No C 212/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 8. 88 
Commission communication on the method for the application of Article 92 (3) (a) and (c) to 
regional aid 
(88/C 212/02) 
On 21 December 1978 the Commission informed the 
Member States of the principles which, in accordance 
with the powers vested in the Commission by Article 92 
et sequens of the EEC Treaty, it would apply to regional 
aid systems in force or to be established in the regions of 
the Community. These principles were set out in the 
form of a communication which was published in the 
Official Journal of the European Communities^). This 
communication partly redefined the principles of coordi­
nation already established (*) and amended and 
supplemented the methods for their implementation, 
including the common method of evaluation of the 
intensity of aid. 
In its 1979 communication the Commission established a 
number of differentiated ceilings of aid intensity for 
various categories of region in order to avoid the bidding 
up of aid levels in the wake of the removal of customs 
and trade barriers inside the common market. The very 
nature of regional aid requires that it be awarded selec­
tively. Many regions in the Community do not need 
regional aid. Regions that are shown to need assistance 
should receive aid in proportion to the gravity of the 
regional imbalances they face. The ceilings set out in the 
communication are intended to act as maximum limits 
reflecting the nature and gravity of regional problems 
across the Community. Within these parameters* the 
Member States notify proposed levels of regional aid to 
the Commission, often at lower levels, which 
subsequently approves or amends them in its decisions 
under Articles 92 and 93. 
Article 92 (3) provides two distinct possibilities where the 
Commission may consider regional aid compatible with 
the common market — Articles 92 (3) (a) and (c) which 
apply to different degrees of regional disadvantage. The 
Commission adopted a method for the application of 
Article 92 (3) (c) in 1983 and this method has been used 
for all the decisions which the Commission has taken 
since then. 
Only occasional use has been made of Article 92 (3) (a) 
when approving national regional aid in the past. 
However, successive enlargements of the Community 
have broadened the range of its regional diversity and 
confirmed the need to develop new policy instruments 
for the control of regional aid. At the same time Article 
130 of the Single European Act gives a new impetus to 
greater economic and social cohesion and provides that 
in particular the Community shall aim at reducing disparities between various regions and the backwardness 
of the least favoured regions. In response to these needs 
the Commission has in 1987 adopted a method for the 
application of Article 92 (3) (a) to national regional aid. 
In order to promote a greater understanding and trans­
parency of the decisions taken by the Commission under 
Articles 92 and 93 with respect to national regional aid 
systems, the Commission, with the support of the 
European Parliament, has decided to publish its methods 
of assessment which are described below. 
I 
Method for the application of Article 92 (3) (a) to 
national regional aid 
Article 92 (3) (a) provides that aid to promote the 
economic development of areas where the standard of 
living is abnormally low or where there is serious under­
employment may be considered compatible with the 
common market. 
1. Principles of method 
In applying Article 92 (3) (a) the Commission bases its 
decisions on a method of assessing the relative level of 
development of different regions compared to the 
Community average. The method is based on the 
following principles: 
— the socio-economic situation of Article 92 (3) (a) 
regions is assessed primarily by reference to per 
capita GDP/PPS using the Community index for the 
region; 
— regions are assessed on the basis of NUTS (3) level 
III geographical units; 
— the relative level of regional development is 
compared to the Community average; 
— regions to be classified as Article 92 (3) (a) regions 
are those regions where a majority of the level III 
regions located in a level II region have a GDP/PPS 
threshold of 75 or lower thus indicating an 
abnormally low standard of living and serious under­
employment. 
(') OJ No C 31, 3. 2. 1979. 
(J) Communications of 26 February 1975 and 23 June 1971. (') Nomenclature of Statistical Territorial Units. There are 822 
NUTS level III regions m the Community of Twelve. 
12. 8. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 212/3 
2. Choice of indicators 
The method uses GDP per capita measured in 
purchasing power standards (PPS), a measure based on a 
comparison of the prices in the Member States for the 
same sample of production and services. This provides a 
method of measuring living standards which allows for 
differences in the cost of living between the regions of 
different Member States. 
Underemployment concerns all those who are not fully 
employed in some way. In general, where underem­
ployment is great productive output will tend to be low 
and as such will also be reflected in GDP data. For the 
areas concerned — predominantly rural areas with an 
underdeveloped industrial base or a limited level of 
service activities — unemployment statistics are not a 
satisfactory measure of underemployment. The general 
low level of technology in the industrial infrastructure 
and the unsophisticated range of service activities lead to 
a relative emphasis on labour in the productive process. 
This can mask a significant level of underemployment 
which remains unrevealed by unemployment data. 
3. Geographical unit 
The basic geographical unit used in the analysis is the 
level III region. However, for the purposes of deter­
mining eligibility as a 92 (3) (a) region reference is made 
to the situation of the majority of level III regions in the 
larger (level II) region. This allows the situation of an 
individual level III region which differs sharply from the 
surrounding regions to be taken into account. If a rela­
tively favourable region is located in an otherwise 
backward area, it can be included under 92 (3) (a) 
provided a majority of the level III regions in the corre­
sponding level II region satisfy the GDP/PPS threshold 
requirement. On the other hand, however, a more disad­
vantaged region will be excluded if this requirement is 
not satisfied. 
A list of the regions selected by this method is attached 
in Annex I. It can be seen that these regions lie mainly 
on the Southern and Western periphery of the 
Community. 
4. Exceptional regions 
In addition to the regions selected by the above method, 
two further regions have been added to the list in order 
the take account of their exceptional situations. One is 
Northern Ireland because of its particularly difficult 
situation. The other is Teruel which, although adjacent 
to other more developed regions, is one of the most underdeveloped regions in Spain, is very sparsely 
populated, has a high level of dependence on agriculture 
and neighbours other 92 (3) (a) regions. 
5. Aid ceilings 
The 1979 principles of coordination set 75 % net grant 
equivalent of initial investment as the highest permissible 
aid intensity. It has therefore been decided to fix 75 % 
net grant equivalent as the ceiling on aid intensity which 
will apply in 92 (3) (a) areas. 
The principles of coordination (') provide that ceilings of 
aid intensity must be adapted according to the kind, 
intensity or urgency of the regional problems. Whilst all 
92 (3) (a) regions have severe regional problems relative 
to a Community standard, significant disparities in living 
standards and underemployment may exist between 
regions inside the same Member State. 
Consequently, the Commission will use its discretionary 
power to require a regional differentiation in aid 
intensity below 75 % NGE. As such the relevant ceiling 
of aid intensity for a regional aid system will be the 
maximum notified by the Member State to the 
Commission in accordance with Article 93 (3) and 
approved by the Commission when making its 
subsequent decision under Articles 92 and 93. 
6. The range of aid instruments required to promote 
regional development in Article 92 (3) (a) areas 
Regional aid in the Community can be broadly divided 
into two categories: aid linked to initial investment or 
job creation and that of a continuing character, designed 
to overcome particular or permanent disadvantages 
(operating aid). 
Given the severe disadvantages of 92 (3) (a) regions, aid 
linked to initial investment may not always be suitable or 
sufficient to attract investment into the region or to 
allow indigenous economic activity to develop. 
Companies located in these regions typically face 
additional cost burdens because of location and infra­
structure deficiencies which can permanently hamper 
their competitiveness. Under certain conditions, some 
operating aid can bring a positive benefit to the poorest 
parts of the Community. Firstly, some regions may 
experience such serious cost and infrastructural disad­
vantages that even the maintenance of existing 
investment is extremely difficult. In the early stages of 
development, maintenance of existing investment, 
perhaps on a short to medium-term basis, can form a 
sine qua non for the attraction of new investment which 
will help in turn to develop the region. In many Article 
92 (3) (a) regions, a broadly-based industrial structure 
(*) OJ No C 31, 3. 2. 1979, point 9 (iv). 
No C 212/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 8. 88 
does not yet exist. Most of the companies are very small, 
they operate in traditional sectors and will not expand 
without an outside stimulus. In such difficult envi­
ronments, it may be justified to permit certain types of 
assistance such as marketing aid in order to enable 
companies in these regions to participate effectively in 
the Community's internal market, both as producers and 
consumers. Without them, the opportunities offered by 
the internal market may remain out of reach. Secondly, 
some regions may suffer from such severe structural 
disadvantages, for example, those caused by remote 
location, that they are almost insuperable. As a practical 
example, island regions in peripheral locations can suffer 
a permanent cost disadvantage with respect to trade 
because of the burden of additional transportation 
expenses. The same holds true for communication costs. 
Operating aid of this type can foster closer links between 
the least-developed regions and the central regions, 
thereby promoting overall economic integration in the 
Community. In recognition of the special difficulties of 
these regions, the Commission may, by way of dero­
gation, authorize certain operating aid in Article 92 (3) 
(a) regions under the following conditions: 
— that the aid is limited in time and designed to 
overcome the structural handicaps of enterprises 
located in Article 92 (3) (a) regions; 
— that aid be designed to promote a durable and 
balanced development of economic activity and not 
give rise to a sectoral overcapacity at the Community 
level such that the resulting Community sectoral 
problem produced is more serious than the original 
regional problem; in this context a sectoral approach 
is required and in particular the Community rules, 
directives and guidelines applicable to certain 
industrial (steel, shipbuilding, synthetic fibres, textiles 
and clothing) and agricultural sectors, and those 
concerning certain industrial enterprises involving the 
transformation of agricultural products are to be 
observed; 
— that such aid is not granted in violation of the 
specific rules on aid granted to companies in 
difficulty; 
— that an annual report on their application is sent to 
the Commission, indicating total expenditure (or loss 
of revenue in the case of tax concessions and social 
security reductions) by type of aid and an indication 
of the sectors concerned; II 
Method for the application of Article 92 (3) (c) to 
national regional aid 
Article 92 (3) (c) provides that aid to facilitate the devel­
opment of certain economic areas, where such aid does 
not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent 
contrary to the common interest may be considered 
compatible with the common market. 
1. Principles of method 
In applying Article 92 (3) (c), the Commission bases its 
decisions on a method which allows the socio-economic 
situation of a region to be examined, both in its national 
and its Community context. This enables the 
Commission, in the Community interest, to verify that a 
significant regional disparity exists and, if so, to 
authorize the Member State concerned, irrespective of its 
level of economic development, to pursue a national 
regional policy. The Commission's decisions are based 
on the following principles: 
— regions are assessed on the basis of the NUTS level 
III geographical unit (in justified exceptional circum­
stances a smaller unit may be used); 
— in the first stage of analysis the socio-economic 
situation of a region is assessed on the basis of two 
alternative criteria: per capita gross domestic product 
(GDP) or gross value added at factor cost (GVA) 
and structural unemployment; 
— a second stage of analysis considering other relevant 
indicators completes the first stage. 
2. First stage of analysis 
The socio-economic situation of a region is considered 
in relation to certain thresholds which are calculated in 
two steps. The first step relates to a minimum regional 
disparity in a national context whilst in the second step 
this minimum required disparity is adjusted to take 
account of the situation of those Member States which 
have a more favourable level of development in a 
Community context. 
Since aid can only be accepted when it facilitates the 
development of certain economic areas, this requires a 
certain backwardness of the region within the Member 
State, that is to say a minimum negative regional 
disparity in the national context notwithstanding the 
relative situation of the Member State within the 
Community. This minimum regional disparity in the 
national context is considered to be satisfied for the 
region, if: 
— income as measured by per capita GDP/GVA (Gross 
Domestic Product/Gross Value Added) is at least 
15 % below the Member State average, 
— that aid designed to promote exports to other 
Member States are excluded. and/or 
12. 8. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 212/5 
— structural unemployment is at least 10 % above the 
Member State average. 
This is achieved if the GDP/GVA index for the region is 
not above a basic threshold of 85 and/or if the structural 
unemployment index is not below a basic threshold of 
110. In each case the index for the Member State equals 
100. 
A relatively more flexible threshold for structural unem­
ployment has been fixed to take into account the 
important need to reduce unemployment. 
At the same time aid can only be accepted when they do 
not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent 
contrary to the common interest. Since it is against the 
common interest to increase the existing differences 
between regions and the backwardness of less favoured 
areas, the Commission has determined that for aid to be 
granted to regions in Member States for which the 
indicator shows a more favourable situation than the 
Community average, the national regional disparities of 
such regions must be correspondingly greater. 
It is therefore necessary to establish the relative position 
of the Member States within the Community. In 
measuring this position, two European indices are 
calculated for each Member State. They express the 
Member State's position with respect to income and to 
structural unemployment as a percentage of the corre­
sponding Community average. These indices are 
calculated as average values over a five-year period and 
are updated annually. In the second step the European 
index is used to adjust the respective basic threshold for 
each Member State which is better off than the 
Community average, according to its relative position 
within the Community, by applying the following 
formula: 
basic threshold + basic threshold x 100 1 
European index / 
: 2 = modified threshold 
Since the situation of each region is examined in the first 
place in the national context, the construction of the 
formula attenuates the impact of the European index. 
The better the situation of a Member State compared 
with the Community average, the more important must 
be the disparity of a region within the national context in 
order to justify the award of aid. 
The thresholds in force on 1 November 1987 are shown 
in Annex II. Annex ///contains a list of regions currently 
approved for regional aid under Article 92 (3) (c) 
together with the maximum intensities approved by the 
Commission for those regions. In order to avoid the situation where the structural 
unemployment threshold becomes too rigorous, a 
maximum required disparity corresponding to an index 
of 145 is fixed. This facilitates the award of aid in 
regions with a very difficult unemployment situation in a 
national context even though the same situation may not 
be so unfavourable in a Community context. Given the 
smaller variation in the threshold for GDP/GVA it has 
not been necessary to establish a maximum required 
disparity. 
3. Second stage of analysis 
The first stage of analysis outlined above permits a basic 
examination of the socio-economic situation of a region 
in its national and Community context in terms of unem­
ployment and income levels. However, many other 
economic indicators can also be used to bring into more 
precise focus the socio-economic situation of a particular 
region. Therefore, meeting the relevant threshold in the 
first stage does not automatically qualify a region to 
receive state aid. The first basic stage of analysis must be 
complemented by a second stage which allows other 
relevant indicators based on available Community and 
national statistical data to be taken into account. These 
other relevant indicators may include the trend and 
structure of unemployment, the development of 
employment, net migration, demographic pressure, 
population density, activity rates, productivity, the 
structure of economic activity (in particular the 
importance of declining sectors), investment, geographic 
situation and topography and infrastructure. In some 
circumstances, and especially for regions which are at 
the margin of the thresholds applied in the first stage of 
analysis, it is possible that the second stage may reveal an 
adequate justification for regional aid even in regions 
which do not fully satisfy the thresholds established in 
the course of the first stage. 
4. Ceilings of aid intensity 
Differentiated ceilings of aid intensity are established in 
accordance with the principle fixed at point 9 (iv) of the 
coordination principles ('). This provides that aid 
intensity must be adapted according to the kind, intensity 
or urgency of regional problems, as has been envisaged 
by the different ceilings fixed under point 2 of the coor­
dination principles (20, 25 and 30 %). 
In practice the ceilings approved by the Commission 
when taking Article 92 and 93 decisions are often lower, 
and frequently significantly lower, than the above 
maxima. 
O OJ No C 31, 3. 2. 1979. 
No C 212/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 8. 88 
GREECE 
IRELAND 
PORTUGAL 
FRANCE 
ITALY 
SPAIN ANNEX I 
List of Article 92 (3) (a) Regions 
All of Member State 
Overseas Departments 
Calabria 
Basilicata 
Sicilia 
Puglia 
Campania 
Molise 
Sardinia 
Abruzzi 
Extremadura 
Andalucia 
Castilla-La Mancha 
Galicia Guadeloupe 
Guyane 
Martinique 
Reunion 
Reggio di Calabria 
Cosenza 
Catanzaro 
Potenza 
Matera 
Agrigento 
Enna 
Palermo 
Messina 
Trapani 
Caltanissetta 
Catania 
Ragusa 
Siracusa 
Brindisi 
Lecce 
Foggia 
Bari 
Taranto 
Napoli 
Benevento 
Avellino 
Salerno 
Caserta 
Campobasso 
Isernia 
Nuoro 
Oristano 
Cagliari 
Sassari 
Teramo 
L'Aquila 
Pescara 
Chieti 
Badajoz 
Caceres 
Granada 
Cordoba 
Jaen 
Sevilla 
Almeria 
Malaga 
Cadiz 
Huelva 
Albacete 
Cuenca 
Toledo 
Ciudad Real 
Guadalajara 
Orense 
Pontevedra 
Lugo 
La Corufia 
12. 8. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 212/7 
Castilla and Le6n 
UNITED KINGDOM Murcia 
Canarias 
Teruel 
Ceuta and Melilla 
Northern Ireland Zamora 
Avila 
Salamanca 
Soria 
Le6n 
Palencia 
Valladolid 
Segovia 
Burgos 
Las Palmas 
Tenerife 
ANNEX II 
Thresholds used by the Commission on 1 October 1987 
Belgium 
France 
Netherlands 
Denmark 
Federal Republic of 
Germany 
United Kingdom 
Italy 
Ireland 
Luxembourg 
Greece 
Spain 
Portugal GDP/GVA 
per capita 
82 
77 
79 
73 
74 
83 
85 
85 
77 
85 
85 
85 Structural 
unemployment 
110 
118 
110 
121 
136 
110 
116 
110 
145 
128 
110 
125 
ANNEX III 
REGIONS APPROVED FOR REGIONAL AID UNDER ARTICLE 92 (3) (c) ON 1 OCTOBER 1987 
Note: Unless otherwise indicated aid intensity ceilings are given in gross terms in France, Germany, 
Luxemburg and the Netherlands and in net terms in Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Spain and the United 
Kingdom. 
1. FRANCE 
A. Aid intensity limited to 25 % or 50 000 FF per job created 
Creuse, Cantal, Aude, Lozere, Pyrenees-Orientales, Haute-Corse, Corse du Sud. Parts of Ardennes, 
Nord, Pas-de-Calais, Meurthe-et-Moselle, Meuse, Moselle, Vosges, Bas-Rhin, Haut-Rhin, Loire-
Atlantique, C6tes-du-Nord, Finistere, Ille-et-Vilaine, Morbihan, Charente-Maritime, Pyrenees-Atlan-
tiques, Ariege, Aveyron, Lot, Tarn, Correze, Haute-Vienne, Ardeche, Loire, Allier, Haute-Loire, Puy-
de-Ddme, Gard, Herault. 
No C 212/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 8. 88 
B. Aid intensity limited to 17 % or 35 000 FF per job created 
Calvados, Manche, Maine-et-Loire, Mayenne, Vendee, Charente, Deux-Sevres, Vienne, Dordogne, 
Landes, Lot-et-Garonne, Gers, Hautes-Pyrenees, Tarn-et-Garonne. Parts of Ardennes, Haute-Marne, 
Aisne, Somme, Seine-Maritime, Cher, Indre, Orne, Nord, Pas-de-Calais, Meurthe-et-Moselle, Meuse, 
Moselle, Vosges, Haut-Rhin, Haute-Sa6ne, Loire-Atlantique, C6tes-du-Nord, Finistere, Ille-et-Vilaine, 
Morbihan, Charente-Maritime, Gironde, Pyrenees-Atlantiques, Ariege, Aveyron, Haute-Garonne, Lot, 
Tarn, Correze, Haute-Vienne, Ardeche, Loire, Allier, Haute-Loire, Puy-de-D6me, Gard, Herault, 
Bouches-du-Rh6ne, Var. 
2. ITALY (*) 
(until 31 December 1987) 
A. Aid intensity limited to 15 % 
Parts of Toscana, Marche, Umbria, Lazio. 
B. Aid intensity limited to 8 % 
Parts of Piemonte, Valle d'Aosta, Liguria, Lombardia, Trentino-Alto Adige, Veneto, Friuli-Venezia 
Giulia, Emilia-Romagna. 
C. Aid intensity limited to 7 % 
Parts of Toscana, Marche, Umbria, Lazio, Piemonte, Valle d'Aosta, Liguria, Lombardia, Trentino-Alto 
Adige, Veneto, Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Emilia-Romagna. 
3. THE NETHERLANDS 
A. Aid intensity limited to 20 % net 
Nijmegen, Zuidoost-Drenthe, Delfzijl. Parts of Oost-Groningen, Zuid-Limburg. 
B. Aid intensity limited to 25 % 
Overig Groningen, Twente, Helmond, Lelystad, Tilburg, Den Bosch, Maastricht, Valkenburg, Sittard. 
Parts of Oost-Groningen, Noord-Friesland, Zuidoost Friesland. 
C. Aid intensity limited to 15 % 
Arnhem, Zuidwest-Friesland. Parts of Noord-Limburg, Noord-Friesland, Zuidoost-Friesland, Noord-
Overijsel. 
4. BELGIUM 
A. Aid intensity limited to 20 % or 3 500 ECU per job created with a maximum of 25 % 
Hasselt, Maaseik, Tongeren, Liege, Charleroi, Mons. Parts of Soignies, Thuin. 
B. Aid intensity limited or 15 % or 2 500 ECU per job created with a maximum of 20 % 
Turnhout, Diksmuide, Veurne, leper, Bastogne, Marche-en-Famenne, Neufchateau, Dinant, Philip-
peville, Arlon, Virton. Parts of Thuin, Huy, Verviers, Namur. 
5. LUXEMBOURG 
A. Aid intensity limited to 25 % 
Parts of Esch-sur-Alzette, Capellen. 
(') With effect from 1 January 1988, nearly all regional aid in centre-north Italy has been withdrawn. 
12. 8. 88 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 212/9 
B. Aid intensity limited to 20 % 
Pans of Esch-sur-Alzette, Capellen. 
C. Aid intensity limited to 17,5 % 
Luxembourg, Grevenmacher, Wiltz, Clervaux. 
6. UNITED KINGDOM 
A. Aid intensity limited to 75 % or 10 000 ECU per job created (for enterprises with no more than 10 
employees and where fixed investment does not exceed 600 000 ECU) 
Shetland Islands, Orkney Islands, Thurso, Wick, Sutherland, Invergordon and Dingwall, Skye and 
Wester Ross, Inverness, Forres and Upper Moray, Badenoch, Lochaber, Western Isles, Oban, Islay/ 
Mid Argyll, Dunoon and Bute, Campbeltown. 
B. Aid intensity limited to 30 % or 5 500 ECU per job created with a maximum of 40 % 
England: 
Liverpool, Widnes and Runcorn, Wigan and St Helens, Wirral and Chester, Workington, Bishop 
Auckland, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, South Tyneside, Stockton-on-Tees, 
Sunderland, Rotherham and Mexborough, Scunthorpe, Whitby, Corby, Falmouth, Helston, Newquay, 
Penzance and St Yves, Redruth and Camborne. 
Scotland: 
Arbroath, Bathgate, Cumnock and Sanquhar, Dumbarton, Dundee, Glasgow, Greenock, Irvine, 
Kilmarnock, Lanarkshire. 
Wales: 
Aberdare, Cardigan, Ebbw Valle and Abergavenny, Flint and Rhyl, Holyhead, Lampeter and 
Aberaeron, Merthyr and Rhymney, Neath and Port Talbot, Pontypridd and Rhondda, South Pem­
brokeshire, Wrexham. 
C. Aid intensity limited to 20 % or 3 500 ECU per job created with a maximum of 25 °/o 
England: 
Accrington and Rossendale, Blackburn, Bolton and Bury, Part of Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, 
Darlington, Durham, Morpeth and Ashington, Barnsley, Bradford, Doncaster, Grimsby, Hull, 
Sheffield, Birmingham, Coventry and Hinckley, Dudley and Sandwell, Kidderminster, Telford and 
Bridgnorth, Walsall, Wolverhampton, Gainsborough, Bodmin and Liskeard, Bude, Cinderford and 
Ross-on-Wye, Plymouth. 
Scotland: 
Ayr, Alloa, Badenoch, Campbeltown, Dunfermline, Dunoon and Bute, Falkirk, Forres, Girvan, Inver­
gordon and Dingwall, Kirkcaldy, Lochaber, Newton Stewart, Skye and Wester Ross, Stewartry, 
Stranraer, Sutherland, Western Isles, Wick. 
Wales: 
Bangor and Caernarfon, Bridgend, Cardiff, Fishguard, Haverfordwest, Llanelli, Newport, Pontypool 
and Cwmbran, Porthmadoc and Ffestiniog, Pwllheli, Swansea. 
D. Aid intensity limited to 11 % where aid does not exceed 100 000 ECU 
Inner urban areas of Hackney, Islington, Lambeth, Brent, Hammersmith and Fulham, Leeds, Leicester, 
Nottingham, Tower Hamlets, Wandsworth, Burnley, Ealing, Greenwich, Haringey, Lewisham, 
Newham, Southwark. 
E. Aid intensity limited to 7,5 % or 3 500 ECU per job created with a maximum of 11 % 
Administrative districts of Ceredigion, Meirionnydd, Brecknock, Montgomery, Radnor. 
7. DENMARK 
A. Aid intensity limited to 25 % or 4 500 ECU per job created with a maximum of 30 % 
Bornholm, Faeroerne, Samso and other Islands. Parts of Viborg, Nordjylland. 
No C 212/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 12. 8. 88 
B. Aid intensity limited to 20 % or 2 500 ECU per job created with a maximum of 25 % 
Parts of Sonderjylland, Lolland, Fyn, Langeland. 
C. Aid intensity limited to 17 % or 3 000 ECU per job created with a maximum of 22 % 
Parts of Nordjylland, Viborg, Ringkebing, Ribe, Sonderjylland, Arhus. 
8. SPAIN 
A. Aid intensity limited to 45 % 
Parts of Madrid, Asturias. 
B. Aid intensity limited to 30 % 
Cantabria. Parts of Alicante, Catell6n, Valencia, Asturias, Zaragoza, Vizcaya, Alava. 
C. Aid intensity limited to 20 % 
Guipuzcoa. Parts of Zaragoza, Vizcaya, Alava, Huesca, Navarra, Barcelona. 
9. GERMANY (») (2) 
A. Aid intensity limited to 23 % 
Amberg, Schwandorf. 
B. Aid intensity limited to 18 % 
Heide-Meldorf, Cuxhaven, Bremerhaven, Wilhelmshaven, Emden-Leer, Ammerland-Cloppenburg, 
Oldenburg, Meppen, Nordhorn, Lingen, Detmold-Lemgo, Steinfurt, Ahaus, Bocholt, Kleve-Emmerich, 
Recklinghausen, Brilon, Alsfeld-Ziegenhain, Daun, Idar-Oberstein, Cochem-Zell, Trier, Bitburg-Priim, 
Saarbriicken, Rothenburg o. d. T., Pirmasens, Nordfriesland, Straubing, Passau. Parts of Landau/Pfalz. 
C. Aid intensity limited to 15 % 
Stade-Bremervorde, Syke, Unterweser, Bremen, Rotenburg/Wumme, Fallingbostel, Grafschaft 
Diepholz-Vechta, Nienburg-Schaumburg, Hameln, Coesfeld, Duisburg-Oberhausen, Bochum, 
Dortmund-Liidinghausen, Soest, Bad Kreuznach, Alzey-Worms, Weifienburg in Bayern, Neumarkt/ 
Oberpfalz, Nordlingen, Itzehoe, Soltau, Holzminden-Hoxter, Neustadt/Saale, Bamberg, Weiden/ 
Oberpfalz, Regensburg. Parts of Osnabruck. 
D. Aid intensity limited to 12 % 
Flensburg-Schleswig, Luneburg, Deggendorf. 
(') The Zonenrandgebiet, Berlin (West) and the Lander regional schemes are not included in this list. 
O With effect from 1 January 1988.