# Europeiska unionens C 9/14 j

| | ISSN 1725-2504 |
| --- | --- |
| Europeiska unionens
  officiella tidning | C 9 |
| | |
| Svensk utgåva | Meddelanden och upplysningar | 49 årgången14 januari 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2504

Europeiska unionens

officiella tidning

C 9

Svensk utgåva

Meddelanden och upplysningar

49 årgången14 januari 2006

---

| Informationsnummer | Innehållsförteckning | Sida |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Meddelanden |
| | Kommissionen |
| 2006/C 009/1 | Eurons växelkurs | 1 |
| 2006/C 009/2 | Tillstånd till statligt stöd enligt artiklarna 87 och 88 i EG-fördraget – Fall i vilka kommissionen inte gör några invändningar | 2 |
| 2006/C 009/3 | Tillstånd till statligt stöd enligt artiklarna 87 och 88 i EG-fördraget – Fall i vilka kommissionen inte gör några invändningar (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2006/C 009/4 | Statligt stöd – Förenade kungariket – Statligt Stöd C 45/2005 (f.d. N 364/2005) – Åtgärdsprogram för resursförvaltning och avfallshantering: stöd till att utöka kapaciteten för återvinning av skriv- och tryckpapper – Uppmaning att inkomma med synpunkter enligt artikel 88.2 i EG-fördraget (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| 2006/C 009/5 | Beslut om att inte göra invändningar mot en anmäld koncentration (Ärende COMP/M.4008 – Logista/Editorial Planeta/JV) (
  1
  ) | 12 |
| 2006/C 009/6 | Beslut om att inte göra invändningar mot en anmäld koncentration (Ärende COMP/M.4058 – Logista/Planeta de Agostini/JV) (
  1
  ) | 12 |

Informationsnummer

Innehållsförteckning

Sida

I   Meddelanden

Kommissionen

2006/C 009/1

Eurons växelkurs

1

2006/C 009/2

Tillstånd till statligt stöd enligt artiklarna 87 och 88 i EG-fördraget – Fall i vilka kommissionen inte gör några invändningar

2

2006/C 009/3

Tillstånd till statligt stöd enligt artiklarna 87 och 88 i EG-fördraget – Fall i vilka kommissionen inte gör några invändningar (
  1
  )

1

3

2006/C 009/4

Statligt stöd – Förenade kungariket – Statligt Stöd C 45/2005 (f.d. N 364/2005) – Åtgärdsprogram för resursförvaltning och avfallshantering: stöd till att utöka kapaciteten för återvinning av skriv- och tryckpapper – Uppmaning att inkomma med synpunkter enligt artikel 88.2 i EG-fördraget (
  1
  )

1

6

2006/C 009/5

Beslut om att inte göra invändningar mot en anmäld koncentration (Ärende COMP/M.4008 – Logista/Editorial Planeta/JV) (
  1
  )

1

12

2006/C 009/6

Beslut om att inte göra invändningar mot en anmäld koncentration (Ärende COMP/M.4058 – Logista/Planeta de Agostini/JV) (
  1
  )

1

12

| | Rättelser |
| --- | --- |
| 2006/C 009/7 | Rättelse till meddelande om helgdagar 2006 (EUT C 336, 31.12.2005) | 13 |

Rättelser

2006/C 009/7

Rättelse till meddelande om helgdagar 2006 (EUT C 336, 31.12.2005)

(EUT C 336, 31.12.2005)

13

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text av betydelse för EES |

---

(1)   Text av betydelse för EES

1

| SV | |
| --- | --- |

SV

---

I Meddelanden

Kommissionen

| 14.1.2006 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | C 9/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

C 9/1

---

Eurons växelkurs (1)

13 januari 2006

(2006/C 9/01)

1 euro=

| | Valuta | Kurs |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US-dollar | 1,2039 |
| JPY | japansk yen | 138,13 |
| DKK | dansk krona | 7,4592 |
| GBP | pund sterling | 0,68140 |
| SEK | svensk krona | 9,3063 |
| CHF | schweizisk franc | 1,5491 |
| ISK | isländsk krona | 74,01 |
| NOK | norsk krona | 8,0475 |
| BGN | bulgarisk lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | cypriotiskt pund | 0,5737 |
| CZK | tjeckisk koruna | 28,840 |
| EEK | estnisk krona | 15,6466 |
| HUF | ungersk forint | 250,51 |
| LTL | litauisk litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | lettisk lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | maltesisk lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | polsk zloty | 3,8138 |
| RON | rumänsk leu | 3,6308 |
| SIT | slovensk tolar | 239,49 |
| SKK | slovakisk koruna | 37,520 |
| TRY | turkisk lira | 1,6160 |
| AUD | australisk dollar | 1,6040 |
| CAD | kanadensisk dollar | 1,3972 |
| HKD | Hongkongdollar | 9,3316 |
| NZD | nyzeeländsk dollar | 1,7344 |
| SGD | singaporiansk dollar | 1,9648 |
| KRW | sydkoreansk won | 1 189,03 |
| ZAR | sydafrikansk rand | 7,3170 |
| CNY | kinesisk yuan renminbi | 9,7144 |
| HRK | kroatisk kuna | 7,3750 |
| IDR | indonesisk rupiah | 11 282,95 |
| MYR | malaysisk ringgit | 4,502 |
| PHP | filippinsk peso | 63,072 |
| RUB | rysk rubel | 34,3200 |
| THB | thailändsk baht | 47,643 |

Valuta

Kurs

USD

US-dollar

1,2039

JPY

japansk yen

138,13

DKK

dansk krona

7,4592

GBP

pund sterling

0,68140

SEK

svensk krona

9,3063

CHF

schweizisk franc

1,5491

ISK

isländsk krona

74,01

NOK

norsk krona

8,0475

BGN

bulgarisk lev

1,9558

CYP

cypriotiskt pund

0,5737

CZK

tjeckisk koruna

28,840

EEK

estnisk krona

15,6466

HUF

ungersk forint

250,51

LTL

litauisk litas

3,4528

LVL

lettisk lats

0,6960

MTL

maltesisk lira

0,4293

PLN

polsk zloty

3,8138

RON

rumänsk leu

3,6308

SIT

slovensk tolar

239,49

SKK

slovakisk koruna

37,520

TRY

turkisk lira

1,6160

AUD

australisk dollar

1,6040

CAD

kanadensisk dollar

1,3972

HKD

Hongkongdollar

9,3316

NZD

nyzeeländsk dollar

1,7344

SGD

singaporiansk dollar

1,9648

KRW

sydkoreansk won

1 189,03

ZAR

sydafrikansk rand

7,3170

CNY

kinesisk yuan renminbi

9,7144

HRK

kroatisk kuna

7,3750

IDR

indonesisk rupiah

11 282,95

MYR

malaysisk ringgit

4,502

PHP

filippinsk peso

63,072

RUB

rysk rubel

34,3200

THB

thailändsk baht

47,643

---

(1)

Källa: Referensväxelkurs offentliggjord av Europeiska centralbanken.

---

| 14.1.2006 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | C 9/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

C 9/2

---

Tillstånd till statligt stöd enligt artiklarna 87 och 88 i EG-fördraget

Fall i vilka kommissionen inte gör några invändningar

(2006/C 9/02)

Datum för antagande av beslutet:

Medlemsstat: Tyskland (Schleswig-Holstein)

Stöd nr: N 9/2004

Benämning: Stöd för destruering av djurkroppar

Syfte: att kompensera uppfödare för bortskaffande av avlivade eller självdöda djur från gårdarna

Rättslig grund:

| — | 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.)

Budget: 5,5 miljoner EUR per år

Stödnivå: 100 %

Varaktighet: till 2013

Giltiga språkversioner av beslutstexten, med undantag av konfidentiella uppgifter, finns på följande webbplats:

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

---

| 14.1.2006 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | C 9/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

C 9/3

---

Tillstånd till statligt stöd enligt artiklarna 87 och 88 i EG-fördraget

Fall i vilka kommissionen inte gör några invändningar

(2006/C 9/03)

(Text av betydelse för EES)

Datum för antagande av beslutet:

Medlemsstat: Nederländerna

Stöd nr: N 127/2004

Benämning: Marknadsföringsåtgärder för rödspätta

Syfte: Finansiering av marknadsföringsåtgärder för rödspätta med hjälp av skatteliknande avgifter.

Rättslig grund:

| — | 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

Budget: 200 000 EUR per år

Varaktighet: Obegränsad (systemet kommer att anmälas till kommissionen igen senast tio år efter det att det trädde i kraft)

Stödnivå eller stödbelopp: Inom ramen för de belopp som anges i riktlinjerna för statligt stöd inom sektorn för fiske och vattenbruk (EGT C 19, 20.1.2001, s. 7)

Övriga upplysningar: Årsredovisning

Giltiga språkversioner av beslutstexten, med undantag av konfidentiella uppgifter, finns på följande webbplats:

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

Datum för antagande:

Medlemsstat: Spanien (Principado de Asturias)

Stödnummer: N 173/2005

Titel på originalspråk: 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

Ändamål: Forskning och utveckling (Alla sektorer)

Rättslig grund: 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

Budget:

| | 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

Stödnivå eller stödbelopp: 35 % — 60 % — + 10 % — 75 % — 50 %

Varaktighet:

Giltiga språkversioner av beslutstexten, med undantag av konfidentiella uppgifter, finns på följande webbplats:

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

Datum för antagande:

Medlemsstat: Danmark

Stödnummer: N 229/2005

Titel på originalspråk: Regionale Teknologicentre

Ändamål: Forskning och utveckling (Alla sektorer)

Rättslig grund: Lov nr. 419 af 6.6.2002

Budget:

| | 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

Stödnivå eller stödbelopp: 60 %

Varaktighet:

Giltiga språkversioner av beslutstexten, med undantag av konfidentiella uppgifter, finns på följande webbplats:

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

Datum för antagande av beslutet:

Medlemsstat: Slovakien

Stöd nr: N 298/2005

Benämning: Individuellt stöd för audiovisuell produktion till TYZAM s.r.o

Syfte: Att stödja filmproduktion

Rättslig grund:

| 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

Budget: 7 miljoner SKK

Stödnivå eller stödbelopp: 20 %

Varaktighet: Engångsåtgärd efter godkännande (31.12.2005)

Giltiga språkversioner av beslutstexten, med undantag av konfidentiella uppgifter, finns på följande webbplats:

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

Datum för antagande av beslutet:

Medlemsstat: Slovakien

Stöd nr: N 299/2005

Benämning: Individuellt stöd för audiovisuell produktion till TaO Productions s.r.o.

Syfte: Att stödja filmproduktion

Rättslig grund:

| 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

Budget: 8 miljoner SKK

Stödnivå eller stödbelopp: 10 %

Varaktighet: Engångsåtgärd efter godkännande (31.12.2005)

Giltiga språkversioner av beslutstexten, med undantag av konfidentiella uppgifter, finns på följande webbplats:

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

Datum för antagande av beslutet:

Medlemsstat: Slovakien

Stöd nr: N 300/2005

Benämning: Individuellt stöd för audiovisuell produktion till ALEF Film & Media Group, s.r.o.

Syfte: Att stödja filmproduktion

Rättslig grund:

| 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

Budget: 11 miljoner SKK

Stödnivå eller stödbelopp: 26,2 %

Varaktighet: Engångsåtgärd efter godkännande (31.12.2005)

Giltiga språkversioner av beslutstexten, med undantag av konfidentiella uppgifter, finns på följande webbplats:

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

Datum för antagande av beslutet:

Medlemsstat: Frankrike

Stöd nr: N 337/2004 och N 378/2004

Benämning: Finansiering genom skatter som avsatts för särskilda ändamål och budgetanslag från tekniska industricenter (Centres Techniques Industriels, CTI) och yrkesmässiga ekonomiska utvecklingscenter (Centres Professionnels de Développement économique, CPDE)

Syfte: Gemensamma forsknings- och utvecklingsinitiativ, standardisering, utbildning, främjande av och information till företag inom sektorerna mekaniska produkter, konsumtionsprodukter och byggnadsmaterial

Rättslig grund: Loi 2001-692 du 1er août 2001 et loi de finance annuelle

Varaktighet: Från dagen för kommissionens godkännande till den 31 december 2010

Övriga upplysningar: Stödmottagarens: CTI och CPDE inom sektorerna för konsumtionsvaror, mekaniska produkter och byggnadsmaterial

Giltiga språkversioner av beslutstexten, med undantag av konfidentiella uppgifter, finns på följande webbplats:

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

Datum för antagande av beslutet:

Medlemsstat: Danmark

Stöd nr: N 374/2002

Benämning: Stöd för utrustning i fiskehamnar beviljat inom ramen för gemenskapens strukturella FFU- åtgärder för 2000-2006

Syfte: Medfinansiering av strukturella åtgärder för utrustning av fiskehamnar i Danmark för perioden 2000-2006

Rättslig grund:

| — | 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

Budget: 27 miljoner EUR

Varaktighet: 2000-2006

Stödnivå eller stödbelopp: Enligt de gränser som anges i förordning (EG) nr 2792/1999

Övriga upplysningar: Årsrapport

Giltiga språkversioner av beslutstexten, med undantag av konfidentiella uppgifter, finns på följande webbplats:

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

Datum för antagande av beslutet:

Stöd nummer: N 465/2005

Medlemsstat: Nederländerna

Beteckning: 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

Rättslig grund: 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

Syfte: Utbildning

Totalt stödbelopp: 53 miljoner EUR

Beräknade utgifter per år:

| | 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

Varaktighet: Från och med den 1 januari/2006 till och med den 31 december 2008

Övriga upplysningar:

| | Typ av åtgärd: Stödordning |
| --- | --- |

Typ av åtgärd: Stödordning

| | Typ av stöd: Direkt stöd |
| --- | --- |

Typ av stöd: Direkt stöd

Giltiga språkversioner av beslutstexten, med undantag av konfidentiella uppgifter, finns på följande webbplats:

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

Datum för antagande av beslutet:

Medlemsstat: Spanien

Stöd nr: N 499/2004

Benämning: Stödordning till förmån för gruvdrift, miljöskydd och säkerhet i samband med utvinning av icke-energimineraler

Syfte: Sektorn för icke-energimineraler. Ändring av den stödordning som kommissionen godkände den 19 juni 2002. Ändringarna avser stödform och stödnivå för stöd till gruvprospektering. Syftet är att göra denna verksamhet mer attraktiv.

Stödnivå eller stödbelopp: Stöd till gruvprospektering: bidrag upp till 20 % av de stödberättigande kostnaderna (30 % till små och medelstora företag) och återbetalningspliktigt, räntefritt lån på upp till 60 % av de stödberättigande kostnaderna (70 % till små och medelstora företag)

Varaktighet:

Giltiga språkversioner av beslutstexten, med undantag av konfidentiella uppgifter, finns på följande webbplats:

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

Datum för antagande av beslutet:

Medlemsstat: Tyskland

Stöd nr: NN 44/2004

Benämning: Undsättningsstöd till SVZ Schwarze Pumpe

Syfte: Undsättningsstöd

Rättslig grund: §2(3) Förderbankgesetz

Budget: 21,028 miljoner EUR

Varaktighet: Till och med den 31 maj 2005

Giltiga språkversioner av beslutstexten, med undantag av konfidentiella uppgifter, finns på följande webbplats:

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

---

| 14.1.2006 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | C 9/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

C 9/6

---

STATLIGT STÖD – FÖRENADE KUNGARIKET

Statligt Stöd C 45/2005 (f.d. N 364/2005) – Åtgärdsprogram för resursförvaltning och avfallshantering: stöd till att utöka kapaciteten för återvinning av skriv- och tryckpapper

Uppmaning att inkomma med synpunkter enligt artikel 88.2 i EG-fördraget

(2006/C 9/04)

(Text av betydelse för EES)

Genom skrivelse daterad 7.12.2005 som återges på det giltiga språket på de sidor som följer denna sammanfattning, underrättade kommissionen Förenade kungariket om sitt beslut att inleda det förfarande som anges i artikel 88.2 i EG-fördraget avseende ovannämnda stöd.

Berörda parter kan inom en månad från dagen för offentliggörandet av denna sammanfattning och den därpå följande skrivelsen inkomma med sina synpunkter. Synpunkterna skall skickas till följande adress:

| Europeiska kommissionen |
| --- |
| Generaldirektoratet för konkurrens |
| Registreringsenheten för statligt stöd, |
| SPA 3, 6/05 |
| B-1049 Bryssel |
| Fax (32-2) 296 12 42 |

Europeiska kommissionen

Generaldirektoratet för konkurrens

Registreringsenheten för statligt stöd,

SPA 3, 6/05

B-1049 Bryssel

Fax (32-2) 296 12 42

Synpunkterna kommer att meddelas Förenade kungariket. Den berörda part som inkommer med synpunkter kan skriftligen begära konfidentiell behandling av sin identitet, med angivande av skälen för begäran.

SAMMANFATTNING

Kommissionen mottog i juli 2005 en anmälan från Förenade kungariket om ett investeringsstöd för att utöka produktionskapaciteten för skriv- och tryckpapper tillverkat av returfiber.

1.   Beskrivning av åtgärden

För närvarande samlas kontorspappersavfall inte in för återvinning i Förenade kungariket. För att förbättra denna situation ämnar den myndighet som ansvarar för handlingsplanen för resursförvaltning och avfallshantering erbjuda stöd till pappersbruk. Stödet kommer att stimulera efterfrågan på insamling av kontorspappersavfall genom att myndigheten samfinansierar pappersbrukens ökade återvinningskapacitet för skriv- och tryckpapper. I utbyte mot stödet måste pappersföretagen gå med på att använda mer nytt pappersavfall från avfallsflödet, med en minsta andel eller kvantitet angiven för återvunnet skriv- och tryckpappersavfall från kontor. För att ta vara på det insamlade skriv- och tryckpappersavfallet på bästa sätt kommer den ökade papperstillverkningskapaciteten att utnyttjas för att tillverka nytt skriv- och tryckpapper.

I stödbedömningen kommer myndigheten att ta hänsyn till om pappersföretagen använder ny teknik och demonstrerar tekniska innovationer som kan bidra till utvecklingen av hållbara processer inom avfallsåtervinningen, dvs. tekniker som är mer avancerade än de som för närvarande används. Stödordningens budget beräknas till mellan 6 miljoner och 20 miljoner pund. Eftersom stödnivåerna kommer att avgöras i samband med stödbedömningen finns det ännu inga uppgifter om hur omfattande stödet blir. De förväntade stödmottagarna utgörs av färre än tio papperstillverkare. De brittiska myndigheterna räknar med att bevilja stödet före april 2006.

2.   Bedömning av åtgärden

Kommissionen tvivlar på att ordningen omfattas av punkt 29 miljöriktlinjerna (1), eftersom investeringar i utökad pappersproduktionskapacitet med användning av pappersavfall inte kommer att minska utsläppen från pappersföretagens egna bruk. Stödmottagarna kommer i stället troligen att använda pappersavfall från alla tänkbara pappersproducenter.

När det gäller andra regler än miljöriktlinjerna tvivlar kommissionen på att undantagen som anges i artikel 87.2 och 87.3 i EG-fördraget är tillämpliga. Stödmottagarna har dock inte utsetts än, och det är därför omöjligt att säga om investeringarna kommer att ske i områden som har rätt till regionalstöd där alltså riktlinjerna för statligt stöd för regionala ändamål (2) skulle kunna tillämpas helt eller delvis.

Om det skulle visa sig att miljöriktlinjerna inte är tillämpliga måste kommissionen göra en bedömning direkt utifrån artikel 87.3 c. Kommissionen har tidigare gjort direkta bedömningar, framför allt av en återvinningsordning (3) och två andra ärenden inom pappersindustrin (4). Kommissionens bedömning utgick från stödets stimulerande effekt samt huruvida de nödvändiga investeringarna för att uppnå miljövinster medförde en nivå som var mer avancerad än den rådande tekniska utvecklingsnivån inom EU.

Även i andra ärenden där kommissionen har bedömt investeringsstöd för att öka återvinningskapaciteten för papper har utgångspunkten varit stödets stimulerande effekt samt huruvida de nödvändiga investeringarna för att uppnå miljövinster medför en nivå som är mer avancerad än den rådande tekniska utvecklingsnivån inom EU. Eftersom andelen återvunnet material för skriv- och tryckpapperstillverkning i EU för närvarande är mycket liten menar de brittiska myndigheterna att en produktion av skriv- och tryckpapper med användning av returfiber är mer avancerad än den rådande utvecklingsnivån inom EU. Kommissionen tvivlar på att denna motivering är tillräcklig.

Kommissionen tvivlar på att stödet kommer att stimulera insamlingen av skriv- och tryckpappersavfall.

Kommissionen betvivlar också att det skulle innebära ökade miljövinster att tillverka skriv- och tryckpapper från skriv- och tryckpappersavfall jämfört med den vanliga metoden att använda skriv- och tryckpappersavfall för att tillverka andra typer av papper.

Vidare tvivlar kommissionen på att de stödberättigade kostnaderna kommer att begränsas till de extra investeringskostnader som krävs för att uppnå miljömålen, eftersom Förenade kungariket inte från de stödberättigande investeringskostnaderna ämnar dra ifrån investeringskostnader för att uppnå en jämförbar kapacitet som dock inte skulle medföra samma miljövinster. När ett investeringsbidrag beviljas för att öka produktionskapaciteten för nytt skriv- och tryckpapper tillverkat av skriv- och tryckpappersavfall är det därför inte säkert att avdrag kommer att göras för kostnaderna för att driva ett traditionellt pappersbruk.

Kommissionen betvivlar slutligen att den stödordning som Förenade kungariket föreslagit för att ta itu med problemet i fråga har den minst snedvridande effekten på konkurrensen. Andra stödinstrument, t.ex. med inriktning på insamling, skulle eventuellt ha en mindre snedvridande effekt på marknaderna för pappersavfall och slutprodukter.

3.   Slutsats

Mot bakgrund av ovanstående skäl har kommissionen beslutat att inleda det förfarande som anges i artikel 88.2 i EG-fördraget. Berörda parter uppmanas att inkomma med synpunkter, framför allt beträffande 1) vad som skall anses vara den aktuella tekniska nivån för användning av (skriv- och tryck)pappersavfall i produktionen av nytt skriv- och tryckpapper, 2) behovet av stöd mot bakgrund av den förväntade ökningen av andelen insamlat skriv- och tryckpappersavfall, 3) graden av konkurrenssnedvridning som kan förväntas på marknaderna för nytt papper och för pappersavfall, samt 4) de förväntade miljövinsterna från den anmälda åtgärden jämfört med miljövinster som skulle kunna uppnås genom andra stödinstrument.

SJÄLVA SKRIVELSEN

”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)  EGT C 37, 3.2.2001, s. 3.

1

(2)  EGT C 74, 10.3.1998, s. 9.

2

(3)  EUT L 102, 7.4.2004, s. 59. Förenade kungariket meddelade nyligen en utvidgning och förlängning av denna ordning, vilken för närvarande granskas.

3

(4)  EUT L 314, 28.11.2003, s. 26 och EUT L 53, 26.2.2005, s. 66. De kriterier som användes i bedömningen kommenteras också i årsrapport om konkurrenspolitiken från 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 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | C 9/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

C 9/12

---

Beslut om att inte göra invändningar mot en anmäld koncentration

(Ärende COMP/M.4008 – Logista/Editorial Planeta/JV)

(2006/C 9/05)

(Text av betydelse för EES)

Kommissionen beslutade den 16 december 2005 att inte göra invändningar mot den anmälda koncentrationen ovan och att förklara den förenlig med den gemensamma marknaden. Beslutet grundar sig på artikel 6.1 b i rådets förordning (EG) nr 139/2004. Beslutet i sin helhet finns endast på spanska och kommer att offentliggöras efter det att alla eventuella affärshemligheter har tagits bort. Det kommer att finnas tillgängligt:

| — | på kommissionens webbplats för konkurrens (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). Denna webbplats ger olika möjligheter att hitta enskilda beslut i koncentrationsärenden, även uppgifter om företag, ärendenummer, datum och sektorer, |
| --- | --- |

—

på kommissionens webbplats för konkurrens (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). Denna webbplats ger olika möjligheter att hitta enskilda beslut i koncentrationsärenden, även uppgifter om företag, ärendenummer, datum och sektorer,

| — | i elektronisk form på EUR-Lex webbplats, under dokument nummer 32005M4008. EUR-Lex ger tillgång till gemenskapsrätten via Internet. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

i elektronisk form på EUR-Lex webbplats, under dokument nummer 32005M4008. EUR-Lex ger tillgång till gemenskapsrätten via Internet. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---

| 14.1.2006 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | C 9/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

C 9/12

---

Beslut om att inte göra invändningar mot en anmäld koncentration

(Ärende COMP/M.4058 – Logista/Planeta de Agostini/JV)

(2006/C 9/06)

(Text av betydelse för EES)

Kommissionen beslutade den 16 december 2005 att inte göra invändningar mot den anmälda koncentrationen ovan och att förklara den förenlig med den gemensamma marknaden. Beslutet grundar sig på artikel 6.1 b i rådets förordning (EG) nr 139/2004. Beslutet i sin helhet finns endast på spanska och kommer att offentliggöras efter det att alla eventuella affärshemligheter har tagits bort. Det kommer att finnas tillgängligt:

| — | på kommissionens webbplats för konkurrens (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). Denna webbplats ger olika möjligheter att hitta enskilda beslut i koncentrationsärenden, även uppgifter om företag, ärendenummer, datum och sektorer, |
| --- | --- |

—

på kommissionens webbplats för konkurrens (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). Denna webbplats ger olika möjligheter att hitta enskilda beslut i koncentrationsärenden, även uppgifter om företag, ärendenummer, datum och sektorer,

| — | i elektronisk form på EUR-Lex webbplats, under dokument nummer 32005M4058. EUR-Lex ger tillgång till gemenskapsrätten via Internet. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

i elektronisk form på EUR-Lex webbplats, under dokument nummer 32005M4058. EUR-Lex ger tillgång till gemenskapsrätten via Internet. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---

Rättelser

| 14.1.2006 | SV | Europeiska unionens officiella tidning | C 9/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.1.2006

SV

Europeiska unionens officiella tidning

C 9/13

---

Rättelse till meddelande om helgdagar 2006

(
  Europeiska unionens officiella tidning C 336 av den 31 december 2005
  )

(2006/C 9/07)

På sidan 2 skall efter ”FRANCE” datumet ”15.4” tas bort.

---