubts that an increase in paper manufacturing capacity in the United Kingdom is needed to increase the collection demand. In the last years, there has been a big demand for waste paper in countries of East Asia. It would seem that such an increase has converted the United Kingdom to a net exporter of P&W waste paper. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

Therefore, the Commission has doubts that an increase in paper manufacturing capacity in the United Kingdom is needed to increase the collection demand. In the last years, there has been a big demand for waste paper in countries of East Asia. It would seem that such an increase has converted the United Kingdom to a net exporter of P&W waste paper.

| (32) | Therefore, the Commission has doubts about the necessity of aid for increasing the collection of P&W waste paper. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

Therefore, the Commission has doubts about the necessity of aid for increasing the collection of P&W waste paper.

Proper targeting to maximise environmental benefits?

| (33) | The Commission doubts whether the measure is properly targeted, ensuring the highest environmental benefits. The United Kingdom argues that the biggest environmental gains are obtained if high quality waste paper is used for high quality new paper, i.e. P&W paper. The Commission, however, wonders whether a more common approach like using P&W waste paper to manufacture other types of paper might have the same impact in the collection of paper from offices and, taking the broadest possible perspective, bring the same environmental benefits. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

The Commission doubts whether the measure is properly targeted, ensuring the highest environmental benefits. The United Kingdom argues that the biggest environmental gains are obtained if high quality waste paper is used for high quality new paper, i.e. P&W paper. The Commission, however, wonders whether a more common approach like using P&W waste paper to manufacture other types of paper might have the same impact in the collection of paper from offices and, taking the broadest possible perspective, bring the same environmental benefits.

Proper calculation of eligible investment cost?

| (34) | If it were appropriate to base the assessment directly on Article 87(3)(c), the Commission would draw a parallel to points 36 and 37 of the environmental aid guidelines to calculate the eligible cost. In accordance with these points, eligible cost must be confined to the extra investment costs necessary to meet the environmental objectives. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

If it were appropriate to base the assessment directly on Article 87(3)(c), the Commission would draw a parallel to points 36 and 37 of the environmental aid guidelines to calculate the eligible cost. In accordance with these points, eligible cost must be confined to the extra investment costs necessary to meet the environmental objectives.

| (35) | The method used by the UK authorities to calculate the eligible costs will be based on the premise that where the market would not give rise to the investment in question, then the relevant eligible costs are all the costs of the investment. Only those costs necessary to make the required investment, and to achieve the environmental objective, will be considered to be eligible and any net benefits during the first five years of production will be deducted. The cost of a reference investment which creates the same capacity but which does not provide the same environmental benefits, would not be subtracted. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

The method used by the UK authorities to calculate the eligible costs will be based on the premise that where the market would not give rise to the investment in question, then the relevant eligible costs are all the costs of the investment. Only those costs necessary to make the required investment, and to achieve the environmental objective, will be considered to be eligible and any net benefits during the first five years of production will be deducted. The cost of a reference investment which creates the same capacity but which does not provide the same environmental benefits, would not be subtracted.

| (36) | The Commission has doubts whether this interpretation is acceptable. Substantial parts of the selected investment projects might be essential as well for investment projects in similar production capacity that is not based on using waste P&W paper. In case of investment in new capacity, the whole investment cost would be necessary to obtain the environmental benefit, but it is not clear why the investment of a conventional plant should not be subtracted. Without taking account of such a reference investment, the cost calculation would be disproportioned. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

The Commission has doubts whether this interpretation is acceptable. Substantial parts of the selected investment projects might be essential as well for investment projects in similar production capacity that is not based on using waste P&W paper. In case of investment in new capacity, the whole investment cost would be necessary to obtain the environmental benefit, but it is not clear why the investment of a conventional plant should not be subtracted. Without taking account of such a reference investment, the cost calculation would be disproportioned.

Choice for the least distortive instrument?

| (37) | The United Kingdom has chosen to grant aid directly to the paper producers instead of to collection schemes, because it reduces it administrative costs and the amount of support. The Commission, however, doubts whether the measure proposed by the United Kingdom is the least distortive instrument to address the problem at stake. Other instruments, e.g. instruments that focus on the collection, are likely to less distort the markets of waste paper and of end products. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

The United Kingdom has chosen to grant aid directly to the paper producers instead of to collection schemes, because it reduces it administrative costs and the amount of support. The Commission, however, doubts whether the measure proposed by the United Kingdom is the least distortive instrument to address the problem at stake. Other instruments, e.g. instruments that focus on the collection, are likely to less distort the markets of waste paper and of end products.

4.   CONCLUSION

| (38) | In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, requests the United Kingdom to submit its comments and to provide all such information as may help to assess the aid, within one month of the date of receipt of this letter. It requests your authorities to forward a copy of this letter to the potential recipient of the aid immediately. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, requests the United Kingdom to submit its comments and to provide all such information as may help to assess the aid, within one month of the date of receipt of this letter. It requests your authorities to forward a copy of this letter to the potential recipient of the aid immediately.

| (39) | The Commission wishes to remind the United Kingdom that Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty has suspensory effect, and would draw your attention to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, which provides that all unlawful aid may be recovered from the recipient. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

The Commission wishes to remind the United Kingdom that Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty has suspensory effect, and would draw your attention to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, which provides that all unlawful aid may be recovered from the recipient.

| (40) | The Commission warns the United Kingdom that it will inform interested parties by publishing this letter and a meaningful summary of it in the Official Journal of the European Union. It will also inform interested parties in the EFTA countries which are signatories to the EEA Agreement, by publication of a notice in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union and will inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority by sending a copy of this letter. All such interested parties will be invited to submit their comments within one month of the date of such publication.» |
| --- | --- |

(40)

The Commission warns the United Kingdom that it will inform interested parties by publishing this letter and a meaningful summary of it in the Official Journal of the European Union. It will also inform interested parties in the EFTA countries which are signatories to the EEA Agreement, by publication of a notice in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union and will inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority by sending a copy of this letter. All such interested parties will be invited to submit their comments within one month of the date of such publication.»

---

(1)  DO C 37 de 3.2.2001, p. 3.

1

(2)  DO C 74 de 10.3.1998, p. 9.

2

(3)  DO L 102 de 7.4.2004, p. 59. El Reino Unido notificó recientemente la ampliación y prórroga de este régimen, actualmente en fase de evaluación.

3

(4)  DO L 314 de 28.11.2003, p. 26, y DO L 53 de 26.2.2005, p. 66, respectivamente. Los criterios utilizados en estos casos se exponen en el Informe Anual de Competencia de 2004.

4

(5)  OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

5

(6)  CEPI, Special Recycling 2004 Statistics. Page 5, available at http://www.cepi.org/files/Sp %20Rec %202005-135002A.pdf

6

(7)  OJ C 37, 3.2.2001, p. 3.

7

(8)  OJ C 74, 10.3.1998, p. 9.

8

(9)  E.g. Hamburger AG (C 72/01), Commission decision 9 April 2002, OJ L 296, 20.10.2002, p. 50.

9

Kartogroup (N184/2000), Commission decision 18 July 2001 available at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/industrie/n184-00.pdf

(10)  OJ L 102, 7.4.2004, p. 59. The waste products that are concerned under this scheme are wood, glass, plastics, aggregates and compost. The Commission noted that the objective of this measure is to encourage the development of waste recycling, which is a clear objective of the Community environmental policy. The Commission also noted that the aid does not subsidise “state of the art” techniques in the industries concerned, which are economically profitable and do not need State aid. Therefore, the Commission considered that this scheme was compatible with Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.

10

(11)  OJ L 314, 28.11.2003, p. 26 and OJ L 53, 26.2.2005, p. 66 respectively. The criteria used in these cases are also commented upon in the Annual Competition report of 2004.

11

(12)  OJ L 314, 28.11.2003, p. 26 and OJ L 53, 26.2.2005, p.66 respectively. The criteria used in these cases are also commented upon in the Annual Competition report of 2004.

12

(13)  OJ L 53, 26.2.2005, p. 76.

13

(14)  CEPI, Special Recycling 2004 Statistics, p. 1.

14

(15)  This is, e.g., signalled in a study on recycling waste “Support in the drafting of an ExIA on the Thematic Strategy on the Prevention and Recycling of Waste” by EPEC, Page 82, available at http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/waste/pdf/epec_report_05.pdf, published by DG ENV.

15

---

| 14.1.2006 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | C 9/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

C 9/12

---

No oposición a una concentración notificada

(Asunto no COMP/M.4008 — Logista/Editorial Planeta/JV)

(2006/C 9/05)

(Texto pertinente a efectos del EEE)

El 16 de diciembre de 2005, la Comisión decidió no oponerse a la concentración notificada citada en el encabezamiento y declararla compatible con el mercado común. Esta Decisión se basa en la letra b) del apartado 1 del artículo 6 del Reglamento (CE) no 139/2004 del Consejo. El texto íntegro de la Decisión solamente está disponible en español y se hará público una vez suprimidos los secretos comerciales que pueda contener. Estará disponible:

| — | en el sitio web de la DG Competencia del servidor Europa (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). Este sitio web proporciona diversos métodos de búsqueda de las decisiones sobre concentraciones, en particular por nombre de la empresa, número de asunto, fecha de la decisión e índices sectoriales, |
| --- | --- |

—

en el sitio web de la DG Competencia del servidor Europa (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). Este sitio web proporciona diversos métodos de búsqueda de las decisiones sobre concentraciones, en particular por nombre de la empresa, número de asunto, fecha de la decisión e índices sectoriales,

| — | en formato electrónico en el sitio web EUR-Lex por número de documento 32005M4008. CELEX es el sistema de acceso informático a la legislación comunitaria. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

en formato electrónico en el sitio web EUR-Lex por número de documento 32005M4008. CELEX es el sistema de acceso informático a la legislación comunitaria. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---

| 14.1.2006 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | C 9/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

C 9/12

---

No oposición a una concentración notificada

(Asunto no COMP/M.4058 — Logista/Planeta de Agostini/JV)

(2006/C 9/06)

(Texto pertinente a efectos del EEE)

El 16 de diciembre de 2005, la Comisión decidió no oponerse a la concentración notificada citada en el encabezamiento y declararla compatible con el mercado común. Esta Decisión se basa en la letra b) del apartado 1 del artículo 6 del Reglamento (CE) no 139/2004 del Consejo. El texto íntegro de la Decisión solamente está disponible en español y se hará público una vez suprimidos los secretos comerciales que pueda contener. Estará disponible:

| — | en el sitio web de la DG Competencia del servidor Europa (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). Este sitio web proporciona diversos métodos de búsqueda de las decisiones sobre concentraciones, en particular por nombre de la empresa, número de asunto, fecha de la decisión e índices sectoriales, |
| --- | --- |

—

en el sitio web de la DG Competencia del servidor Europa (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). Este sitio web proporciona diversos métodos de búsqueda de las decisiones sobre concentraciones, en particular por nombre de la empresa, número de asunto, fecha de la decisión e índices sectoriales,

| — | en formato electrónico en el sitio web EUR-Lex por número de documento 32005M4058. CELEX es el sistema de acceso informático a la legislación comunitaria. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

en formato electrónico en el sitio web EUR-Lex por número de documento 32005M4058. CELEX es el sistema de acceso informático a la legislación comunitaria. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---

Corrección de errores

| 14.1.2006 | ES | Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea | C 9/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

ES

Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea

C 9/13

---

Corrección de errores de los días festivos en 2006

(
  Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea C 336 de 31 de diciembre de 2005
  )

(2006/C 9/07)

En la página 2, en la entrada correspondiente a «FRANCIA», se suprimirá la fecha «15.4».

---