Staatliche Beihilfe - Vereinigtes Königreich

Beihilfe C 7/03 (ex N 107/02) - SBS-Fonds für Gründerzentren

Aufforderung zur Stellungnahme gemäß Artikel 88 Absatz 2 EG-Vertrag

(2003/C 104/02)

(Text von Bedeutung für den EWR)

Mit Schreiben vom 5. Februar 2003, das nach der folgenden Zusammenfassung in der verbindlichen Sprachfassung abgedruckt ist, hat die Kommission das Vereinigte Königreich von ihrem Beschluss unterrichtet, wegen der vorerwähnten Beihilfe das Verfahren nach Artikel 88 Absatz 2 EG-Vertrag einzuleiten.

Die Beteiligten sind aufgefordert, binnen eines Monats nach dem Datum dieser Veröffentlichung ihre Stellungnahme zu der Maßnahme an folgende Anschrift zu richten: Europäische Kommission Generaldirektion Wettbewerb

Registratur staatliche Beihilfen

J-70 B - 1049 Brüssel Fax (32-2) 296 12 42

Alle Stellungnahmen werden dem Vereinigten Königreich übermittelt. Jeder, der eine Stellungnahme abgibt, kann unter Angaben von Gründen schriftlich beantragen, dass seine Identität nicht bekannt gegeben wird.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

1. Verfahren

Mit Schreiben vom 31. Januar 2002, das bei der Kommission am 4. Februar 2002 einging, haben die britischen Behörden die oben genannte Beihilfemaßnahme gemäß Artikel 88 Absatz 3 EG-Vertrag angemeldet. Die von der Kommission am 28. Februar 2002 erbetenen zusätzlichen Angaben gingen am 30. April 2002 mit Schreiben der britischen Behörden vom 26. April 2002 bei der Kommission ein. Neue Angaben und Ausführungen zur Anmeldung folgten mit Schreiben vom 13. Mai 2002. Im Anschluss an eine Zusammenkunft der britischen Behörden mit der Kommission vom 24. Mai 2002 erging am 4. Juli 2002 ein neues Auskunftsverlangen, an das sich am 29. August 2002 ein Treffen mit einem Mitglied der Ständigen Vertretung des Vereinigten Königreichs anschloss. Die britischen Behörden antworteten mit Schreiben vom 13. September 2002, das am 18. September 2002 registriert wurde. In diesem Schreiben wurden neue Fragen aufgeworfen, weswegen die Kommission am 29. Oktober 2002 ein weiteres Auskunftsverlangen versandte und am 14. November 2002 erneut mit einem Mitarbeiter der Ständigen Vertretung des Vereinigten Königreichs zusammenkam. Die schriftliche Antwort der britischen Behörden vom 3. Dezember 2002 ging am 9. Dezember 2002 bei der Kommission ein.

2. Beschreibung der Maßnahme

Ziel der Maßnahme, für die Haushaltsmittel von 75 Mio. GBP (115,5 Mio. EUR) vorgesehen sind, ist die Förderung von Gründerzentren für kleine und mittlere Unternehmen im Vereinigten Königreich. Gründerzentren sind besonders auf den Bedarf von KMU in ihrer Anlauf- oder Anfangsphase zugeschnittene Gewerbezentren, die ein innovationsfreundliches Umfeld bieten sollen. Geplant sind Darlehen an Unternehmen, die solche Gründerzentren einrichten bzw. betreiben wollen. In den geförderten Gründerzentren sollen Büroräume für KMU bereitgestellt werden.

Nach Angaben der britischen Behörden beläuft sich die mit den vorgesehenen Darlehen finanzierte Unterstützung auf das von unabhängigen Sachverständigen ermittelte erforderliche Mindestmaß. In Sonderfällen, in denen die entsprechende Immobilie sich im Staatsbesitz befindet, könnte die Beihilfevergabe über öffentliche Ausschreibungen erfolgen, damit sie auf das notwendige Mindestmaß begrenzt bleibt. Die Darlehen werden unter der Bedingung vergeben, dass die Antragsteller ihren Darlehensbedarf nachweislich nicht oder nicht zur Gänze auf dem privaten Kapitalmarkt decken konnten. Der Darlehenszins wird mit 6 % angesetzt und liegt damit in der Nähe des gemeinschaftlichen Referenzzinssatzes (derzeit 6,01 %). Mit den Darlehen sollen zwischen 30 und 50 % der Immobilienerwerbs- und Baukosten gedeckt werden. Außerdem können anfängliche Marketing- oder Entwicklungskosten für Pächter und bis zu 25 % des Betriebskapitalbedarfs während der Anlaufphase finanziert werden.

Empfangsberechtigt sind Immobiliengesellschaften, in der Unternehmensunterstützung tätige Unternehmen sowie gemeinnützige Organisationen. Eine geografische Einschränkung der beihilfefähigen Standorte ist nicht vorgesehen: Die britischen Behörden haben ausdrücklich die Genehmigung zur Gewährung dieser Darlehen für Vorhaben sowohl in Fördergebieten als auch in Nichtfördergebieten unabhängig davon beantragt, ob der Betreiber des Gründerzentrums, für den das Darlehen bestimmt ist, ein Großunternehmen oder ein KMU ist.

Zur Beihilfeintensität der Darlehen haben die britischen Behörden keine spezifischen Angaben gemacht. Sie haben sich lediglich verpflichtet, die Beihilfe auf das von unabhängigen Sachverständigen ermittelte, zur Verwirklichung des Vorhabens erforderliche Mindestmaß zu beschränken und beantragt, eine Kumulierung der mit dem Darlehen verbundenen Beihilfe mit anderen Finanzierungsquellen bis zu diesem Mindestmaß zuzulassen.

Mit der Beihilfemaßnahme soll nach Angaben der britischen Behörden vor allen Dingen erreicht werden, dass KMU Zugang zu den geförderten Gründerzentren erlangen. Nach ihrer Auffassung werden die Gründerzentren den Endnutzern ihre Geschäftsräume in der Regel zu Marktpreisen zur Verfügung stellen. Um zu gewährleisten, dass dies auch tatsächlich der Fall ist, sollen unabhängige Sachverständige kontrollieren, dass die Endnutzermieten tatsächlich zum Marktpreis festgelegt werden. Unterschiede zwischen dem tatsächlich gezahlten Preis und dem Marktniveau sollen im Einklang mit der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 69/2001 der Kommission als De-minimis-Beihilfen betrachtet werden.

3. Würdigung der Maßnahme

3.1. Beihilfetatbestand

Für die aufgrund dieser Regelung gewährten Darlehen ist ein Zinssatz von 6 % vorgesehen, der damit in der Nähe des derzeitigen gemeinschaftlichen Referenzzinssatzes für das Vereinigte Königreich von 6,01 % liegt. Da die Darlehen aber nur an Antragsteller vergeben werden, die - eine der Hauptvoraussetzungen für die Beihilfegewährung - ihren Finanzierungsbedarf nicht bei privaten Geldgebern decken konnten, geht die Kommission davon aus, dass diese Darlehen ein Beihilfeelement enthalten. Die normalerweise von Banken verlangten Sicherheiten werden nicht erbracht, und private Banken würden eine teilweise oder vollständige Finanzierung dieser Projekte mit Darlehen nur zu einem höheren Zinssatz bewilligen. Daher glaubt die Kommission, dass diese Darlehen Beihilfen zugunsten der Darlehensempfänger im Sinne von Artikel 87 Absatz 1 des EG-Vertrags darstellen können.

Diese gilt auch dann, wenn es sich bei dem Darlehensempfänger um ein Unternehmen ohne Gewinnerzielungsabsicht handelt. Entgegen dem von den britischen Behörden vorgebrachten Argument ist die Gemeinnützigkeit des Darlehensempfängers für die Anwendung der Regeln über die staatlichen Beihilfen irrelevant, wenn das begünstigte Unternehmen im Wettbewerb mit anderen eine wirtschaftliche Tätigkeit ausübt.

Außerdem werden die Darlehensempfänger dank dieser Darlehen Gründerzentren zum Nutzen kleiner und mittlerer Unternehmen einrichten und betreiben. Es kann nicht ausgeschlossen werden, dass ein Teil der von den Behörden zur Einrichtung dieser Gründerzentren geleisteten Unterstützung an die Endnutzer beispielsweise in Form niedrigerer Mieten weitergegeben wird. Die Maßnahme kann also auch auf der Ebene der Endnutzer der Gründerzentren eine staatliche Beihilfe im Sinne von Artikel 87 Absatz 1 des EG-Vertrags darstellen.

3.2. Würdigung der Beihilfemaßnahme

Soweit Beihilfen an die Endnutzer der Gründerzentren betroffen sind, haben die britischen Behörden zugesichert, dass die Bestimmungen der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 69/2001 über die Anwendung der Artikel 87 und 88 EG-Vertrag auf De-minimis-Beihilfen eingehalten werden.

Mit Blick auf die Beihilfen zugunsten der Unternehmen, die die Gründerzentren einrichten, hat die Kommission festgestellt, dass sie weder aufgrund der Leitlinien der Gemeinschaft für staatliche Beihilfen mit regionaler Zielsetzung noch aufgrund der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 70/2001 der Kommission freigestellt werden können; diese beiden Vorschriften bilden jedoch die einzige mögliche Freistellungsgrundlage für die in Rede stehende Regelung. Erstens können die Darlehen einen Teil des Betriebskapitalbedarfs während der Anlaufphase abdecken und daher Betriebsbeihilfen darstellen. Außerdem haben sich die britischen Behörden nicht verpflichtet, die Beihilfeintensitätsobergrenzen gemäß den Leitlinien für Regionalbeihilfen und der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 70/2001 einzuhalten. Ferner haben sie die Genehmigung beantragt, auch Beihilfen zugunsten großer Unternehmen in Nichtfördergebieten gewähren zu können. Schließlich sind die Kumulierungsbestimmungen nicht sehr eindeutig.

Da die Beihilfemaßnahme nicht aufgrund bestehender Regeln freistellungsfähig ist, haben die Behörden des Vereinigten Königreichs ihren Freistellungsantrag mit einer Bestimmung aus der Mitteilung der Kommission über staatliche Beihilfen und Risikokapital begründet, wonach "sofern ein Transfer des Staates mit den Vorschriften über staatliche Beihilfen vereinbar ist, nach Auffassung der Kommission auch eine Maßnahme, die anderen Wirtschaftsakteuren einen Mindestanreiz gibt, denselben Transfer vorzunehmen, generell genehmigt werden muss, selbst wenn technisch gesehen die betreffenden Akteure damit eine Beihilfe erhalten"(1). Da die Beihilfen an die Endnutzer der Gründerzentren einen solchen vereinbaren Transfer darstellen (es handelt sich um De-minimis-Beihilfen) und der Anreiz für die Darlehensempfänger, die Gründerzentren einzurichten, geringfügig ist, sollte auch die Beihilfe zugunsten der Darlehensempfänger ihrer Auffassung nach genehmigt werden.

Die Kommission hat diese Bestimmung aus der Mitteilung über Risikokapital in einem Fall auf den Immobiliensektor angewandt. Es ging dabei um Beihilfen für Immobilienentwicklungsgesellschaften, die die Sanierung von Immobilien zwecks Nutzung im sozialen Wohnungsbau erleichtern sollten(2). Allerdings dürfte die Verwendung dieser Argumentation außerhalb des Bereichs staatlicher Beihilfen für Risikokapital weitreichende Konsequenzen nach sich ziehen. Wie im folgenden Fall könnte die Begründung beispielsweise zur Umgehung bestehender Beihilfevorschriften - der bestehenden Gruppenfreistellungsverordnungen, Gemeinschaftsrahmen und Leitlinien - genutzt werden. Außerdem könnte sie Mitgliedstaaten einen Anreiz bieten, mit der Verteilung von Beihilfen über Mittlerorganisationen zu beginnen, die ihrerseits zu Beihilfeempfängern würden.

Unter diesen Umständen ist die Kommission gehalten, die Zulässigkeit einer Verwendung dieser Bestimmung der Mitteilung über staatliche Beihilfen und Risikokapital außerhalb ihres eigentlichen Geltungsbereichs genau zu prüfen. Sollte die breitere Verwendungsmöglichkeit dieser Bestimmung bestätigt werden, sind die genauen Anwendungsvoraussetzungen insbesondere in Bereichen, die wie die Immobilienentwicklung sich so erheblich vom Risikokapital unterscheiden, festzulegen und zu untersuchen, ob im vorliegenden Fall die Voraussetzungen erfuellt sind. In diesem Zusammenhang stellt die Kommission fest, dass die britischen Behörden nicht genügend Angaben vorgelegt haben um nachzuweisen, dass die an die Mittler zur Einrichtung der Gründerzentren gewährten Beihilfen sich tatsächlich auf das erforderliche Mindestmaß beschränken.

4. Schlussfolgerung

Aufgrund der vorstehenden Ausführungen, der verfügbaren Informationen und der vorläufigen Würdigung hat die Kommission beschlossen, das Verfahren nach Artikel 88 Absatz 2 EG-Vertrag einzuleiten. Gemäß Artikel 14 der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 659/1999 des Rates können alle rechtswidrigen Beihilfen vom Empfänger zurückgefordert werden.

WORTLAUT DES SCHREIBENS

"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

By letter dated 31 January 2002, registered on 4 February 2002, under number A/30819, the British authorities notified the aid measure mentioned above, pursuant to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.

By letter dated 28 February 2002, registered under number D/50891, the Commission requested additional information, which was supplied by the British authorities by letter dated 26 April 2002, registered on 30 April 2002 under number A/33211. The British authorities provided new elements and arguments concerning the notification by letter dated 13 May 2002, registered under number A/33676 on 21 May 2002.

On 24 May 2002, a meeting was held between the British authorities and the Commission, which was followed by a new letter of request of information, sent on 4 July 2002 and registered under number D/53508 and a meeting with a member of the United Kingdom Permanent Representation which was held on 29 August 2002. The British authorities replied by letter dated 13 September 2002, registered under number A/36758 on 18 September 2002.

This letter raised new issues, which led to another letter of request of information from the Commision, dated 29 October 2002, registered under number D/56098, and to another meeting with a member of the United Kingdom Permanent Representation on 14 November 2002. The British authorities replied by letter dated 3 December 2002, registered on 9 December 2002 under number A/39062.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE

2.1. Title and legal basis

The title of this aid scheme is SBS Business Incubation Fund. It will be operated across all the English regions by the Small Business Service of the Department of Trade and Industry, on the basis of Section 8 of the Industrial Development Act of 1982.

2.2. Objective of the measure

The objective of this scheme is to foster the development of incubators for small and medium enterprises in the United Kingdom. Incubators are premises specifically designed to provide a nurturing environment for SMEs in their start-up or early phase. The firm that operates the incubator not only provides offices with specific equipment (e.g. broadbands), but will also provide 'incubation services', such as mentoring, access to finance, peer group support, etc.

The United Kingdom authorities argue that there is a 'market failure' in the provision of these incubation services for SMEs. The number of new incubators is constrained by the lack of experienced managers of such facilities. There is a number of existing business incubators, but they tend to focus on the perceived lowest risk classes of entrepreneurs or on potentially high-growth companies, where an equity stake is often taken to secure high returns in cases of success. This leaves the medium-risk, medium start-ups with few facilities on offer. In this context, it is claimed that the commercial financiers are less likely to lend all the borrowing requirement, or to lend at all into riskier incubation projects.

The aim of this scheme is therefore to provide loans to firms that want to set up or develop an incubator. These loans will act as an investment incentiviser for projects that were turned down, in part or in full by the private sector. The incubators thus assisted will provide offices for SMEs.

2.3. Mechanisms for granting the loans

The United Kingdom authorities claim that the assistance provided thanks to these loans will be limited to the minimum necessary. This minimum necessary will be assessed by independent experts, including chartered surveyors. A claw-back mechanism (repayment of part of the aid) will be applied when a situation of overcompensation is identified after the project is completed.

In specific cases, when the property is in public ownership, the United Kingdom authorities indicated that they may use public tenders, conducted in accordance with the EC rules on public procurement where such rules are deemed to apply.

2.4. Characteristics of the loans

These loans will have the following characteristics:

- As already explained, the main conditions for granting a loan is that the applicant must have been turned down, in part or in full, by private capital markets.

- The interest rate of these loans will be set at 6 %, subject to annual review, with the right to change if the base rate varies upwards by more than 1 %. According to the British authorities, this is the interest rate applied in the few projects that succeeded in obtaining private financing. It should be noted that this interest rate happens to be very close to the Community reference rate (at present 6,01 %).

- Securities will be required whenever possible. The United Kingdom authorities reckon that securities will not always be available.

- A capital repayment holiday will be offered until the completion of the project. Applicants will have an option to roll-up interest during the capital repayment holiday.

- The repayment of the loan will typically be over 10 years, but may be up to 20 years.

2.5. Eligible costs

The loans will cover between 30 and 50 % of the following costs:

- Site purchase and construction costs, or building purchase and refurbishment costs. All land and property costs will be assessed by independent Chartered Surveyors.

- Fixtures and fittings equipement.

- Associated professional fees.

- Initial marketing of development for tenants.

- In some cases, up to 25 % of the project's total working capital requirement during the set-up stage, limited to the time scale for completion of the project development and receipts of rental income.

2.6. Beneficiaries

The beneficiaries of the loans can be property developers, or companies specialised in the business support sector, without any limitations concerning their size. The beneficiaries may also be non-profit making beneficiaries, such as higher educational institutions, social enterprises, regeneration partnerships and bodies established by regional development agencies. Large firms as well as SME will be eligible for these loans.

At the same time, the United Kingdom authorities admit that the main target of this measure are the SMEs that will have access to these supported incubators. They claim that the incubators will normally provide these premises at market rate to the end-users. In order to ensure that this is the case, independent experts and chartered surveyors will ensure that the rents paid by the end-users are set at market rate. The loan conditions will include a requirement for the borrower to inform each end user that if the actual rent paid by the end-user is below market level, this will be counted as de minimis aid, and subject to the requirements of Commission regulation (EC) No 69/2001. Any amount in excess of an amount provided for in the latter regulation will have to be paid back by the beneficiaries.

2.7. Scope

There will be no limitations concerning the location of the projects: the British authorities ask for the possibility of granting these loans to projects in assisted as well as non-assisted areas, independently of whether the borrower that will operate the incubator will be a large firm or a SME.

No projects involving the agricultural, fisheries and transport sectors will be eligible for loans. Any project involving the synthetic fibres, steel, shipbuilding and motor vehicle sectors will be notified individually.

2.8. Intensities

The United Kingdom authorities have not made any specific commitments with respect to the intensities of the aid provided under these loans. They have only committed themselves to limit the aid to the minimum necessary for the project to go ahead, as assessed by independent experts.

2.9. Cumulation

In situations where the loans provided under this scheme are not sufficient to provide the estimated minimum necessary for the project to go ahead, the United Kingdom authorities have asked for the possibility to top up the aid element to this loan with other sources of funding (for instance the Single Regeneration Budget or the ERDF), up to this minimum necessary threshold. The United Kingdom authorities have not provided any further indication on this additional aid, nor committed themselves to notify it when they want to grant it in addition to the loans described above.

In order to calculate the aid element of these loans with the view of cumulating it with additional aid, the British authorities have agreed to calculate the net grant equivalent of these loans in accordance with Annex I of the Community guidelines on national regional aid. They agreed to use as reference rate the Community rate plus 400 basis points, in application of Commission notice on the method for setting the reference and discount(3), which recommends the use of such a reference rate where the security normally required by banks for a loan is not provided.

2.10. Budget and duration

An initial GBP 75 million will be available across four financial years. Clearance is requested from the Commission to cover the period until the end of March 2006.

3. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE

According to Article 6 of the Procedural Regulation(4), 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) of the EC Treaty

Under Article 87(1) of the 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'.

3.1.1. Aid to the undertakings establishing and operating the incubators

It is not contested that the present aid measure will be funded out of State resources. Furthermore, the Commission believes that they may constitute an advantage to the undertakings that are granted these loans. This point is contested by the United Kingdom authorities, at least in certain circumstances. First, the British authorities have argued that these loans' interest rates will be set at 6 %, while the current Community reference for the United Kingdom is 6,01 %. In that case, they argue that when the borrower can provide full security for the loan, the rate is almost identical to the Community reference rate, and therefore the aid element in the loan is negligible. The Commission has doubts concerning such an argument: one of the main conditions for granting the loans under this scheme is that the borrower could not get loans from commercial lenders, for the totality or at least for part of the funding of the project. In this context, the Commission believes that the securities normally required by banks are not provided, and that, were the banks willing to provide loans for part or all the project, they would do so at a higher rate. Consequently, and again because the beneficiaries of these public loans, by definition, could not get private financing, the Commission believes that these loans constitute an advantage, which is selective since only a limited number of firms will benefit from them. Furthermore, beneficiaries of these loans are undertakings involved in property development and/or business service. These activities are likely to be internationally traded. This aid measure may therefore have an effect on competition and trade between Member States.

The British authorities also claimed that the loan cannot constitute a State aid when the beneficiary is a non-profit undertaking, since such organisations lack the profit motive and will recycle any profit back into their public good activities (such as education in the case of universities). Their motivation is not to develop new business or to undermine commercial operators in any way. As a result, they argue that this assistance provided under this scheme to non-profit organisation is unlikely to distort competition, and does not constitute a State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. It is not possible for the Commission to retain such an argument. These non-profit organisations would undertake economic activities, i.e. the establishment and operation of an incubator providing accommodation and services to SMEs. This economic activity is also carried out by private firms. These non-profit making institutions must therefore be considered, in the context of this specific activity, undertakings within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. The fact that the motivation of these institutions is not to make a profit nor to undermine competitors is not relevant: what matters is the effect of their activity, which is, in the present case, of a clear economic nature. In addition, services will be provided in a competitive environment.

Finally, the British authorities put forward the argument that these incubation services could be seen as infrastructure, on the ground that these incubators would be of a general benefit to a range of undertakings and would be available to SMEs on a non-discriminatory basis. Furthermore, the firms providing these 'infrastructures', i.e. the incubators, would receive no overcompensation, since they will only receive the minimum necessary to provide and start operating this facility. The Commission has strong doubts about such an argument which would greatly extend the definition of 'infrastructure' to situations which are clearly commercial and benefit a very specific and very limited category of users (i.e., in the present case, SMEs in their start-up phase and in need of incubation services). Furthermore, for reasons that will be explained in greater detail further below, the Commission is not convinced at this stage of the procedure that the aid is limited to the minimum and that there is no overcompensation.

Given that this measure, granted through State resources, seems to give a selective advantage to the beneficiaries of these loans, and given that this advantage may distort competition and affect inter-Member State trade, the Commission can conclude that it may constitute a State aid to these undertakings within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.

3.1.2. Aid to the end-users of the incubators

Furthermore, thanks to these loans, the borrowers will establish and operate incubators for the benefit of SMEs. Despite the claim that these end-users will be charged market prices, it cannot be excluded that the assistance provided by the State for the establishment of these incubators may result in lower rents charged to the end-users. This would constitute a selective advantage, which could affect inter-Member State trade since these end-users may engage in activities affecting international trade. As a result, this measure may also constitute a State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, at the level of the end-users of the incubators.

3.2. Assessment of the aid measure

Having established that the SBS Incubation Fund may involve State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, it is necessary to consider whether this scheme can be found to be compatible with the common market.

As far as aid to the end-users of the incubators is concerned, the United Kingdom authorities have undertaken to ensure that the aid at the level of the end-users is provided in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 on de minimis aid. At this stage, it is not entirely clear by which means this could be ensured.

As far as aid to the undertakings that will establish and operate the incubators, the Commission notes that the loans that they will get are provided in order to support the creation of incubators and essentially constitute an investment aid. Therefore this aid measure should be analysed under the Community guidelines on national regional aid(5) or Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001(6). No other Commission's legal text seems to be relevant for the analysis and possible exemption of this aid measure. It does not seem however that the guidelines on national regional aid and Commission regulation (EC) No 70/2001 can be used to exempt this aid measure:

- these loans will essentially cover investment costs (site and building purchase, construction and refurbishment, costs, specific equipment, etc.) but also the initial marketing development for tenants and up to 25 % of the project's total working capital requirement during the set-up stage, until receipts of rental income. These loans may therefore constitute, at least in part, operating aid,

- the rules on cumulation remain unclear,

- the United Kingdom authorities have not committed themselves to respect the thresholds for the aid intensities set by the guidelines on national regional aid and regulation (EC) No 70/2001. They only committed themselves not to give more than the 'minimum necessary' for the project to go ahead, as assessed by independent experts. This minimum necessary may be more than would be allowed under Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 or the guidelines on national regional aid,

- the United Kingdom authorities have asked for the possibility of granting loans for projects located anywhere in England, irrespective of the size of the borrower. This may result in providing loans to large firms in non-assisted areas, within the meaning of the Community regional map.

For these reasons, the Commission can provisionally conclude that this aid measure cannot be approved under existing rules. As a result, the United Kingdom authorities have put forward a ground for exemption based on the Communication on State aid and risk capital(7). This communication states that 'where a transfer made by the State would be compatible with the State aid rules, the Commission believes that a measure which provides the minimum incentive to other economic operators to make that same transfer should also be authorised, even if technically, an aid to those operators is involved'(8). It is therefore argued that, since the aid to the end-users of the incubators is a compatible transfer (the aid at their level is de minimis), and since the incentive given to the borrowers to provide these incubators is minimal, then the aid to the borrowers should be authorised.

The application of this principle to the property development sector was accepted once by the Commission in the case N 497/01 Grants for Owner Occupation Scheme. That case concerned aid to property developers in order to encourage the rehabilitation and provision of private housing. Since there was no aid at the end level (housing for private individuals) and since the aid to the developer was the minimum necessary, the Commission concluded that the scheme could be exempted under Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty, in application of this provision of the risk capital Communication. That case was in many ways a specific one, since the end user and real target of the measure was not an enterprise but private individuals seeking access to social housing while in the present case, the targeted recipients are start-up companies.

Furthermore, this reasoning has far-reaching consequences. Such a reasoning could give Member States an incentive to start distributing aid through intermediaries, which would become recipient of aid themselves. This reasoning could also be used to bypass the State aid rules, as currently laid down in existing block exemption regulations, frameworks and guidelines. This is clearly the case under this scheme, since accepting this reasoning would enable the British authorities to provide these soft loans to any firms, whether SMEs or large ones, in assisted as well as non-assisted areas. It would also empower them to provide the 'minimum necessary' for each project to go ahead, which may imply that, in certain circumstances, the intensities allowed under the regional map or Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 will be exceeded. In these circumstances, it is necessary for the Commission to reflect on the opportunity of using this reasoning outside the specific scope of the Communication on State aid and risk capital. Furthermore, should the wider use of this reasoning be confirmed, it is equally important to lay down its precise conditions of application, especially in areas that, like property development, are so different from risk capital.

On the specific question of the criteria of application of this provision of the risk capital Communication, the Commission notes that one of them is that the incentive for the intermediary to transfer that aid should be minimal. On that point, the United Kingdom authorities have not provided any satisfactory evidence on how they intend to calculate this 'minimum level of support'. In the Communication on State aid and risk capital, from which this principle is taken, the Commission normally takes the view that there must be a call for tender for the establishment of preferential terms, and therefore the level of aid given to the investors. The best way of guaranteeing that the level of support necessary for a project to go ahead would seem to be a call for tender. However, the United Kingdom authorities have acknowledged that this procedure will be limited to situations where the land on which the incubator is to be developed is in public ownership and is consequently unlikely to be used to any great extent. In the other, more frequent, situations, the United Kingdom authorities only indicate that independent experts including chartered surveyors will analyse project in line with local market conditions in order to determine the minimum level of support necessary. Despite the requests of the Commission, they have not provided any detailed explanation of the criteria that will be taken into account by these experts or the method that will be used (e.g. gap funding).

To summarise, at this stage, the Commission has doubts concerning the applicability of this provision of the Communication on State aid and risk capital to situations falling outside its scope. Furthermore, if this reasoning is found to be applicable in the present case, the Commission has doubts as to whether the present aid scheme fulfils its conditions of application.

4. CONCLUSION

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.

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."

(1) Punkt V.6 der Mitteilung über staatliche Beihilfen und Risikokapital (ABl. C 235 vom 21.8.2001, S. 3).

(2) Sache N 497/01, Zuschüsse für eigens genutztes Wohneigentum.

(3) OJ C 273, 9.9.1997.

(4) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1).

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

(6) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 33.

(7) OJ C 235, 21.8.2001, p. 3.

(8) Idem, point V.6.