COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 16.04.1997 
COM (97) 170 final 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 
FIFTH SURVEY ON STATE AID IN THE EUROPEAN UNION 
IN THE MANUFACTURING AND CERTAIN OTHER SECTORS 

CONTENTS 
INTRODUCTION 
Background 1 
Conceptual remarks 3 
PART I - AID TO THE MANUFACTURING SECTOR 
Volume and trends of aid to manufacturing 5 
- Community totals 5 
- Comparisons between Member States 7 
Aid to shipbuilding 10 
Types of aid instruments 1 3 
Objectives of aid 16 
German State aid to the new Lander 23 
PART II - OVERALL NATIONAL AID IN THE MEMBER STATES 
Aid to other sectors than industry 24 
- Aid to agriculture 24 
- Aid to fisheries 27 
- Aid to transport (railways) 29 
- Aid to coal mining 31 
Volume of overall aid in the Union 34 
- Budgetary impact of aids 35 
RESULTS 37 
CONCLUSIONS 39 
ANNEXES 
Annex I: Technical Annex 43 
Annex II: Statistical Annex 57 
Annex III: Community Funds and Instruments 75 
l<\ bi 
TABLES AND FIGURES 
Table 1 
Table 2 
Table 3 
Table 4 
Table 5 
Table 6 
Table 7 
Table 8 
Table 9 
Table 10 
Table 11 
Table 12 
Table 13 
Table 14 
Table 15 
Table 16 State aid to industry - annual values in constant prices (1993) 5 
State aid to industry - annual values 1990 to 1994 6 
State aid to industry -annual averages 1990-1992 and 1992-1994 1 
Aid to shipbuilding in 1992-1994 12 
State aid to industry 1992-1994 
- breakdown according to type of aid 13 
State aid to industry 1992-1994 
- breakdown according to sector and function 20 
State aid to industry 1990-1992 and 1992-1994 
-breakdown to main objectives 21 
State aid to industry in the Community 1990-1994 
Annual values in constant prices (1993) 22 
National aid in respect of products listed in 
Annex 1/ of the EC Treaty (Agriculture) 26 
State aid to fisheries in per cent of gross valued added in this sector 28 
Community interventions in the fisheries sector 29 
State aid to transport (Railways) 30 
State aid to the coal industry 31 
Overall national aid in the Member States 1990-92 and 1992-94 34 
Overall national aid in the Member States 19.90-1992 and 1992-1994 
in per cent of GDP 35 
Overall national aid in the Member 1990-92 and 1992-94 
broken down into main sectors 36 
Statistical Annex 
Table A 1 State aid to industry in current prices (National currency) 58 
Table A2 State aid to industry in current prices (ECU) 59 
Table A3 German State aid to the new Lander - yearly average 1992-1994 60 
Table A4 Total State aid - annual average 1992 - 1994 by Member State 61 
Table A Annual Community Expenditure 83 
Table B Other Community Instruments 84 
Table CI Community Expenditure by Member State 85 
Table C2 ' Community Expenditure by Member State 86 
Figures 
Figure 1 State aid to industry as percentage of value added 8 
Figure 2 State aid to industry: Distribution by tax and budgetary expenditure 1 5 
Figure A 1 Aid to industry and Community Funds per employee 62 
lb 
INTRODUCTION 
Background 
The need for an effective method of systematic quantification of State aid for 
the purposes of competition policy was fully perceived in 1985, the year 
which saw the publication of the Commission White Paper on completing the 
internal market. At the end of that year the Commission instructed its 
departments to compile and publish a fact-based analytical survey on the 
granting of State aid in the Member States of the Community. 
Since the First Survey, covering 1981-86, concluded that transparency in the 
field of State aid had to be increased, it was decided that updating should be 
carried out, and this was done in the Second, Third and Fourth Surveys, 
covering the periods 1987-88, 1989-90 and 1991-92 respectively. 
2. The Fifth Survey updates the existing data and covers the period up to and 
including 1994. It covers the last years before the accession of the three new 
Member States and provides information on the then prevailing structure of 
state support to companies in the twelve Member States of the Community. It 
is the first Survey that partially profited from the new system of standardized 
annual reports proposed by the Commission to the Member States in 1994, 
and which is now taking full effect. 
3. The publication of this Fifth Survey reaffirms the commitment of the 
Commission to maintain an open policy on the control of State aid. This 
emphasis on transparency is increasingly important given the environment in 
which the Commission currently operates, both within the Union itself and in 
the wider international context. 
The completion of the internal market and the approaching economic and 
monetary union require an increasingly effective control of State aid since 
such aid can be used to replace barriers to trade that have been dismantled 
in the integration process. 
Member States will willingly contribute to the completion and future proper 
functioning of the internal market only if they are certain that all other 
Member States abide by the same rules when subsidising their firms. 
Compiling and publishing data on the aid amounts awarded is one, and not 
the least means with which the Commission demonstrates to the Member 
1 c 
States that it is constantly keeping a close watch on public interventions, 
both on their overall development and the development in each of the 
Member States. This in turn will allow it to adjust its policies where required 
in order to execute a fair and efficient State aid control, and to adapt to a 
changing economic environment. 
4. Looking at the international context, this decade has witnessed the 
conclusion of the Europe Agreements with the Central and East European 
Countries (CEEC), creating an historical association between the Community 
and this group of countries which aims at their eventual accession to the 
Union. The burdens of the past of these countries in transition are 
particularly heavy. This urgently calls for increased transparency in the field 
of State aid. Through the publication of its own Surveys on State aid the 
Commission and indeed the whole European Union give a concrete example 
to these countries of the level of transparency that is expected of modern, 
competitive market economies. This will facilitate fulfilling the reporting 
obligation of the CEEC as laid down in the Europe Agreements. 
Equally important, in the context of the World Trade Organization the Survey 
provides an example of what we should expect from our trading partners in 
terms of transparency. In this respect it complements the notification of 
subsidies of the Community and the Member States pursuant to Article 25 of 
the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. In a similar 
fashion the Survey furthermore provides an example for our partners in the 
OECD where the Commission continues to participate in the study on public 
support to industry. 
Conceptual remarks 
t 
This Fifth Survey on State Aid covers the period 1992-1994, updating the 
Fourth Survey (published in 1995) which covered the period 1990-1992. 
Included in the Survey is national aid given in the Community of twelve 
Member States to the sectors: industry, agriculture, fisheries, coal, and 
transport, of which the latter comprises railways. The reasons for these 
limitations together with general explanations of the methodology used are 
given in the Technical Annex (Annex I). The Statistical Annex (Annex II) 
contains basic statistical data on aid to industry and on overall aid. An 
overview of Community Funds and Instruments is given in Annex III. 
When comparing the different Member States, the analysis of the aid figures 
concentrates on the annual averages over the three-year-period 1992-1994. 
Where appropriate, the figures for the period 1990-1992 are given by way of 
comparison. 
As was already the case in the preceding surveys, the periods compared 
overlap by one year. For comparisons between Member States, the use of 
overlapping three-year averages is the only way of arriving at conclusions 
supported by sufficiently statistically reliable figures. This is because for 
some of the figures amounts are at present only known over longer than 
one-year periods. In such cases, the amounts have to be arbitrarily 
assigned to individual years. Secondly, the amounts for the last year 
reported on (1994) are to a non-negligible extent provisional and - as was 
already the case for the last year of the period reviewed by the preceding 
Survey (1992) - will certainly be modified by the Member States during the 
next verification of data for subsequent years. The resulting weak viability of 
annual figures - particularly when broken down for Member States - is 
statistically straightened out by using overlapping three-year averages. In 
order to make the averages for the previous period comparable with those 
of 1992-1994, the absolute figures 1990-1992, unless otherwise indicated, 
are expressed at 1993 prices1. Throughout the Survey, therefore, figures 
are in real terms.2 
For this reason, and because of the - in some cases considerable - modifications by 
the Member States of the 1992 figures mentioned above, figures for 1990-1992 are 
not the same as those published in the Fourth Survey. 
Figures for aid to industry at current exchange rates are given in the Statistical 
Annex (Annex II). 
7. The figures for 1993 and 1994 were drawn up by Commission departments 
in cooperation with the Member States concerned. Together with the 
already existing figures for 1990-1992 they were verified by the Member 
States and, if necessary, modified. This procedure ensures that a relatively 
high degree of reliance can be placed in the data. 
As far as Greece is concerned, the Commission, when establishing the 
Greek figures for preceding reports, used as a reference a study on Greek 
State aid and spending undertaken by a consultant. This study then served 
as a basis for the Commission departments' estimates and extrapolations. 
The contribution received from the Greek authorities has permitted 
improvement of the Greek data. Regrettably, however, as no 
comprehensive contribution is forthcoming from the Greek authorities the 
figures still remain essentially estimates, and therefore the results for 
Greece should be treated with caution. 
PART I-AID TO INDUSTRY 
V 
Volume and trend of aid to industry 
8. In the Community, the industrial sector is granted more aid than any of the 
other sectors covered by this Survey; in fact, during the period 1992-1994 
45% of overall aid went to this sector. The analysis of aid in this sector of 
the economy occupies, therefore, the centre of this Survey. 
Community Totals 
9. Table 1 shows the annual amounts of aid to industry in the Community in 
the years 1990 to 1994. 
Table 1 
State aid to industry in the Community 1990-1994 
Annual values in constant prices (1993). 
Million ECU 
EUR 12 1990 
43777 1991 
39827 1992 
41196 1993 
43890 1994 
42830 
Although the figures should be interpreted cautiously3, they allow the 
conclusion that the gradual downward trend observed in the past appears to 
have come to an end. This survey indicates a stable tendency in the overall 
volume which is situated around an annual average of almost 43 billion 
ECUs. The high figure for 1990 can be explained by some untypical aid 
awards in two Member States4. 
10. Absolute values, even if aggregated at Community level, are of only limited 
use for reflecting trends in national aid policies over time. Therefore, Table 2 
shows aid to industry as a percentage of value added, per person employed 
See point 6 above. 
Some major sectorial restructuring was supported in Italy and Spain. 
in this sector, and in percent of intra-Community exports of manufactured 
goods.5 
Table 2 
State aid to industry in the Community 
Annual values 1990 to 1994 
EUR 12 
In per cent of value 
added 
In ECU per person 
employed* 
In per cent of intra-
community export** 1990 
4,0 
1333 
20,1 1991 
3,6 
1238 
18,6 1992 
3,9 
1318 
19,7 1993 
4,2 
1472 
20,8 1994 
3,8 
1472 
20,7 
at constant 1993 prices 
intra-Community exports of industrial products 
Aid levels relative to value added fluctuate around four percent during the 
period under review. 
The amount of aid per person employed in industry varies between ECU 
1253 in 1991 and ECU 1471 in 1994 during the two periods reviewed. The 
decline in manufacturing sector employment has an effect on the 
development of this indicator from 1991 onwards. Aid relative to the value of 
intra-Community exports of manufactured goods - this ratio can be seen as 
a good indicator for the potential distortion of competition in the Community -
also shows a slight upward tendency from 1991. 
11. From Table 1 and 2 it can be seen that the absolute aid amounts and the 
three indicators used to mirror the tendency of aid to industry at Community 
largely coincide: they indicate that the downward trend observed in the past 
has been replaced by a stable tendency in the overall volume during the two 
periods reviewed. Thus the concern that the unfavourable economic 
conditions prevailing at the time together with the full impact of competition 
Since a small but not exactly quantifiable part of the aid amounts has to be attributed 
to the service sector (trade, repair, consultancy), the figures shown may be slightly 
overestimated. 
brought about by the progressive establishment of the internal market might 
tempt governments to resort to State aid seems not to have been wholly 
unfounded. 
Comparisons between Member States 
12. Table 3 compares the average aid levels in industry for the different Member 
States6 for the periods 1990-1992 and 1992-1994,7 expressed in per cent of 
gross value added and aid amounts per person employed in this sector. In 
addition, real term absolute amounts of aid are given for information. 
Table 3 
State aid to industry 
Annual averages 1990-1992 and 1992-1994 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
-Old Lander 
-New Lander 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United Kingdom 
EUR 12 In per cent of value added 
1990-1992 
7,9 
1,9 
3,5 
12,5 
2,1 
2,7 
2,7 
8,9 
3,5 
2,5 
4,6 
1,4 
3,8 1992-1994 
4,8 
2,8 
4,8 
10,5 
1,7 
3,3 
3,5 
8,4 
2,9 
2,1 
4,4 
0,8 
4.0 In ECU per person 
employed* 
1990-1992 
3015 
639 
1514 
921 
5415 
1785 
605 
1114 
1271 
2397 
1669 
994 
514 
439 
1296 1992-1994 
1773 
1017 
2012 
553 
11610 
1588 
571 
1350 
1837 
2379 
1267 
822 
480 
279 
1419 In million ECU* 
1990-1992 
2297 
337 
13965 
7373 
6592 
1180 
1738 
5280 
314 
12321 
62 
1003 
618 
2484 
41600 1992-1994 
1331 
511 
17410 
4156 
13254 
1035 
1494 
6006 
463 
11529 
48 
812 
568 
1433 
42639 
1990-1992 averages in 1993 prices 
Germany has been divided into the old and new Lander in order to show clearly the 
different development in the two German areas, marked by the unprecedented 
adjustment process of the new Lander economy to a market system. 
As explained in point 6 above, detailed breakdowns by Member States can only be 
compared reliably if overlapping three-year averages are used. 
The aid levels show significant differences between the individual Member 
States. Figure 1 gives an overview of the situation when aid levels are expressed 
as aid to industry relative to value added. 
Figure 1 
State aid to industry 
as percentage of value added (averages 1990-1992 and 1992-1994) 
• 1990-1992 1992-1994 
The highest aid levels are to be found in Greece and Italy. These countries 
rank high above Community average. As noted above, the continuing 
uncertainty attached to the figures for Greece does not yet allow any further 
detailed comment. 
Portugal, Belgium and Germany remain above Community average, while 
Ireland, France, Luxembourg and Denmark are all slightly below. 
The lowest aid to industry is given, in declining order, in the Netherlands, 
Spain and the United Kingdom. In all these countries aid is far below the 
Community average and declining compared to the previous period. Due to 
lack of statistics aid in per cent of value added for the two distinct parts of 
reunified Germany could not be calculated. 
13. Aid per person employed in Italy is far above all Member States, followed by 
Germany and Ireland. The extremely high figure for the new German Lander 
is due both to important assistance granted by the Treuhand and to a sharp 
decline in the number of employees. The increase as compared with the 
previous reporting period reflects that the full impact of the restructuring 
process following German reunification in 1990, set in during the current 
review period. In contrast aid per person employed in the old Lander has 
declined. Belgium is above the Community average, with France and 
Luxembourg slightly below. The group of low aid givers now comprises, in 
descending order, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, and the 
United Kingdom. 
14. As a general conclusion on the differences in aid trends between Member 
States, it can be established that significant differences between the 
individual countries remain. 
A comparison of the four big economies shows that in Italy aid as a 
percentage of value added is more than 10 times as high as in the United 
Kingdom, two and a half times as high as in France, and 1,8 times as high 
as in Germany. When aid is expressed in terms of ECU per person 
employed, the same differences can be observed. The observed 
discrepancies between the central Member States are reflective of their 
differing views on the use of the State aid instruments, and are in this sense 
not overly alarming. 
When considering the overall differences in the Community under the 
aspect of cohesion, however, the results do cause some concern. A direct 
comparison between these four Member States and the four cohesion 
countries - Spain, Ireland, Portugal, and Greece - reveals that the relative 
importance of industrial support is rising in the more central Member States. 
As a matter of fact, in the four big economies, aid expressed as a 
percentage of value added was 3,7% in 1990-1992 and 4,2% in 1992-1994, 
whereas in the cohesion economies the same indicator falls from 3,3% to 
2,9 % in the same period. Table 3 also shows that the volume of aid to the 
four cohesion countries is decreasing from 9,3 to 8,3% of total aid to 
industry in the Community whilst the share of the four big economies of this 
aid, having been around 82% during the period 1990-1992 has risen to 85% 
for the period 1992-1994, notwithstanding the fact that aid in the United 
Kingdom has actually decreased by 42 per cent between the two periods 
while aid in Italy has decreased by 6 per cent. 
Amongst the cohesion countries, the situation of Spain is particularly 
aggravated. With 10 per cent of the EU population and 25 per cent of the 
objective 1 population, Spain accounts for only 3,5 per cent of the total 
volume of aid to industry and, excluding the United Kingdom, ranks in last 
position when aid is expressed in per cent of gross value added or in aid per 
person employed. 
The four Member States where national public support to industry is 
increasing - Germany, France, Denmark and Ireland - accounted for about 
48 per cent of all industrial aid in the Community during the period 1990-92 
and about 57 per cent in the period 1992-94. At the same time, national 
public support to industry in the other Member States decreased by almost 
3 500 million ECUs. 
This unbalanced situation does not contribute to economic convergence and 
demonstrates that there is room left for improving economic and social 
cohesion. In this context it should be noted that in addition to national State 
aid, industry also benefits from Community interventions via the Structural 
Funds (see Annex II, Figure A1). The effectiveness of these instruments, 
however, depends crucially on their not being outweighed by an unbalanced 
development in the use of State aid measures in the Member States. 
Aid to shipbuilding 
15. In shipbuilding, which is a sub-sector of industry, the granting of aid is 
governed during the reporting period by the Seventh Shipbuilding Directive8 
which applied from the 01/01/1992. 
Table 4 shows contract related operating aid covering new constructions, 
conversions and fishing vessels, and thus reflects the aid intensities for 
which the Commission sets ceilings when implementing the shipbuilding 
directive. The aid ceilings under the prevailing Directive are 4,5% of contract 
value both for ships with a contract value of less than ECU 10 million and for 
conversions, and 9,0% of contract value for ships with a contract value of 
more than ECU 10 million. 
8 OJ L 380 of 31.12.1990. 
10 
In addition to operating aid, the shipbuilding sector can receive aid for 
restructuring and for privatization (the latter only applies to the new German 
Lander). During the period under review restructuring aid totalling about 
ECU 800 million has been given in Belgium, Greece and Spain. In the new 
German Lander aid for privatization between 1992 and 1994 adds up to 
about ECU 1380 million. 
When relating total aid given in the shipbuilding sector to the sector's value 
added the conclusion can be drawn that this is a heavily supported sector. 
As was earlier seen from Table 3, aid for the whole manufacturing sector 
amounts to 4,0% of the sector's value added, whereas for the sub-sector of 
shipbuilding aid covers 26% of the sector's value added. 
The Community average for aid to the shipbuilding industry strongly 
declined from 34% of value added for 1988-1990 to 24% for 1990-1992, 
rising slightly to 26% for 1992-1994. 
In the other sub-sector of industry, steel, the granting of aid in the period 
under review was regulated under the fifth Steel Aids Code of 1991. After aid 
had been virtually phased out by the end of the previous period of reporting 
(1990-1992), 1994 saw the formal adoption by the Commission of decisions 
under Article 95 ECSC Treaty concerning the restructuring, and in some 
cases privatisation, involving steel companies in the new German Lander, 
Spain, Italy and Portugal. Together these aids amounted to around ECU 
2 900 million in 1994. This amount does not comprise aid granted in this 
sector for other objectives such as R&D, regional development and 
environmental protection. 
11 
Table 4 
Aid to shipbuilding in 1992-1994 in per cent of contract values of ships 
I 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
New Lander*** 
France 
Spain 
Greece 
Italy 
Netherlands 
! Portugal 
! U.K. 
j EUR 10**** 1992 
Small 
Ships* 
0,0 
0,0 
4,5 
0,0 
4,2 
0,0 
4,0 
0,0 
4,4 Large 
Ships** 
0,0 
8,5 
8;5 
0,0 
8,3 
0,0 
7,5 
0,0 
9,0 Total 
0,0 
8,5 
8,2 
0,0 
5,0 
0,0 
4,7 
0,0 
6,1 1993 
Small 
Ships 
4,3 
4,5 
4.4 
0,0 
4.3 
4,5 
3,8 
0,0 
4,5 
4,3 Large 
Ships 
8,5 
7.6 
7.3 
9,0 
8.3 
9,0 
4,5 
0,0 
8,5 
7,8 Total 
6,0 
7,3 
6,6 
9,0 
5.9 
8,5 
4,1 
0,0 
6,2 1994 
Small 
Ships 
0,0 
4,1 
4,1 
0,0 
4,3 
3,8 
3,7 
0,0 
4,5 
4.1 Large 
Ships 
4,3 
8,1 
6,8 
9,0 
8,3 
9,0 
4.5 
8.8 
0,9 
7,7 Total | 
4,3 "; 
7.3 
6.1 | 
9,0 
6,6 | 
8.2 | 
3,8 ! 
8,8 
1,1 
6,6 ! 
Small ships are those with a contract value of less than ECU 10 million. For these the 
maximum aid intensity allowed by the 7th Shipbuilding Directive is 4,5 % of contract value. 
" Large ships are those with a contract value of more than ECU 10 million. For these the 
maximum aid intensity allowed by the 7th Shipbuilding Directive is 9,0 % of contract value. 
** According to Council Directive 92/68/EEC, until 31 December 1993 operating aid for the 
shipbuilding and ship conversion activities of yards operating in the territories of the former 
German Democratic Republic have been considered compatible with the common market up 
to a maximum of 36 % of reference annual turnover. The amounts spent under this provision 
are not included in this table, but are stated under point 15 of the text. 
*** Ireland and Luxembourg do not have shipbuilding industries. 
Note additionally that a dash indicates missing information, whereas a zero indicates no aid 
or lack of activity. 
12 
Types of aid instrument? 
t 
16. Table 5 gives an overview of the use of the various types of aid instruments 
in the Member States. 
Table 5 
State aid to industry 1992-1994 
Breakdown according to type of aid; in per cent of total industry aid awarded 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United Kingdom 
BJR12(%) Group A 
Grants 
37 
94 
41 
54 
86 
46 
79 
42 
93 
78 
72 
87 
48 Tax 
exemptions 
45 
2 
25 
20 
0 
19 
6 
38 
0 
13 
21 
6 
26 Group B 
Equity 
participations 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
12 
8 
14 
0 
0 
0 
0 
6 Group C 
Soft 
loans 
9 
3 
21 
13 
12 
5 
3 
5 
7 
2 
1 
2 
12 Tax 
deferrals 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 Group D 
Guarantees 
8 
1 
11 
13 
2 
15 
3 
0 
0 
7 
5 
4 
8 in per cent 
TOTAL 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
Grants and tax exemptions, which have been classified in this Survey as 
group A forms of intervention, are by far the most frequently used form of 
aid in the Community. Within this group, direct grants are more often 
employed than tax exemptions. This can be explained by the fact that the 
former type of aid is more flexible than the latter. Since the introduction of 
grants is in general less "costly" in terms of parliamentary procedures than 
the introduction of changes to tax laws, governments have a preference to 
employ the former type of aid. 
13 
17. Aid in the form of state equity participation, classified under group B. 
represents 6% of all aid to industry granted in the European Union; the 
figure for this type of aid is relatively low as during the period 1992 to 1994 
very few financial transfers in the form of equity participation to public 
undertakings including an aid element took place. 
18. Forms of aid classified in group C, i.e. loans at reduced interest rates and 
tax deferrals, are an important form of aid in Germany and Spain. Member 
States generally avoid this form of aid because it puts a heavy burden on 
the budget. The figures for soft loans represent only the aid element; the 
gross budgetary resources necessary for these aids are much higher. This 
explains the low share in industrial aid of this aid form in the Community. 
Member States prefer to reduce the cost of loans by granting interest 
subsidies. 
Tax deferrals, mainly accelerated depreciation and the constitution of tax 
free reserves, is the form which is least used in the Community. Only 
France, Germany and the United Kingdom grant support in this form. 
19. Guarantees, group D. continue to be mainly used to help in rescue and 
restructuring operations and to foster the development of small and 
medium-sized enterprises. Although its share in industrial aid is the third 
smallest on average, it is a significant part of aid in France, Germany, and 
Belgium. The calculation of the aid element of guarantees is particularly 
difficult and, therefore, they are, together with the equity participation, a very 
non-transparent form of State aid. In this as in previous surveys, no attempt 
has been made to calculate the aid element ex ante but instead current 
expenditure on claims under past guarantees has been taken. As set out in 
detail below (point 27), a different method has been employed for the 
purposes of this Survey in the case of Treuhand operations. 
14 
Figure 2 
State aid to industry 
Distribution by tax expenditure and budgetary expenditure 1992-1994 
100% 
90% 
80% 
70% 
60% 
50% 
40% 
30% 
20% 
10% 
0% US 
DK GR IRL L NL ? UK EUR 
12 
g Budget Expenditure nTax Expenditure 
20. Figure 2 gives a breakdown of industrial aid according to the mode of 
financing. Budgetary expenditure, which is composed of grants, equity 
participation, soft loans, and guarantees, is the preferred way of financing 
aid in the European Union. This holds particularly for Luxembourg and 
Spain, where all aid is financed through the budget, and Denmark, Ireland, 
and the United Kingdom, where more than 90% is financed through the 
budget. By contrast, tax expenditure, i.e. tax rebates and tax deferrals, is 
used to a large extent in Belgium, Italy, Germany and France. 
15 
Objectives of aid 
21. Aid to industry is also classified according to the (broad) purposes for which 
it is given and the sector to which it is directed, as follows: 
- Horizontal objectives9 
- Research and Development 
- Environment 
- Small and medium enterprises 
- Trade/export 
- Energy saving 
- General investment 
- Other objectives 
- Particular sectors10 
- Shipbuilding 
- Steel 
- Other sectors 
- Regional objectives 
- Regions falling under Article 92(3)c 
- Regions falling under Article 92(3)a 
- (Only for Germany) Berlin and Zonenrand aids. 
The classification of aid is, in many cases, somewhat arbitrary because it is 
necessary to decide which of the objectives declared by a Member State is 
to be considered as the primary objective. In some Member States, aid for 
research and development is administered through sector specific 
programmes, in others aid to particular sectors is limited to small and 
medium-sized enterprises, etc. Furthermore, primary objectives cannot 
give a true picture of the final beneficiaries: a very large part of regional aid 
is in fact paid to small and medium-sized enterprises, aid for research and 
development goes to particular sectors, and so on. 
Consequently, conclusions about changes from one objective to another 
over time and, notably, conclusions about differences in objectives 
9 Training and employment measures are excluded. See Annex I, point 14. 
10 This category contains industry-specific schemes and individual aid awards scrutinized 
by the Commission. 
16 
between Member States can only be drawn with extreme caution. The 
following Table 6 gives the breakdown of aid to industry according to 
objectives during the period 1992-1994, and Table 7 indicates the changes 
over time for the three main objectives pursued by the Member States. 
22. It can be seen from the percentages presented in Table 6 that more than 
50% of industrial aid in the Union is spent on regional objectives. Amongst 
these aids more than eight out of every ten ECUs are going to areas where 
the living conditions are particularly low, the so-called Article 92(3)a 
regions11. 
23. Aid granted for horizontal objectives is ranked second. Amongst these, 
support for research and development12 is given highest priority. Although 
it is undeniable that aids for such horizontal objectives are in most cases in 
the Community interest, they present, nevertheless, the drawback that their 
impact on competition is often difficult to assess because little or no 
information is available about their sectorial and regional repercussions. 
This is the case notably in their extreme form as general investment 
schemes (still accounting for 1,6% of industry aid in the Community, down 
from 2,1% in the previous period), where the objectives are so poorly 
defined that no general judgement can be made and the Commission is 
bound to examine all major cases of application. With regard to the 
functioning of the internal market, the existence of such general schemes 
is, therefore, increasingly difficult to justify. 
24. More than 15% of industrial aid in the Community is spent on particular 
sectors. Having been virtually phased out in the previous period under the 
strict Steel Aids Code of 1991, the Commission in 1994 took decisions 
under Article 95 ECSC that allow aid to flow into the steel sector for major 
restructuring, as witnessed by the figures for 1992-1994. 
25. The situation in each Member State as regards the overall composition of 
aid to manufacturing is as follows: 
- In Belgium, horizontal aid forms the bulk of spending (82%) which is 
far above the average in the European Union. SMEs and energy 
11 A list of these regions is given in Annex I, point 9.2. 
12 For the reasons explained in Annex I, point 11.1, the R&D figures contained in Table 6 
are certainly underestimated. 
17 
saving are the most notable horizontal objectives. Sector specific ajd 
(3%) is very low whilst regional aid (15%) is relatively high for a 
geographically compact Member State without any 92(3)a regions. 
In Denmark, the largest proportion of aid is horizontal (72%) and 
comprises essentially of R&D aid and aid for energy saving. The 
sector specific aid (25%) is mostly aid to shipbuilding. Regional policy 
at 3% is not significant. 
In Germany, horizontal aid accounts for 15%, which is low compared 
with the average in the European Union. Almost two thirds of this aid is 
spent on SMEs and on research. Sector specific aid (5%) is also low. 
The most important item is regional aid (80%), the overwhelming part 
of which consists of 92(3)a aid for the New Lander (including aid 
granted via the Treuhandanstalt). This aid has increased considerably 
in absolute terms from the previous period reviewed. 
In Greece - regrettably, the figures are considered too unreliable for 
detailed comments. 
In Spain. 40% of the aid is spent for horizontal objectives, mainly for 
SMEs and for research and development. Sector specific aid 
represents 43% of total aid to industry, constituting thus the highest 
proportion of aid directed to specific sectors in the Community. With 
16% regional aid is very low. 
In France. 44% of industry aid has horizontal objectives. An important 
volume of aid is directed to specific sectors (38%), although in certain 
cases for R&D or in the form of parafiscal levies13. The increase in 
spending on specific sectors accounts for the rise in total French aid 
figures. Regional policy (18%) is less significant. 
In Ireland, regional aid (73%) forms the bulk of spending and has 
increased considerably from the previous period reviewed. The 
corresponding increase in Ireland's share of total Community industry 
aid is in line with the Community's stated objective of increased 
cohesion. Horizontal objectives attract 15% of spending while 11% 
goes to particular sectors. 
13 Parafiscal levies are taxes specific to a sector which are used to finance certain 
operations in that sector. 
18 
In Italy, horizontal aid accounts for 27%. The most important aid 
category is regional aid (50%). Almost all regional aid goes Into the 
92(3)a regions of the country, the Mezzogiorno. Sectorial aid accounts 
for 22%. 
In Luxembourg, the most important item is regional aid (70%), followed 
by aid to SMEs (17%) and aid to R&D (8%). 
In the Netherlands, horizontal aid (74%) is by far the biggest item and 
considerably larger than the average in the European Union. Within 
horizontal aid, energy saving and R&D absorb most. Aid to particular 
sectors represent .11 % of total aid to manufacturing. As with Belgium, 
regional aid (15%) is relatively important for a geographically compact 
Member State without any 92(3)a regions. 
In Portugal, sector specific interventions at 45% are high. Aid for 
horizontal objectives (29%) is almost exclusively absorbed by general 
investment and "other objectives". The latter ones are mostly 
cofinanced by the Commission and are more akin to the regional aid 
given in 92(3)a regions because the whole territory of Portugal, as with 
Ireland and Greece, is considered by the Commission as constituting a 
92(3)a region. 
In the United Kingdom, regional aid (48%) forms the biggest group of 
support. The aid is for the most part spent in Northern Ireland which is 
a 92(3)a region. Aid to Northern Ireland is in fact the biggest single 
item of industrial aid in the United Kingdom. Horizontal aid accounts 
for 35% of which aid to R&D is the main item. Sectorial aid totals 17% 
of aid to industry 
19 
Table 6 
State aid to industry 1992-1994 
Breakdown of aid according to sector and function 
SECTORS / FUNCTION 
Horizontal Objectives 
Research and Development 
Environment 
SME 
Trade 
Energy saving 
General Investment 
Other Objectives 
Particular Sectors 
Shipbuilding 
Other sectors 
Regional Objectives 
Regions under 92(3)c 
Regions under 92(3)a 
Germany: (Berlin/Zonenrand) 
TOTAL B 
82 
7 
1 
15 
13 
14 
3 
30 
3 
2 
1 
15 
15 
0 
100 DK 
72 
30 
8 
3 
9 
23 
0 
0 
25 
21 
5 
3 
3 
0 
100 D 
15 
4 
1 
5 
0 
2 
0 
3 
5 
3 
2 
80 
3 
68 
9 
100 GR 
60 
1 
0 
12 
11 
0 
4 
31 
19 
13 
6 
21 
0 
21 
100 E 
40 
11 
3 
12 
1 
2 
6 
5 
43 
12 
31 
16 
13 
4 
100 F 
44 
18 
1 
3 
19 
0 
2 
0 
38 
1 
37 
18 
9 
9 
100 IRL 
15 
2 
0 
5 
6 
2 
0 
0 
11 
0 
11 
73 
0 
73 
100 I 
27 
2 
0 
8 
10 
1 
2 
3 
22 
2 
20 
50 
2 
48< 
100 L 
30 
8 
4 
17 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
70 
70 
0 
100 NL 
74 
26 
6 
6 
2 
27 
4 
3 
11 
1 
10 
15 
15 
0 
100 P 
29 
3 
0 
0 
0 
1 
12 
12 
45 
1 
44 
26 
0 
26 
100 UK 
35 
16 
0 
7 
7 
0 
3 
0 
17 
0 
17 
48 
17 
32 
100 EUR 12 
30 
7 
1 
6 
7 
2 
2 
5 
17 
3 
14 
53 
5 
45 
4 
100 
20 
Table 7 
State aid to industry 1990-1992 and 1992-1994 
Breakdown to main objectives 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United Kingdom 
EUR 12 Horizontal Objectives 
1990-1992 
62 
67 
16 
61 
39 
66 
31 
25 
30 
73 
57 
50 
35 1992-1994 
82 
72 
15 
60 
40 
44 
15 
27 
30 
74 
29 
. 35 
29 Particular Sectors 
1990-1992 
29 
31 
3 
10 
49 
17 
0 
18 
0 
10 
33 
18 
15 1992-1994 
3 
25 
5 
19 
43 
38 
11 
22 
0 
11 
45 
17 
17 in per cent 
Regional Objectives 
1990-1992 
9 
2 
81 
29 
12 
17 
69 
57 
70 
17 
10 
31 
50 1992-1994 
15 
3 
80 
21 
16 
18 
73 
50 
70 
15 
26 
48 
53 
26. As regards the development over time of the distribution of industrial aid amongst 
the different main objectives, it can be seen from Table 7 that at the level of the 
European Union aid for horizontal objectives has continued to fall from 40% in 
1988-90 (see Fourth Survey on State aid in the European Union) to 35% in 1990-
92, and 30% in 1992-94. The proportion of regional aid has continued to rise, 
while sector specific interventions, following a decrease in the previous period, 
have grown because of considerable increases in France and Italy. 
The slight shift from horizontal objectives to sectorial intervention does, from a 
competition viewpoint, cause some alarm. Of course, aid schemes under both 
categories can be employed for more or less hidden and unwanted purposes of 
industrial policy (support of single companies as national champions or protection 
of whole branches which are allegedly of vital national interest) and have, in such 
cases, particularly disastrous effects on competition. However, horizontal aid given 
to all sectors of the economy is, with the exception of the above mentioned 
general investment aid, less suitable for the distortive protection of branches than 
sector specific interventions. 
21 
Table 8 shows that there has been a further significant development in the rise in 
the volume of aid granted to individual enterprises, falling outside schemes 
promoting horizontal, sectorial or regional objectives. It follows that a limited 
number of individual aids of important volume are responsible for a 
disproportionate part of total aid granted; The part of such "ad hoc" aid in the total 
aid to European industry has increased from 7 per cent in 1990 to 36 per cent in 
1994. It consists, in the main, of aid granted for rescue and restructuring of 
companies together with aid granted by the Treuhandanstalt. 
Table 8 
State aid to industry in the Community 1990-1994 
Annual values in constant prices (1993) 
Million ECU 
Amounts including "ad hoc" 
cases 
Amounts excludina "ad hoc" 
cases 
"Ad hoc" cases as a 
percentage of overall 
industry aid 1990 
43777 
40614 
7 1991 
39827 
34690 
13 7992 
41196 
34282 
17 1993 
43890 
31821 
27 1994 
42830 
27344 
36 
22 
Carman State aid to the new Lander 
27. The unification of the Federal Republic of Germany has been of particular 
importance for Community State aid policy. Two German States having totally 
different economic systems have been merged: on the one hand, a decentralized 
market economy based essentially on private enterprise and, on the other hand, a 
centrally planned economy under State control, having resulted in insufficient 
infrastructure and uncompetitve enterprises. 
The integration of the centrally planned East German economy into the internal 
market has been facilitated by certain aid measures which are presented in Table 
A3 in Annex II. From 1992 to 1994 aid to industry in favour of the new Lander has 
attained a yearly average volume of more than ECU 13 250 million, up from ECU 
6 600 million in the previous period (or 76% of the whole volume of aid to industry 
in Germany, up from 47% in the previous period). The granting of aid to the new 
Lander has been partly compensated by a sharp decrease in aid to old German 
Lander which has fallen from ECU 8 500 million for the period 1988-1990 to ECU 
7 400 million for 1990-1992, and ECU 4 150 million for 1992-1994. 
In the context of privatizing the former state-owned companies, aid during the 
period under review was also granted via the Treuhandanstalt (THA), the State 
holding company set up to administer, adapt, and privatize former East German 
public undertakings. As laid down in the Commission's decisions of 1991 and 
1992 on the interventions of the THA, some of these interventions can constitute 
aid. This was usually the case where the THA issued guarantees for loans 
granted by the banking sector at market rate to its generally poor-ranking 
undertakings. Equally, the THA itself borrowed at market rate and then awarded 
loans to its undertakings at the same rate. 
Due to the method used for the assessment of aid elements in guarantees (see 
Annex I) the aid element in guarantees only appears in the Survey once the 
guarantees have to be honoured. Similarly, an aid for loans at market rate only 
appears if and when those loans are waived and therefore transformed into 
grants. In the case of the THA, the Commission is of the opinion that this method 
undervalues the aid element in the guarantees and loans awarded by the THA in 
the period covered by the Fifth Survey. The risk that the buyer of companies held 
by the THA will not take over the whole of the loans awarded or guaranteed by 
the THA is very real and increases over the years. If the buyer submitted the 
highest bid, further to an open and unconditional call for tender, the price -
including the waiving of loans - cannot be said to involve any aid. As a result, any 
23 
aid elements in the guarantees and loans provided by the THA before the 
privatisation of such companies would never appear in the report. An exception to 
the method referred to above is therefore called for in the case of the THA. This is 
also warranted by the fact that the sale of companies to parties other than the 
highest bidder does involve aid, which can however only be quantified after a 
thorough analysis of each sales contract. In view of the sheer number of 
companies sold, the Commission does not possess the resources to carry out 
such an analysis. Only for companies above the notification thresholds decided by 
the Commission in December 1992 has such an analysis been made; for those 
cases the aid element in the sale is known and does appear in this Survey. 
In the period covered by the present Survey the THA issued guarantees totalling 
ECU 28 432 million and awarded loans amounting to a total of ECU 41 086 
million. Based on its experience with THA-cases, the Commission is of the opinion 
that 20% of these amounts can be regarded as aid, which are included in the 
Survey. In addition, grants totalling ECU 6 668 million in order to finance social 
plans need to be included in their totality. 
PART II - OVERALL NATIONAL AID IN THE MEMBER STATES 
Aid to sectors other than industry 
28. The following gives an overview of State aid granted in the agriculture, fisheries, 
transport, and coal mining sectors on the basis of available information. The 
totality of aid awarded in these four sectors together with that discussed in Part I 
of this Survey would constitute the overall national State aid in the twelve 
Member States. Unfortunately, due to the fact that some Member States have not 
been able to supply complete information in all of these sectors, the overall 
amount is not a sufficiently viable figure and therefore interpretation of data given 
in this section must be made with utmost caution. 
Aid to agriculture 
29. In sectors such as agriculture where a highly-developed Community policy is in 
operation, the limits for granting State aid are, to a greater extent, determined by 
this common policy. Thus, although Articles 92-94 of the EC Treaty apply in 
principle to agriculture as to other sectors of the economy, Article 42 specifies 
that the extent to which these articles apply to agriculture should be decided by 
the Council. Hence the Council has limited Member States' freedom to grant 
State aid in certain areas of policy: 
24 
(i) Support of markets in most agricultural products (Council Regulations 
governing the common market organisations). 
Aid, using exclusively Community (i.e. EAGGF) resources/is payable only 
on the basis of Council rules which provide inter alia for a common system 
of intervention buying and export refunds and, further to the reform 
decisions of May 1992, compensatory aid in the various sectors for price 
reductions in conjunction with compulsory set-aside. 
(ii) Support for improving farm structure (Council Regulation (EEC) No 
2328/91). 
Aid concerning productive investments on agricultural holdings is 
determined to a large extent by the provisions of the above-mentioned 
Council Regulation and partly Community cofinanced. 
The reporting situation in the field of agriculture is not satisfactory. Several 
Member States have failed to deliver to the Commission comprehensive 
information on their aid expenditure in this sector. Until the previous (4th) 
Survey, the Commission, when faced with this situation, made extrapolations 
and estimates in order to close the gaps. In the present Survey, in contrast, the 
gaps are left intact and only available data are used for the two periods 
1990-1992 and 1992-1994. 
Taking account of the data situation, Table 8 relates total State aid (including 
the national contribution to the socio-structural measures under (ii) above) in 
respect of products listed in Annex II of the EC Treaty - plant and livestock 
production and primary processing activities - to gross value added of 
agricultural production at the level of the holding. It will be noted that national 
aid taken into account in this table applies to a broader spectrum of activities 
than the base retained for gross valued added. Data covering the whole 
reporting period were available from four Member States, whilst data covering 
only a part of the period were available from four others. No data were available 
from the remainder. 
25 
Table 9 
National aid in respect of products listed in Annex II of the EC Treaty as a percentage of gross 
value added of agricultural production in 1990-92 and 1992-94. 
per cenl 
1Q9019g2 -, 1992-1994 
Belgium ÏTë 9l> 
Denmark 5,4 4,8 
France 11,0 N.A. 
Germany* 20,9 27,2 
Greece 0,04 N.A 
Spain N.A N.A 
Ireland N.A N.A 
Italy N.A N.A 
Luxembourg N.A N.A 
Netherlands 4,6 N.A 
Portugal 13,4 N.A 
United Kingdom 8,2 6,4 
EUR 12 HA NA~ 
German agriculture aid figures include aid in the form of VAT concessions (VAT plus per hectare 
aid) awarded in compensation for price reductions flowing from agri-monetary changes. Of the 
total shown, some 10 percentage points of gross value added are accounted for by this aid. 
This table should be read in conjunction with point 29 (above) and point III.10.2 of the Technical 
Annex. 
It may be noted that the concept of total national aid encompasses individual 
categories of aid which may present differing levels of relevance in terms of 
competition policy. Therefore, it may be argued that aid for measures such as 
productive investment and publicity is more likely to potentially have an effect 
upon trade than aid which is destined simply to compensate operators for 
services rendered, for example, access to the countryside and aid to offset the 
financial burden of natural disasters. A broadly similar argument might apply to 
aid financed by certain parafiscal taxes where, though such aid from a legal 
viewpoint is considered as State aid, the economic burden falls exclusively 
upon the beneficiaries themselves. 
Further, it should be noted that the data in Table 9 do not provide an accurate 
picture of the total level of support granted to agriculture in the Community or in 
any particular Member State. Only a limited part of this total is accounted for by 
the data in the table. The annual publication by the Commission entitled "The 
26 
Agricultural Situation in the Community" provides data inter alia on Community 
aid for agriculture. 
Thus it may be concluded that caution must be exercised in drawing 
conclusions concerning the possible impact on trade from the data in Table 9, 
or indeed from any data relating to global volumes of aid in agriculture, (see 
Annex I, Section III for details). 
Aid to fisheries 
30. In the fisheries sector, national aids closely follow the development of and the 
limits imposed by the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) thereby contributing to the 
realization of common objectives. Any conclusion to be drawn from the 
quantification of national aids has, therefore, not only to take account of their 
impact on competition but also of their impact on attaining a common aim. 
Tables 10 and 11 show national aids and Community intervention in favour of the 
Community's fishing fleet, the commercialization, and first-stage processing of 
the products. It has to be noted that the data situation in the fisheries sector is 
precarious as data from several Member States were not received in time for 
publication. 
27 
Table 10 
Aid to fisheries in per cent of gross value added* in this sector, calculated on the basis of 
quantities landed and average prices 1990-1992 and 1992-1994 
per cent 
1990-1992 I 1992-1994 
Belgium T$ 3^0 
Denmark 2,9 N.A. 
Germany 10,8 14,2 
Greece 0,3 . 0,2 
Spain 3,3 5,3 
France 4,3 N.A. 
Ireland 11,1 9,0 
Italy 8,6 10,0 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 0,6 N.A. 
Portugal 1,7 N.A. 
United Kingdom 2,9 3,7 
EUR 12 5^ N.A 
Value added figures used exclude transformation industry and on-shore production. 
28 
Tabte11 
Community interventions in the fisheries sector in the framework of the common organisation of 
the market and structural policy 1990-1994. 
Guarantee 
Guidance 1990 
23,6 
226,6 1991 
26,2 
294,0 1992 
32,1 
358,4 1993 
32,4 
401,8 Million ECU 
1994 
35,5 
391,0 
Aid to transport (railways^ 
31. Table 12 shows aid to railways as a percentage of value added in this sector. 
Whilst most aid is given to compensate for the imposition of social obligations or 
inherited liabilities on railways (Council Regulation 1191/69, as amended by 
Council Regulation 1893/91, and Council Regulation 1192/69) aid in percent of 
value added remains high. However, as figures for aid and value added were not 
always available these figures should be interpreted with caution. 
It should be noted that whilst all Member States have systematically provided 
data on aid granted in this sector, not all data were available in time for 
publication. For the three countries concerned, their 1992 figures were taken for 
1993 and 1994. 
29 
Table 12 
State aid to transport (Railways) in percent of gross value added in railways* 1990-1992 and 
1992-1994 
in per cent 
Belgium 
Denmark 
France 
Germany 
Greece 
Ireland** 
Italy 
Luxembourg*** 
Netherlands** 
Portugal 
Spain 
United Kingdom 
EUR 12 1990-1992 
Total aid 
42,8 
13,3 
26,0 
33,0 
6,04 
14,4 
34,6 
87,4 
16,6 
6,9 
24,1 
5,0 
24,4 Reg. 1191/2-69 
30,8 
8,5 
15,8 
22,0 
0,21 
7,0 
11,3 
81,2 
11,6 
5,0 
2,5 
5,0 
12,8 1992-1994 
Total aid 
40,7 
N.A. 
N.A. 
47,2 
6,03 
12,3 
N.A. 
81,1 
10,1 
5,5 
20,6 
6,8 
25,9**** Reg. 1191/2-69 
18,2 
N.A. 
N.A. 
12,9 
0,17 
6,5 
N.A. 
79,1 
4,8 
4,0 
1,0 
6,8 
Q 7**** 
* Gross value added was not available for all countries in all years. Lacking data were estimated. 
** Aid figures expressed as percentage of value added in whole transport sector as no separate 
figures are available for railways. 
*** A considerable part of the expenditure under Regulation 1192/69 in this Member State is for 
retirement. 
**** 1992 data were used for the three Member States who did not provide information for 1993 and 
1994 in time for publication of this survey. 
N.A. Whilst all Member States make every effort to provide data, three did not do so in time for 
publication. 
30 
/m to coaJ mining 
32. Table 13 gives the aid to coal mining divided into aid not going to current 
production and aid granted to current production. The latter is expressed in ECU 
per person employed in the industry and as the share of the total aid to the 
sector. The general trend in the coal producing Member States is for an increase 
in the amount of aid per person employed compared to the previous period. After 
halting all aid to current production during the period 1990-1992 the United 
Kingdom saw a minuscule amount of aid to current production in 1992-1994 as 
draconian restructuring of the industry took place prior to privatisation. In Belgium 
the last colliery closed in the summer of 1992 and in Portugal at the end of 1994. 
Table 13 
Aid to the coal industry 
Belgium 
Germany 
Spain 
France 
Portugal 
United 
Kingdom 
TOTAL Yearly average of aid not 
destined to current 
production in Million ECU 
1990-92* 
790,0 
4.542,7 
937,1 
3.145,1 
39,6 
9.454,5 1992-94** 
473,5 
3.334,6 
660,8 
2.053,7 
1,5 
298,4 
6.822,5 Yearly average 
of aid destined to current production 
1990-1992* 
ECU per 
employee 
27.949 
39.846 
16.272 
9.045 
7.579 
23.464 in % of 
total aid 
7% 
50% 
37% 
5% 
100% 
36% 1992-1994 
ECU per 
employee 
***51.807 
17.145 
13.651 
10.884 
280 
34.700 in % of 
total aid 
62% 
44% 
10% 
76% 
2% 
48% 
in 1993 prices 
Following Commission Decision 3632/93/ECSC, from 1994 figures on the financing of social 
benefits are no longer included by the Commission in its annual report on aid in this sector. 
The 1994 figures for aid to current production for Germany include an exceptional financial 
measure of DM 5 350 million to clear the debts of the compensation fund as they stood at the 
end of 1993. 
31 
After declining in the previous period the share of aid going to current 
production has risen considerably from 36% of the total aid for the period 
1990-92 to 48% during the period 1992-94 (a tendency which persists even if 
the financing of social benefits had been included in the 1994 aid figures). The 
average aid, destined to current production, per employee in the industry has 
risen from 23 500 ECU in 1990-1992 to 34 700 ECU in 1992-94. This is at odds 
not only with the objectives of the restructuring and rationalisation of the 
Community coal industry but also with the establishment of the single market. 
Of the aid not going to current production, the majority is to cover the social and 
redundancy costs resulting from the contraction of the industry. The average 
number of employees in the sector had decreased to 154 500 in 1994, 
compared with 215 500 in 1992 and 270 000 in 1990, with the most important 
reductions occurring in the United Kingdom, Germany and Spain. 
In the case of Germany and Spain, a coal reference price system has been in 
operation for a number of years which keeps domestic prices net of subsidies 
considerably above world market prices. Although such a measure has an 
effect equivalent to an aid, it cannot be reflected by the usual indicators which 
are shown in Table 12. Therefore, the figures should be taken as an overview 
and not an accurate indicator of the protection afforded by aid. 
The new Community framework Decision 3632/93/ECSC on State aid to the 
coal industry has tightened the definition of aid to cover: 
• any direct or indirect measure or support by public authorities linked to 
production, marketing and external trade which, even if it is not a burden on 
public budgets, gives an economic advantage to coal undertakings by 
reducing the costs which they would normally have to bear; 
• the allocation, for the direct or indirect benefit of the coal industry, of the 
charges rendered compulsory as a result of State intervention; 
• aid elements contained in financing measures taken by Member States in 
respect of coal undertakings which are not regarded as risk capital provided 
to a company under standard market-economy practice. 
32 
To increase transparency, Member States are also required to enter aid in their 
"national, regional or local budgets or channelled through strictly equivalent 
mechanisms" after a transitional period not exceeding December 1996. All aid 
received by coal undertakings has to be shown together with their profit and 
loss accounts "as a separate item of revenue, distinct from turnover" from 1994 
onwards. 
Finally, operating aid is defined as "the difference between production costs 
and the selling price freely agreed between the contracting parties in the light of 
the conditions prevailing on the world market". The new Decision stipulates that 
"arrangements existing at 31 December 1993, under which aid was granted in 
conformity with the provisions of Decision 2064/86/ECSC and which are linked 
to agreements between producers and consumers, exempted under Article 
85(3) of the EC Treaty and/or authorised under Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty, 
must be modified by 31 December 1996" to bring them into line with the 
provisions of the new Decision 3632/93/ECSC. For some Member States, this 
will result in an increase in aid amounts as the coal reference price systems are 
abolished. 
33. For both railways and coal the observed aid amounts are high. Whilst there 
may be only limited competition between the coal industries, the impact of 
these aids on the wider markets in transport and energy cannot be ignored. As 
these markets are becoming integrated with the completion of the single 
market, competition is becoming increasingly important. The declared will of the 
Community to open up the transport and the energy markets render a strict aid 
control policy by the Commission in these sectors more and more important. 
The Survey will, in future, have to contain data on forms of transport other than 
railways (and the aviation sector, covered in section 2.2.5.: Other sectors) and 
forms of energy other than • coal in order to provide a basis for the full 
assessment of the impact of aids in these sectors. In the transport sector, 
however, the assessment of distortions of inter-modal competition is made 
more difficult by the question of imputing infrastructure, environmental, and 
surveillance costs. 
33 
Volume of overall aid in the Community 
34. The volume of State aid in the Community, given in the sectors covered by this 
survey and taking due account of the incompleteness of data described above, 
amounts on average over the period 1992-94 to ECU 95 200 million, as can be 
seen from Table 14. Because of missing data on some Member States' 
expenditure in the agricultural sector the total aid amounts are underestimated. 
Table 14 
Overall national aid14 1990-92 and 1992-9415 
In constant 1993 prices 
Million ECU 
1990-1992 1992-1994 
Overall national aid 96 600 95 000 
Table 15 shows Member States' total aid expenditure as a percentage of gross 
domestic product, per person employed, and relative to total government 
expenditure. It should be noted that in the case of the Member States for which 
figures on the expenditure in agriculture were not available, or were only partially 
available, the ratios are underestimated. 
14 
15 For fisheries and transport most recent data available were used where information for 
either 1993 or 1994 was not obtainable in time for the publication of this survey. For 
agriculture only the available data were used. 
Comparisons between the two periods should take into account the changed approach 
on data for the coal sector in the latter period (explained on page 33). 
34 
Tattle 15 
Overall State aid In the Member States 1990-1992 and 1992-1994 in per cent of GDP, per person 
employed, and relative to government expenditure 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece** 
Spain** 
France** 
Ireland** 
Italy** 
Luxembourg** 
Netherlands** 
Portugal** 
United Kingdom 
EUR 12 in per cent of GDP 
1990-1992 
2,9 
1,0 
2,4 
1,9 
1,3 
1,7 
1,2 
2,4 
2,4 
0,9 
1,5 
0,5 
1,8 1992-1994 
2,0 
1,0 
2,6 
1,7 
1,2 
1,4 
1,5 
2,3 
2,1 
0,8 
1,2 
0,4 
1,7 in ECU per person 
employed 
1990-1992* 
1.369 
435 
1.273 
366 
407 
806 
411 
867 
1.220 
458 
220 
162 
714 1992-1994 
958 
492 
1.476 
318 
379 
664 
530 
844 
1.087 
401 
185 
142 
713 in per cent of total 
Government 
Expenditure 
1990-1992 
5,2 
1,7 
5,1 
4,0 
2,9 
3,3 
3,1 
4,5 
4,8 
1,7 
3,6 
1,3 
3,6 1992-1994 
3,5 
1,7 
5,4 
3,5 
2,4 
2,5 
3,6 
4,1 
4,0 
1,4 
2,6 
1,0 
3,3 
1990-1992 averages in 1993 prices 
These countries supplied no or incomplete data on aid in agriculture 
Budgetary impact of aids 
35. In Belgium, the financing of State aid is equivalent to 31% of the high budget 
deficit amounting to 6,3% of GDP in 1992-94. In Germany, where the budget 
deficit in 1992-94 was 2,9% of GDP, the financing of State aid is equivalent to 
88% of the deficit for the period. Finally, in Italy, where the budget deficit is 
around 9,5% of GDP in 1992-94, the financing of the overall aid amount 
accounts for 24% of the deficit (for the reasons explained above, the Italian 
overall aid figure is underestimated, resulting in an underestimation of the ratio 
of the financing of the aid to the budget deficit). Compared with the preceding 
period, there has only been a marginal decrease in the budget deficit in Italy 
while the share of the deficit necessary for financing the aid has remained 
constant. 
35 
Table 16 
Overall State aid in the Member States 1990-92 and 1992-94 broken down into main sectors 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece* 
Spain* 
France* 
Ireland* 
Italy* 
Luxembourg* 
Netherlands* 
Portugal* 
United Kingdom 
EUR 12(%) in per cent of overall aid 
Agriculture and Fisheries 
1990-1992 
7 
19 
10 
18 
-1992-1994 
7 
13 
10 
15 
-Manufacturing 
1990-1992 
45 
31 
38 
58 
-1992-1994 
37 
41 
41 
40 
-Transport 
1990-1992 
30 ' 
50 
24 
23 
-1992-1994 
41 
46 
29 
37 
-Coal 
1990-1992 
18 
0 
28 
0 
-1992-1994 
14 
0 
21 
8 
-Total 
1990-1992 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 1992-1994 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
100 
These countries supplied no or incomplete data on aid to agriculture 
36 
RESULTS 
t 
36. With the publication of this Fifth Survey on State aid in the European Union, the 
Commission and the Member States reaffirm their commitment to increasing 
transparency in the field of public support to the economy. The document contains 
a detailed analysis of the volumes of national aid, broken down into the different 
forms and the various objectives pursued by Member States. The data that was 
collected and analyzed serve the Commission, by making available a sound 
statistical basis, in its continuous endeavour to improve its State aid policy. The 
Survey serves, furthermore, the Community in the wider international context by 
reflecting, in a coherent and transparent way, the determined will of the Community 
to eliminate distorting aid that is incompatible with the internal market and to keep 
overall aid levels under control. It thus underlines the Community's commitment to 
a free world market. 
37. As regards aid to industry, the figures available lead to the general conclusion that 
the gradual downward trend observed in the past appears to have come to an end. 
This survey indicates a stable tendency in the overall volume. In the period under 
review, the annual aid volume amounts to almost 43 billion ECUs. 
The apparent stable trend of the overall volume of industry aid is in fact due to the 
decrease in aid levels seen in eight of the Member States being offset by an 
increase in aid in the four others. 
Of these four, one is faced with an unprecedented adjustment process in adapting 
a part of its economy to the market system and another has carried out several 
exceptional restructuring operations. In the two other countries where aid 
increased, this increase can be attributed to a large extent to specific objectives 
such as energy saving and regional development. 
Budgetary expenditure is the preferred form of awarding State aid to industry in all 
Member States. This is to be welcomed in the sense that financing through the 
budget is more transparent than the alternative of financing through the tax system. 
37 
As to the objectives pursued with industry aid, a shift away from horizontal support 
to sector specific - particularly rescue and restructuring - and regional interventions 
can be observed. The latter is a welcome trend, whereas the former causes some 
alarm under competition aspects as aid to single companies or whole branches of 
industry are amongst the most distortive for competition. Horizontal aid has 
decreased from 35 to 30 per cent, while regional spending has increased from 50 
to 53 per cent and sector specific spending from 15 to 17 per cent. 
38. The most marked trend, however, can be observed in the rise in the volume of aid 
granted to individual enterprises, falling outside schemes promoting horizontal, 
sectorial or regional objectives. It follows that a limited number of individual aids of 
important volume are responsible for a disproportionate part of total aid granted. 
The part of such "ad hoc" aids in the total aid to European industry has increased 
from 7 per cent in 1990 to 36 per cent in 1994. It consists in the main of aid 
granted for rescue and restructuring of companies together with aid granted by 
the Treuhandanstalt. 
39. As regards overall national aid to the economy, the figures, in so far as they are 
available to the Commission, confirm the conclusion of the previous Surveys that 
the volume of aid in the Community is massive. It should not be forgotten in this 
context that Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty, which is the basis of the Commission's 
State aid policy, contains a general ban on aid and that State aid is only approved 
where one of the derogations set out in Article 92 applies. The Commission, of 
course, approves aid for many purposes where these are deemed to be in the 
common interest. Examples of such aid for which the Commission has clearly a 
favourable view include regional, R&D, SME, training and environmental aid. 
However it cannot be denied that the piling up of State aid interventions risks to 
jeopardise the efficient functioning of the internal market. 
38 
CONCLUSIONS 
40. The first four surveys which the Commission published on the aid volumes 
awarded by the Member States of the European Union to their companies, 
showed a slow but continuing downward trend of the overall level of aid to 
industry. This tendency is not confirmed by the findings of the Fifth Survey. This 
survey indicates a stable tendency in the overall volume which is situated 
around an annual average of almost 43 billion ECUs representing 4 per cent of 
value added in industry or more than 14Ô0 ECUs per person employed in this 
sector. This is a worrying result. As well as being a source of distortion of 
competition, the observed high levels of State aid risk to endanger the efficient 
functioning of the internal market. In addition, the advancing integration and 
reinforcement of competition in the forthcoming Economic and Monetary Union 
will increase the sensitivity of companies towards aid that benefits their 
competitors. This situation will certainly induce the Commission to look for 
means that could further increase the efficiency and the strictness of its State 
aid control. 
41. The case by case examination practiced by the Commission in order to verify 
the conformity of an aid with the rules laid down in the Treaty is aimed at 
ensuring that the aid does not breach the level necessary with respect to the 
market imperfections and that its contribution to the realization of objectives of 
Community interest counterbalances the related effects on the distortion of 
competition and trade. This examination however does not give the 
Commission the possibility to take into account, during the analysis of an aid, 
those aids that have already been granted in the same Member State to other 
companies, possibly to attain other objectives. Therefore, based on Competition 
rules alone the Commission has only relatively limited means to act directly with 
a view to limiting the overall budgets that the Member States devote to support 
their companies. The Commission has however already taken action and this is 
confirmed by certain recent orientations of the Commission's policy with regard to 
State aid. In 1996 the Commission took a record number of 23 negative decisions 
which systematically required, when the aid in question had already been paid in 
violation of the procedural rules, the recovery of the aid by the Member State, as 
39 
well as interest counted from the date of payment. In view of the market 
efficiencies forgone because of the high amount of aid, Commission action alone 
is not sufficient. A dialogue with all the Member States with a view to fixing 
precise objectives and a timetable for reducing overall aid budgets appears 
therefore as a necessary complement to the Commission actions. 
42. The disparities between the different countries in the award of aid to industry 
remain important. As regards the cohesion countries, the increase of aid 
observed for Ireland - its share in total industry aid rose from 0,8 to 1,1 per cent -
is offset by the continuing decrease of aid seen in the other three cohesion 
countries Spain, Portugal and Greece. The growing disparity between the 
cohesion countries and the central economies is at variance with the objective of 
cohesion and risks endangering the effectiveness of the Community's own 
funds used to assist these Member States in closing the gap in their level of 
development vis-à-vis the rest of the Community, as is also pointed out in the 
first Cohesion Report (COM(96)542). Furthermore, the problem of unbalanced 
development in the award of aid between different regions should no longer be 
seen solely as an internal cohesion problem. The problem is clearly aggravated 
when account is taken of the forthcoming enlargement. Only by strengthening its 
State aid policy and by securing a greater balance of aid between the different 
regions of the Community can the Commission prevent the negative effects of 
the diverging trend on economic convergence. To further reinforce the objective 
of reducing the above-mentioned disparities, the Commission is preparing new 
regional aid guidelines which envisage a gradual reduction in aid intensities in 
article 92(3)c areas and, a closer correspondence between aid intensities and 
the socio-economic conditions prevailing across all of the assisted regions. 
43. Such a control policy also calls for further increases in aid transparency. It is 
therefore crucial that the new standardised annual reporting system be enforced 
thereby allowing the Commission to have a clearer picture of the regional and 
sectorial impact of the different forms of government support to industry, notably 
in the case of aid with a horizontal objective. 
40 
44. Aid, granted for horizontal objectives, which is decreasing, concerns for 
example, research and development, small and medium sized enterprises, the 
protection of the environment and energy saving. This aid therefore conforms to 
the criteria published in horizontal frameworks. Whereas the objectives of 
economic cohesion and undistorted competition in the internal market require a 
reduction in volumes of aid, it should also be kept in mind that European 
industry is equally confronted with international competition. The aid, devoted to 
encourage firms to undertake greater efforts in the field of research and 
development and in training their personnel or to help small and medium sized 
enterprises to overcome their difficulties in obtaining the sources of finance 
necessary for their development, can contribute to the reinforcement of the 
competitiveness of European industry. Moreover the positive externalities linked 
to investments in environmental protection can justify certain public interventions 
in the absence of the full implementation of the polluter-pays principle. Aid of this 
type clearly contributes to Community objectives. 
45. Examination of such aid schemes represents, with respect to the overall number 
of cases treated, a very significant part of the decisions taken by the Commission 
and therefore the workload of the services. However, the Survey shows a marked 
rise in the volume of aid granted in the context of ad hoc cases whilst the volume 
of aid granted under schemes is steadily decreasing. This would suggest that the 
Commission should concentrate its attention upon the examination of the most 
important aid cases thereby liberating a substantial part of its resources currently 
dedicated to the examination of those aid schemes that support Community 
objectives and meet with well established criteria. This reorientation could be 
achieved by simplifying the procedures, in particular notification by Member 
States and examination by the Commission. Such a simplification, desirable also 
from the point of view of national administrations, would under no circumstances 
represent a weakening of the respect of the criteria that the Commission has 
established and which have led to a reduction in the volumes of this type of aid 
by limiting them to the level of support that is necessary as a function of the 
objectives set and the dimension and locality of the beneficiary. This is why the 
Commission has the intention to submit in the near future under the terms of 
41 
Article 94 EC Treaty, a proposal for a regulation that will empower it to adopt 
regulations allowing for the exemption of certain aid categories from notification 
obligations. 
46. It would also appear necessary to limit more strictly aid granted for the rescue 
and restructuring of companies in difficulty. Even if part of this type of aid could 
contribute to the acceleration of the adjustment process of certain sectors in crisis 
and the attenuation of the social consequences of these adjustments, it is equally 
indispensable that they be rigorously limited to the levels necessary for the 
restructuring and, ensure the long term viability of the beneficiary companies in 
such a way that further aid would not be necessary. Furthermore the tendency of 
Member States, faced with budgetary restrictions, to concentrate the available 
resources for their regional aid schemes on a few large investments equally 
brings the Commission to envisage the individual examination of these cases 
which are likely to cause the most important distortions of competition. The 
criteria that will be applied for the examination of these cases are to be found in 
the so-called "multi-sectorial" framework which is being prepared. Moreover the 
same phenomena in the context of horizontal frameworks leads the Commission 
to envisage in the forthcoming introduction of group exemption regulations, 
notification ceilings for the largest aid cases as has already been done in the 
research and development framework. 
42 
ANNEX I 
TECHNICAL ANNEX 
The purpose of this annex is to outline the methodologies and sources used in 
order to produce this Survey on State aid, notably with regard to: 
I. Scope of the study 
Fields excluded 
II. Categories, forms and objectives of aid 
III. Type of data, sources and methods of assessing the aid element 
IV. Specific problems 
Research and Development (R&D) 
Transport in Luxembourg 
Tourism; Agri-foodstuff 
Training and unemployment 
43 
I, Scope of the Study 
Fields excluded 
1. This Technical Annex explains the methodological background and the 
statistical techniques used. It is an update of the technical annex used for 
the preceding Survey. 
The Survey focuses on State aid to enterprises falling within the scope of 
Articles 92 and 93 EC Treaty and Article 95 ECSC Treaty. Accordingly, 
general measures (which, if they distort competition, would be dealt with 
under Article 101 of the EC Treaty) are not included in the figures. 
2. The following measures or'areas are not dealt with: 
2.1. Aid whose recipients are not enterprises 
Aid to households 
Aid to the handicapped 
Aid for infrastructure (ports, airports, roads, etc.) 
Aid for university institutes 
Aid for public vocational training centres 
Aid to developing countries 
2.2. General measures and other measures 
Differences between the various tax systems and general social 
security systems in Member States (depreciation, social security 
deficit, etc.) 
Quotas, public procurement, market restrictions, technical standards 
Specific tax schemes (cooperatives, owner enterprises, seif-
employed, etc.)16 
General reduction in VAT (for example, foodstuffs in the United 
Kingdom, certain products in the French overseas Departments)17 
2.3. Aid granted by supranational and multinational organizations 
Community funds (ERDF, EAGGF, etc.) 
Financing by EIB and EBRD 
Support to the European Space Agency 
16 However, a lower-than-the-standard rate of corporation tax for small businesses constitutes 
an aid and has been included (e.g. Germany). 
17 Specific reductions such as the reduction of VAT for all products manufactured in Berlin have 
been included. In contrast, all goods (regardless of origin) sold in the DOM pay a lower rate of 
VAT. This has not been included as an aid. 
44 
2.4. Individual types of aid 
Defence (see point 11.2 of this annex) 
Aid to energy, except coal (see points 10.2 and 11) and aid for 
energy saving and alternative (renewable) energy 
Aid to transport, except railways (see pofnt 10.2); and the aviation 
sector covered under section 2.2.5.: Other Sectors. 
Training and unemployment measures (see point 14) 
Press and media 
Buildings and public works 
Public utilities such as gas, water, electricity, telecommunications 
(tariff structure and financing) 
II. Categories, forms and objectives of aid 
Categories of aid 
All aid represents a cost or a loss of revenue to the public authorities and a 
benefit to recipients. However, the "aid element", i.e. the ultimate financial 
benefit contained in the nominal amount transferred, depends to a large 
extent on the form in which the aid is provided. Aid should therefore be 
subdivided in accordance with the form in which it is provided. Four 
categories have been identified for this purpose. Each category is 
represented by a letter: A, B, C, or D, followed either by the number 1 or 2, 
meaning respectively budgetary aid (i.e. aid provided through the central 
government budget) or tax relief (i.e. aid granted via the tax system), plus 
an A if the aid element is known; for example, C1A means that which is 
being referred to is the aid element (A) of a soft loan (C1). 
4. Group A (A1 +A2) 
4.1. The first category (A) concerns aid which is transferred in full to the 
recipient. In other words, the aid element is equal to the capital value of the 
aid. This first category has been subdivided into two groups depending on 
whether the aid was granted through the budget (A1) or through the tax or 
social security system (A2). 
4.2. List of aid coming under categories A1 and A2 
Grants 
Interest subsidies received directly by the recipient 
General research and development schemes (see point 11) 
Tax credits and other tax measures, where the benefit is not 
dependent on having a tax liability (i.e. if the tax credit exceeds the 
tax due, the excess amount is repaid) 
45 
Tax allowances, exemptions, and rate reliefs where the benefit is 
dependent on having a tax liability 
Reduction in social security contributions 
5. Group B1 
5.1. It is necessary to determine whether a financial transfer by the public 
authorities in the form of equity participation is an aid to the recipient or a 
matter of the public sector engaging in a commercial activity and operating 
like a private investor under normal market conditions. Consequently, 
although equity participation, in their various forms, could have been 
included in the first category, they have been grouped together under a 
separate category (B1). An estimate of the aid element contained in such 
equity participation is set out in category B1 A. 
5.2. List of aid coming under category B1 
Equity participation in whatever form (including debt conversion) 
6. Group C (C1 +C2) 
6.1. The third category (C) covers transfers in which the aid element is the 
interest saved by the recipient during the period for which the capital 
transferred is at his disposal. The financial transfer takes the form of a soft 
loan (C1) or tax deferral (C2). The aid elements (C1A/C2A) in this category 
are much lower than the capital values of the aid. 
6.2. List of aid coming under categories C1 or C2 
Soft loans (new loans granted) whether from public or private 
sources. (The transfer of interest subsidies is categorized under A1) 
Participatory loans from public or private sources 
Advances repayable in the event of success 
Deferred tax provisions (reserves, free or accelerated depreciation, 
etc.) 
7. Group D1 
7.1. The last category (D1) covers guarantees, expressed in nominal amounts. 
The aid elements (D1A) are normally much lower than the nominal 
amounts, since they correspond to the benefit which the recipient receives 
free of charge or at lower than market rate if a premium is paid to cover the 
risk. However, if losses are incurred under the guarantee scheme, the tptal 
loss, net of any premiums paid, is included under D1A, since it can be 
considered as a definitive transfer to the recipient. The nominal amounts of 
these guarantees are shown under D1 to give an indication of the 
contingent liability. 
46 
7.2. list of aid coming under category D1 
Amounts covered under guarantee schemes (D1) 
Losses arising from guarantee schemes, net of premiums paid (D1A) 
8. For information on the calculation of the aid element contained in the 
different forms of assistance, see point 10.6. 
9. Objectives of aid 
9.1. The aid schemes have been broken down into 19 headings according to 
their sectorial or functional objectives: 
1.1. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2. Industry/Services 
2.1. (Horizontal objectives) 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. Small and Medium Enterprises 
2.1.4. Trade/Export 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.7. Combat unemployment )see point 14 of 
2.1.8. Training Aid )this annex 
2.1.9. Other objectives 
2. Industry/Services 
2.2. (Particular sectors) 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2. Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transport (Railways) 
2.2.4.1. Coal (Current Production) 
2.2.4.2. Coal (Other Aid) 
2.2.5. Other Sectors 
3. Regional aid 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)a 
3.2. Other regions 
The heading 3.: "Regional aid " contains for Germany three subheadings : 
aid to Art. 92(3)a regions which comprises the new Bundeslander, 
Art. 92(3)c regions and to the former Zonenrandgebiet and West-Berlin. 
In the coal sector, a distinction is made depending on whether or not aid is 
linked to current production (such a link is made by the Commission in its 
annual communication to the Council on the financial aids in this sector). 
47 
9.2. List of regions within the meaning of Article 92(3)(a)18 
Member StatP- Regions 
Greece 
Ireland 
Portugal 
Germany 
Spain ) the 
) whole of the 
) country 
Berlin (Ôstl. Stadbez.) 
Brandenburg 
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern 
Sachsen 
Sachsen-Anhalt 
Thuringen 
Galicia 
Asturias 
Cantabria 
Castilla-Leon 
Castilla-La Mancha 
Extremadura 
Comunidad Valenciana 
Andalucia 
Murcia 
Ceuta y Melilla 
Canarias 
France Overseas departments 
Italy Campania 
Sud 
Sicilia 
Sardegna 
United Kingdom Northern Ireland 
18 OJ EC no. C 212 of 12.08.1988, pages 2 to 10 and subsequent changes. 
48 
Type of data, sources and methods nf 
assessing the aid element 
10. As a general rule, the figures have been expressed in terms of actual 
expenditure (or actual revenue losses in the case of tax expenditure).19 
Where this was not possible, budget appropriations or the amounts 
provided for in planning programmes were used after consultation with the 
Member States concerned. Where figures were not available previous 
figures have, unless otherwise stated, been extrapolated. 
The value of certain tax concessions cannot be calculated. When no other 
information was provided by the Member State to calculate the aid 
element, one third of the gross intervention has been taken as a proxy of 
the aid element. These proxies were only made in a few cases and have no 
significant impact on the results. 
10.1. All the figures have been compiled in national currency and have been 
converted into ECUs at the annual average exchange rate provided by the 
Statistical Office of the European Communities. 
As regards the indicators used in the survey, the following figures were 
also provided by EUROSTAT: 
-gross domestic product (GDP) at market prices: (National Accounts 
ESA - Aggregates 1970 - 1 994.) 
-exchange rates 
-gross value added at market prices: (Datashop, database VISA) 
Intra-EC exports of industrial products provided by Eurostat comprise the 
products categorized under No:s 6 and 8 of the CTCI, revision 3. Statistics 
on civilian employment (National Accounts ESA - Detailed tables by branch 
1970 - 1994, item B52) are used to calculate the various ratios by person 
employed. 
10.2. The Commission's departments have provided figures for their respective 
sectors in accordance with the following outlines. Not all the figures have 
been counter-checked by the Member States nor have they been checked 
against their budgets by the Commission's departments. 
For agriculture and fisheries the figures are those submitted by the Member 
States in accordance with the procedure emanating from the resolution of 
the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States during the 
306th Session of the Council on 20 October 1974. 
19 It has to be stressed that the yearly expenditures (commitments) are not necessarily identical 
to the yearly budgetary appropriations for an aid scheme. 
49 
As regards agriculture however, complete data submitted by Ireland, Italy 
and Luxembourg only cover the period up to 1988, 1987 and 1986 
respectively. 
Moreover figures were only available up to 1992 for Greece and France and 
up to 1993 for the Netherlands and Portugal. Finally, Spanish data available 
only relate to aid granted by the central authorities until 1991. It is 
reasonable to expect that given the missing data on aid granted by regional 
authorities, a considerable underestimation of total aid granted in this sector 
in Spain would result. 
From the total amount of budgetary expenditure indicated in the inventory, 
the following have been excluded: research aid, land improvement 
(drainage), social security measures applicable to the entire sector, income 
tax concessions, regional selective financial assistance. 
The figures contain the following: grants, tax reliefs, aid financed by 
parafiscal charges, interest subsidies and a number of benefits in kind 
provided by the State (for example, training courses). 
In the fisheries sector, for 1993 and 1994 data were available for Belgium, 
Germany, Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom. 
Loans and guarantees are not included where the aid element is 
unquantifiable. 
For coal the figures are those submitted by the Member States in 
accordance with Commission Decision No.s 528/76/ECSC, 2064/86/ECSC 
and 3632/93/ECSC and summarized in the Commission's Annual 
Communication to the Council on aids in this sector20. New capital 
injections which may constitute aid are not included in these figures. Public 
undertakings' coal-purchasing contracts (for example, for electricity 
generation) which might comprise an aid element where the price exceeds 
the world price have not been included. 
For transport (Railways) the figures are those submitted by the Member 
States in accordance with Council Regulation No 1107/70. In addition, but 
shown separately, are the aids given for railways within the framework of 
Council Regulation 1191/69 as amended by Regulation 1893/91 and 
Council Regulation 1192/69 for respectively the maintenance of public 
service obligations and, the normalization of railways' accounts due to 
special burdens placed on railways. 
With regard to other forms of transport, due to lack of information, the aid 
figures are incomplete and fragmentary and have not been included. In 
20 These figures are broken down into aid for current production and those not relating to 
current production (i.e. special social security measures for miners and aid to cover inherited 
liabilities). However since 1994 figures on the financing of social benefits are no longer 
included by the Commission in its annual communication on aid in this sector. 
50 
particular no figures have been given for aid to local transport. State aid in 
the aviation sector is covered under section 2.2.5.: "Other Sectors". 
10.3. Industry 
In the case of aid to industry and the service sector, the figures have 
generally been taken from notifications under Article 93 and from 
information submitted within the context of the notification and 
standardized annual reporting procedure set out in the Commission letter of 
22.02.1994 to the Member States. Furthermore, data are checked against 
national publications on the award of aid, national accounts, draft budgets 
and other available sources. 
10.4. steel 
The figures presented in the study have been compiled from the steel aid 
monitoring reports from the Commission to the Council. The figures show 
the amount of aid granted to undertakings. 
10.5. Tax expenditure 
With regard to tax expenditure, the OECD concept was used as a starting 
point. 
"A tax expenditure is usually defined as a departure from the generally 
accepted or benchmark tax structure, which produces a favourable tax 
treatment of particular types of activities or groups of taxpayers". 
Thus, for example, tax reliefs granted to certain development areas i.e. to 
only a part of the territory of the tax authority, are regarded as tax 
expenditures, whereas the rate structure is regarded as an integral part of 
the benchmark tax system. 
However, in some cases, such departures from the benchmark system are 
on the borderline between aid within the meaning of Article 92(1) EC and 
general measures. Further work has to be carried out in order to elucidate 
this "grey area". 
10.6. Methods of assessing the aid element 
10.6.1. In order to analyze the different forms of aid on a fully comparable 
basis, it is necessary to reduce them to a common denominator - the 
grant element which they contain. To this end the methods currently 
employed by the Commission in its control of State aid have been 
used. These methods are all official Commission policy and have 
been discussed at a technical level with the Member States. 
10.6.2. The basic approach to evaluating the aid element is the common 
method of evaluation used in calculating the net grant equivalent of 
state interventions (for latest update see annex of the 
Communication of the Commission on regional aid schemes, OJ C 31 
of 3.2.1979; see also Resolution of the Council of 20.10.1971, OJ 
C 111 of 4.11.1971). 
51 
Obviously, the receipt of an aid may change the tax liability of some 
recipients. However, taking account of the allowances and 
reductions that can be claimed against profits tax and the losses 
made by certain companies, the effective rate of tax paid in general 
by companies is much lower than the theoretical maximum rate. 
Therefore it is considered that the results obtained without taking 
account of taxation are closer to reality than if the maximum 
theoretical rate had been employed. The common denominator is 
therefore grant equivalent and not net grant equivalent. 
Method applied to different forms of aid 
10.6.3. Group A - grants/relief from social charges, etc. 
No calculations of the aid element are necessary because this group 
comprises all interventions which can be considered as constituting 
grants or grant equivalents. 
10.6.4. Group B - equity (including debt conversion). 
In line with established Commission policy, such interventions 
constitute aid when a private investor operating under normal market 
conditions would not have undertaken such an investment. See 
Commission communication " Application of Articles 92 and 93 of 
the EEC Treaty and of Article 5 of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC 
to public undertakings in the manufacturing sector", OJ No C 307 of 
13.11.1993, p321. This method is based on calculating the benefit of 
the intervention to the recipient. 
As regards capital injections to State Holding companies, the overall 
performance of each company was examined and the aid element 
taken as the amounts required to cover recurring losses. 
10.6.5. Group C - soft loans and deferred tax provisions. 
In accordance with the common method of evaluation, benefits 
accorded to an enterprise over a period of time in the form of soft 
loans and deferred tax provisions are discounted back to the present. 
The discount rate is the "reference rate" which represents the rate at 
which companies can borrow under normal market conditions. The 
definition of the reference rate in each Member State has been 
formally adopted by the Commission (see point 14 of the common 
method of evaluation). The aid element in a soft loan in any one year 
. is, therefore, the difference between the reference rate and the rate 
at which the State accords the loan multiplied by the value of the 
loan. 
21 See also "Application of Article 92 and 93 EEC to public authorities' holdings", Bulletin EC 9-
1984, further "The Measurement of the Aid Element of State Acquisitions of Company 
Capital" - IV/45/87 Evolution of Concentration and Competition Series, Collection : Working 
Papers 87. 
52 
In the case of participatory loans the net cost was calculated as the 
difference between the rate of return effectively received by the 
state on these participatory loans and the reference rate. In the case 
of repayable advances, because of the unduly large number of 
individual cases, the actual net cost to the State was taken as an 
estimate of the aid element. 
10.6.6. Group D - amounts covered under guarantee schemes. 
For loans awarded under exchange rate guarantee schemes, the aid 
element is calculated as though the loan were a soft loan in the 
currency which is guaranteed against exchange rate fluctuations. The 
aid element is the difference between the reference rate for the 
currency which is covered by the guarantee and the rate of interest 
at which the loan is given less any charge for the guarantee. This 
calculation is therefore based on calculating the benefit of the 
scheme to the recipient22. For simple loan/guarantee schemes it is 
normally impractical, because of the volume of cases, to look at 
every guarantee and decide what would be the price the recipients 
would normally have to pay for such a guarantee. Consequently, at 
the global level the net cost of such schemes to the Government (i.e. 
the difference between the cost of guarantees honoured by the state 
and any revenue from charges for the securities) was taken, except 
in large individual cases or for certain sectors where the value of the 
guarantee can be calculated on the basis of the value to the 
recipient23. 
10.7. Although figures for loans or guarantees from publicly owned credit 
institutions are given when they are considered as constituting aid, there 
are greater difficulties in identifying and quantifying such interventions than 
for other forms of aid, because by their very nature they are less 
transparent. In order to avoid any unwarranted discrimination with respect 
to the different treatment of aids in these areas, additional work as to 
identifying and quantifying such aid will have to be done. 
22 Where this information is not available, the global losses to the Government are taken 
as an approximation of the aid element. 
23 This has been the Commission's policy as regards guarantees in the steel and 
shipbuilding sectors and in individual rescue cases. 
53 
IV. Specific problems 
11. Research and Development (R&D) 
11.1. R&D schemes 
The figures include extra-mural Government funding of R&D programmes 
for nationalized or private enterprises classified under A1 A24. In view of the 
global nature of the sources used, it has not always been possible to 
exclude certain elements of public procurement from extra-mural 
expenditure (e.g. R&D contracts). Because only direct funding of R&D has 
been included, it is considered that the figures for R&D have been 
underestimated (R&D contracts and Public Research (see 11.2 and 11.3 
below) have been omitted because of the inability to quantify the aid 
element in such interventions). 
11.2. R&D contracts 
Figures for research and development contracts have not been included in 
the figures, since the aid element is, at present, often unquantifiable. 
Furthermore, the sources do not permit research and development contracts 
intended specifically for military purpose to be isolated nor the impact on 
the market of such contracts to be evaluated25. 
11.3. Public Research 
No figures are given for any aid element contained in the intramural funding 
of government or public research establishments or research carried out by 
institutes of higher education. This omission may be important for certain 
sectors where state or semi-state bodies carry out large scale R&D that 
may have commercial repercussions26. 
11.4. Nuclear energy 
Member States provide aid to the nuclear energy sector through the 
intermediary of their public undertakings or through the intermediary of 
R&D financing (mainly in the form of R&D contracts and public research). 
Only some of this direct financing could be included in the figures for R&D 
(2.1.1.). The figures on nuclear energy contained in R&D figures may well 
be underestimated. Since the R&D figures exclude R&D contracts and 
public research, the aid element of such measures is difficult to quantify. 
24 Accelerated depreciation for R&D equipment is not considered as an aid. 
25 See point 9.2. of the Community framework for Research and Development Aid, 
OJ C 83 of 11.4.1986. 
26 See point 9.1 of the Community framework for Research and Development Aid,. 
54 
12. Transport in Luxemhourg 
Transport figures appear to be higher in Luxembourg relative to other 
Member States due in the main to particularly high payments for pensions 
of former railways employees. No further details are available. 
13. Tourism and Agri-foodstuff industries 
Due to a lack of information on these two sectors it is probable that the 
data included in the study are incomplete. * . 
14. Training and unemployment 
It is not always apparent whether certain fiscal or social security measures 
constitute aid or form a coherent and integral part of the fiscal or social 
security system. In addition, incentive schemes exist in different Member 
States to stimulate or facilitate general training or the employment of 
certain socially disadvantaged groups of workers. In so far as such schemes 
are not industry-specific and are available across the whole economy, and 
in fact genuinely constitute part of a general system of employment 
measures, they are not to be considered as State aids. Although a number 
of training and employment schemes have been treated by the Commission 
as State aid, not all Member States' measures in these fields have up to 
now been examined in detail. Because of the considerable problems in 
delimiting employment aids, particularly those concerning training, from 
general measures and in order to present figures that are comparable 
between Member States, no training and unemployment measures have 
been analyzed in the present report. 
55 

ANNEX II 
STATISTICAL ANNEX 
The methodology used for the tables contained is explained in the Technical 
Annex. 
Table A1 State aid to industry. Annual amounts of aid element 1990-1994 in 
current prices and national currencies. 
Table A2 State aid to industry. Annual amounts of aid element 1990-1994 in 
current prices and ECU. 
Table A3 State aid to the new German Lander. 
Annual averages 1992-1994 in ECU. 
Tables Total State aid - annual average 1992-1994 by Member State 
A4/1-12 
Figure A1 State aid to industry and Community Social and Regional Funds. 
Annual averages 1992-1994 per employee in ECU. 
57 
Table A1 
State aid to industry in current prices 1990-1994 
Million national currency 
Industry 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Italy* 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United Kingdom 
EUR 12 1990 
62.591,68 
2.444,82 
20.289,56 
221.903,74 
285.919,74 
35.297,37 
282,81 
23.180,57 
2.029,05 
2.724,30 
133.997,53 
2.000,37 
40.458,98 1991 
122.959,62 
2.362,69 
24.695,70 
213.410,97 
155.573,36 
31.262,53 
200,38 
18.346,51 
2.341,60 
1.814,39 
77.353,97 
1.864,24 
38.054,65 1992 
74.360,25 
2.604,90 
29.845,34 
294.685,02 
251.519,09 
33.353,72 
224,31 
19.870,64 
2.533,70 
1.708,10 
77.644,63 
1.459,07 
40.839,78 ' 1993 
42.225,40 
4.607,55 
36.716,45 
289.697,34 
179.675,64 
40.468,79 
451,77 
21.919,77 
1.614,10 
1.622,42 
76.236,48 
905,34 
43.890,55 1994 
40.180,71 
4.478,04 
34.165,75 
233.136,64 
235.323,46 
45.659,52 
430,11 
21.752,24 
1.631,50 
1.971,02 
171.132,51 
961,56 
43.549,91 
* In Billion Lira 
58 
59 Table A2 
State aid to industry in current prices 1990-1994 
Million ECU 
Industry 
Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
ttaly 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Portugal 
United Kingdom 
EUR 12 1990 
1.475,34 
311,19 
9.887,17 
1.101,74 
2.211,02 
5.105,08 
368,35 
15.230.94 
47,83 
1.178,26 
739,88 
2.802,20 
40.458,98 1991 
2.912,13 
298,75 
12.042,22 
947.58 
1.210,98 
4.433.15 
260,97 
11.965,84 
55,46 
785.12 
433,08 
2.659,36 
38.054,65 1992 
1.787,73 
333,55 
14.772,14 
1.193.15 
1.898,07 
4.870,00 
294,86 
12.455,82 
60,91 
750,84 
444,45 
1.978,25 
40.839,78 1993 
1.117,47 
606,77 
18.961.39 
1.078,67 
1.204,87 
6.1C0.50 
564.75 
11.904.96 
39.88 
745,87 
404,72 
1.160,70 
43.890,55 1994 
1.013,18 
593,67 
17.748,44 
809.68 
1.481,23 
6.934,92 
541.71 
11.364,60 
41,14 
912,93 
869,29 
1.239,13 
43.549,91 
Table A3 
German State aid to the new Lander - yearly average 1992-1994 
Grants 
Tax exemptions 
Equity participations 
Soft loans 
Tax deferrals 
Guarantees 
TOTAL Million ECU 
5.583 
2.497 
6,4 
3.269 
0,00 
1.898 
13.254 in per cent 
42,1 
18,9 
0,1 
24,7 
0,00 
14,3 
100,00 in per cent of total 
aid 
32,1 
14,3 
0,04 
18,8 
0,00 
10,9 
76,1 
During the years of 1992 to 1994 aid totalling a yearly average of ECU 13 254 bn 
was granted to the new Lander. This volume represents 76% of all German aid to 
industry. The increase of the overall volume of German aid resulting from granting 
aid to the new Lander has been partially compensated by a decrease of the aid to 
Berlin and to the Zonenrand. 
Most of the aid to the new Lander is in the form of grants (42,1 %), followed by 
soft loans (24,7%), tax exemptions (18,9%), and guarantees (14,3%). 
60 
Figure A1 
Aid to industry and Community Funds per employee 
Average 1992-1994 
4000 
3000 
O 2000 
1000 
B DK D GR E F IRL I L NL P UK 
EUR 
12 
• Regional/Social funds per employee n Aid to industry per employee 
Figure A1 shows the importance of the" Community's Social and Regional Fund 
when compared with the sum of all national aid to industry. It will be seen that 
these funds contribute a significant fraction of available resources in the four 
Cohesion countries: 
The contribution of the above funds represents: 
60,7% of total support in Portugal, 
48,7% in Spain, 
43,1 % in Ireland and 
36,4% in Greece, 
while the Community average is only 17,8%. 
61 
Belgium 
Table A4/1 
Total state aid - annual average 1992 -1994 
in Million ECU 
SECTORS/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Industry/Serv.: Horizontal Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy sa ving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Industry/Services: Partie. Sectors 
2.2.1. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transports 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
3. Regional Aids 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL (1+2 + 3) A1A 
259,52 
2,29 
268,74 
68,37 
6,83 
165,67 
6,72 
0,00 
21,15 
0,00 
1.974,88 
1,96 
28,77 
1.451,99 
647,38 
13,59 
473,52 
5,04 
177,45 
177,45 
0,00 
2.682,88 A2A 
0,00 
0,00 
587,63 
0,16 
0,00 
23,07 
0,00 
180,33 
6,84 
377,23 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
5,27 
5,27 
0,00 
592,91 B1A 
0,00 
0,00 
14,85 
0,00 
0,00 
0,04 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
14,80 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
* 0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
14,85 C1A 
0,00 
0,00 
112,89 
24,56 
0,00 
1,64 
86,69 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
2,87 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
2,87 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
115,76 C2A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
' 0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 D1A 
0,00 
0,00 
86,81 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
81,39 
0,00 
5,42 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
13,85 
13,85 
0,00 
100,66 TOTAL 
259,52 
2,29 
1.070,91 
93,09 
6,83 
190,42 
174,80 
180,33 
33,42 
392,03 
1.977,74 
1,96 
28,77 
1.451,99 
647,38 
13,59 
473,52 
7,91 
196,57 
196,57 
0,00 
3.507,04 
62 
Table A4/2 Denmark 
Total jstate aid - annual average 1992 -1994 
in Million ECU 
SECTORS/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Industry/Serv.: Horizontal Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy sa ving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Industry/Services: Partic. Sectors 
2.2.1 Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transports*** 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
3. Regional Aids 
3.1. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL (1+2 + 3) A1A 
147,21 
13.69 
338,21 
136,65 
38,25 
7,65 
42,51 
113,16 
0,00 
0,00 
680,57 
0,00 
106,63 
550,62 
348,45 
0,00 
0,00 
23,32 
13,13 
13,13 
0,00 
1.192,81 A2A 
0,00 
0,00 
9,46 
7,98 
1,48 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
9,46 B1A 
0,00 
0.00 
0.00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0.00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 C1A 
0,00 
0,00 
15.35 
6,82 
0,00 
3,80 
2,34 
2,39 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,57 
0,57 
0,00 
15,92 C2A 
0,00 
0,00 
0.00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0.00 
0,00 
0,00 D1A 
0,00 
0,00 
4,40 
0,12 
0,00 
3,24 
1,04 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,26 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,26 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
4,66 TOTAL 
147,21 
13,69 
367,42 
151.58 
39.73 
14.69 
45.88 
115.54 
0,00 
0,00 
680,83 
0.00 
106,63 
550,62 
348,45 
0,00 
0,00 
23,57 
13,70 
13,70 
0,00 
1.222,85 
*** 1990-1992 averages used in order to arrive at EUR 12 estimates in Table 12 
63 
Table A4/3 Germany 
Total state aid - annual average 1992 -1994 
in Million ECU 
SECTORS/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Industry/Serv.: Horizontal Objectives 
2.7.7. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Industry/Services: Partie. Sectors 
2.2.7. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transports 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
3. Regional Aids 
3.7. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
3.3. Germany: (Berlin/Zonenrand) 
TOTAL AID (1+2 + 3) A1A 
4.038,61 
18,87 
1.421,09 
744,71 
107,63 
269,63 
0,00 
279,28 
0,00 
19,85 
21.682,67 
108,58 
575,32 
12.114,17 
3.258,95 
5.532,99 
3.334,60 
17,01 
4.970,11 
378,93 
4.573,12 
13,07 
32.131,34 A2A 
0,00 
0,00 
287,14 
0,00 
0,00 
229,65 
21,45 
36,04 
0,00 
0,00 
146,99 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
146,99 
3.831,83 
20,62 
2.456,03 
1.355,18 
4.265,95 B1A 
0,00 
0,00 
8,16 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
8,16 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
8,16 C1A 
0,00 
0,00 
784,92 
.74,57 
42,08 
228,80 
0,00 
9,60 
0,00 
489,86 
13,83 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 -
73,83 
2.851,18 
52,56 
2.798,62 
0,00 
3.649,93 C2A 
0,00 
0,00 
50,80 
0,00 
0,00 
50,80 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
157,31 
0,00 
0,00 
157,31 
208,11 D1A 
0,00 
0,00 
103,30 
0,00 
0,00 
32,03 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
71,27 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
1.833,09 
0,00 
1.833,09 
0,00 
1.936,39 TOTAL 
4.038,61 
18,87 
2.655,41 
759,29 
149,70 
810,91 
21,45 
324,93 
0,00 
589,14 
21.843,48 
108,58 
575,32 
12.114,17 
3.258,95 
5.532,99 
3.334,60 
177,83 
13.643,52 
452,77 
11.665,85 
1.525,55 
42.199,89 
64 
Table A4/4 Greece 
Total state aid - annual average 1992 -1994 
in Million ECU 
SECTORS/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Industry/Serv.: Horizontal Objectives 
2.7.7. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Industry/Services: Partie. Sectors 
2.2.7. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transports 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
3. Regional Aids 
3.7. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL (1+2 + 3) A1A 
0,65 
1,20 
240,89 
72,87 
0,77 
0,00 
0,00 
0,75 
0,00 
227,22 
417,44 
2,27 
134,68 
236,73 
6,79 
0,00 
0,00 
43,76 
132,85 
0,00 
132,85 
793,02 A2A 
0,00 
0,00 
122,30 
0,00 
0,00 
7,95 
72,00 
0,00 
42,35 
0,00 
14,91 
0,79 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
14,12 
65,04 
0,00 
65,04 
202,25 B1A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 C1A 
0,00 
0,00 
116,82 
0,27 
0,57 
115,59 
0,48 
0,03 
0,00 
0,00 
0,08 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,08 
18,70 
0,00 
18,70 
135,60 C2A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
OfOO 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 D1A 
0,00 
0,00 
134,88 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
42,76 
0,00 
0,00 
92,13 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
134,88 TOTAL 
0,65 
1,20 
614,89 
73,02 
0,62 
123,54 
115,24 
0,77 
42,35 
319,34 
432,43 
3,06 
134,68 
236,73 
6,79 
0,00 
0,00 
57,96 
216,58 
0,00 
216,58 
1.265,75 
65 
Spain 
Table A4/5 
Total state aid - annual average 1992 -1994 
in Million ECU 
SECTORS/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Industry/Serv.: Horizontal Objectives 
2.7.7. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy sa ving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Industry/Services: Partie. Sectors 
2.2.7. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transports 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
3. Regional Aids 
3.7. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL (1+2 + 3) A1A 
N/A 
94,85 
396,40 
68,92 
44,70 
128,15 
0,62 
24,54 
48,42 
81,04 
3.898,50 
118,34 
180,43 
2.056.64 
106,95 
521,67 
660,80 
360,62 
251,12 
195,44 
55,68 
4.640,87 A2A 
N/A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 B1A 
N/A 
0,00 
5,99 
0,00 
0,00 
3,99 
0,00 
0,28 
1,71 
0,00 
0,02 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,02 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
6,01 C1A 
N/A 
0,00 
182,11 
100,54 
0,00 
52,18 
17,21 
0,00 
9,37 
2,81 
0,55 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0 00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,55 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
182,65 C2A 
N/A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
o.co 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
• 0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 D1A 
N/A 
0,00 
32,50 
0,00 
0,00 
5,28 
0,00 
0,18 
27,04 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0.00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
32,50 TOTAL 
94,85 
616,99 
769,47 
44,70 
189,60 
17,83 
25,00 
86,54 
83,84 
3.899,07 
118,34 
180,43 
2.056,64 
106,95 
521,67 
660,80 
361,19 
251,12 
795,44 
55,68 
4.862,03 
66 
France 
Table A4/6 
Total state aid - annual average 1992 -1994 
in Million ECU 
SECTORS/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Industry/Serv.: Horizontal Objectives 
2.7.7. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy sa ving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Industry/Services: Partie. Sectors 
2.2.7. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transports*** 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
3. Regional Aids 
3.7. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL (1+2 + 3) 
*** 1990-1992 averages used in order to arrive at EUR ' A1A 
613,93 
41,07 
809,97 
584,63 
40,57 
107,33 
14,17 
28,31 
27,14 
7,81 
9.390,23 
0,00 
64,69 
5.631,43 
3.336,21 
225,24 
2.053,70 
1.415,17 
482,14 
787,67 
294,53 
11.337,33 
2 estimates A2A 
0,00 
0,00 
523,14 
450,18 
0,00 
34,98 
0,00 
0,00 
37,98 
0,00 
16,27 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
16,27 
577,73 
325,95 
251,78 
1.117,13 
in Table 12 B1A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
733,13 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
733,13 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
733,13 C1A 
0,00 
0,00 
307,59 
65,27 
0,00 
37,04 
191,87 
. 0,00 
13,41 
0,00 
12,71 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
12,71 
0,99 
0,99 
0,00 
321,29 C2A 
0,00 
0,00 
104,63 
0,44 
0,00 
26,56 
77,63 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
28,35 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
28,35 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
132,93 D1A 
0,00 
0,00 
891,61 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
859,53 
0,00 
32.08 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
000 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,37 
0,00 
0,37 
891,98 TOTAL 
613,93 
41,07 
2.636,93 
1.100,53 
40,57 
205,90 
1.143,20 
28,31 
110,60 
7,81 
10.180,69 
0,00 
64,69 
5.631,43 
3.336,21 
225,24 
2.053,70 
2.205,63 
1.061,22 
514,55 
546,67 
14.533,85 
67 
Ireland 
Table A4/7 
Total state aid - annual average 1992 -1994 
in Million ECU 
SECTORS/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Industry/Serv.: Horizontal Objectives 
2.7.7. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy sa ving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Industry/Services: Partie. Sectors 
2.2.7. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transports 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
3. Regional Aids 
3.7. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL (1+2 + 3) A1A 
N/A 
11,15 
56,69 
77,23 
0,00. 
22,12 
15,74 
7,60 
0,00 
0,00 
189,24 
0,00 
0,00 
136,99 
72,42 
0,00 
0,00 
52,24 
259,70 
0,00 
259,70 
516,76 A2A 
N/A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
29,83 
0,00 
29,83 
29,83 B1A 
N/A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
37,68 
0,00 
37,68 
37,68 C1A 
N/A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
15,34 
0,00 
15,34 
15,34 C2A* 
N/A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
• 0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 D1A 
N/A 
0,00 
15,27 
0,00 
0,00 
1,29 
13,97. 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,37 
0,00 
0,37 
15,63 TOTAL 
11,15 
71,95 
77,23 
0,00 
23,41 
29,71 
7,60 
0,00 
0,00 
189,24 
0,00 
0,00 
136,99 
72,42 
0,00 
0,00 
52,24 
342,91 
0,00 
342,91 
615,24 
68 
Table A4/8 Italy 
Total state aid - annual average 1992 -1994 
in Million ECU 
SECTORS/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Industry/Serv.: Horizontal Objectives 
2.7.7. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. . Trade 
2.1.5. Energy sa ving 
2.1.6. Genera! Investment 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Industry/Services: Partie. Sectors 
2.2.7. Steel . 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transports*** 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2., Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
3. Regional Aids 
3.7. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3) a 
TOTAL (1+2 + 3) A1A 
N/A 
119,92 
2.324,79 
191,75 
9,77 
850,54 
465,85 
155,12 
271,98 
379,77 
9.446,69 
645,16 
211,16 
7.811,90 
2.425,80 
0,00 
0,00 
778,47 
1.058,19 
88,87 
969,38 
12.949,58 A2A 
N/A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
• 0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,Q0 
4,04 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0;00 
0,00 
0,00 
.4,04 
3.531,33 
89,37 
4.441,96 
H.535,37 B1A 
N/A 
0,00 
761,57 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
759,05 
0,00 
0,00 
2,52 
934,79 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
934,79 
3,13 
3,73 
0,00 
1.699,49 C1A 
N/A 
0,00 
182,99 
103,11 
0,00 
48,70 
3,43 
0,00 
2,40 
25,35 
73,41 
0,00 
Q.00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
b,oo 
73,41 
3,86,62 
63,95 
322,67 
643,02 C2A 
N/A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 D1A 
N/A 
0,00 
3,59 
0,00 
0,00 
3,59 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
9,21 
7,04 
8,77 
12,80 TOTAL 
119,92 
3.272,94 
294,86 
9,77 
902,83 
1.228,32 
155,12 
274,39 
407,64 
10.458,92 
645,16 
211,16 
7.811,90 
2.425,80 
0,00 
0.00 
1.790,71 
5.988,49 
246,31 
5.742,18 
19.840,27 
1990 -1992 averages used in order to arrive at EUR estimates in Table 12 
69 
Luxembourg 
Table A4/9 
Total state aid - annual average 1992 -1994 
in Million ECU 
SECTORS/FUNCTION 
1.1; Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Industry/Serv.: Horizontal Objectives 
2.7.7. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Industry/Services: Partie. Sectors 
2.2.7. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transports 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
3. Regional Aids 
3.7. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL (1+2 + 3) A1A 
N/A 
N/A 
10,62 
2,68 
1,85 
5,78 
0,32 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
180,44 
0,00 
0.00 
180,34 
176,12 
0,00 
0,00 
0.70 
33,06 
33,06 
0,00 
224,12 A2A 
N/A 
N/A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 B1A 
N/A 
N/A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 C1A 
N/A 
N/A 
3,52 
7,07 
0,00 
2,47 
0,04 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
3,52 C2A 
•N/A 
N/A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
• 0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 D1A 
N/A 
N/A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0 00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 TOTAL 
14,15 
3,69 
1,85 
8,25 
0,36 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
180,44 
0,00 
0,00 
180.34 
176.12 
0,00 
0,00 
0,10 
33,06 
33,06 
0,00 
227,65 
70 
Netherlands 
Table A4/10 
Total state aid - anrruat average 1992 -1994 
in Million ECU 
SECTORS/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Industry/Serv.: Horizontal Objectives 
2.7.7. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy sa ving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Industry/Services: Partie. Sectors 
2.2.7. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transports 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
3. Regional Aids 
3.7. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL (1+2 + 3) A1A 
293,39 
2,38 
423,26 
767,72 
45,33 
13,68 
0,00 
173,63 
13,12 
15,77 
1.092,03 
0,00 
9,16 
1.006,42 
475,46 
0,00 
0,00 
76,44 
119,90 
119,90 
0,00 
1.930,96 A2A 
0,00 
0,00 
100,62 
57,26 
0,00 
7,33 
0,00 
42,03 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
100,62 B1A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 C1A 
0,00 
0,00 
13,66 
-7,20 
0,00 
0,00 
14,86 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
13,66 C2A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,27 
0,00 
0,27 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
'0,00 
0,00 
0,27 D1A 
0,00 
0,00 
59,90 
0,00 
0,00 
28,47 
0,00 
0,00 
22,80 
8,63 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
59,90 TOTAL 
293,39 
2,38 
597,71 
277,78 
45,61 
49,48 
14,86 
215,66 
35,92 
24,40 
1.092,03 
0,00 
9,16 
1.006,42 
475,46 
0,00 
0,00 
76,44 
119,90 
119,90 
0,00 
2.105,41 
71 
Portugal 
Table A4/11 
Total state aid - annual average 1992 -1994 
in Million ECU 
SECTORS/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Industry/Serv.: Horizontal Objectives 
2.1.1. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy saving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Industry/Services: Partie. Sectors 
2.2.7. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transports 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
3. Regional Aids 
3.7. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL (1+2 + 3) A1A 
151,22 
4,03 
97,00 
75,60 
0,00 
2,50 
0,54 
7,42 
0,38 
70,57 
353,43 
93,00 
4,54 
98,15 . 
71,41 
4,67 
1,50 
151,56 
68,53 
0,00 
68,53 
674,22 A2A 
0,00 
0,00 
37,25 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
37,25 
0,00 
1,85 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
1,85 
82,41 
0,00 
82,41 
121,50 B1A 
0,00 
0,00 
1,13 
7,73 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,49 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,49 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
1,62 C1A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,36. 
0,00 
0,00 
0,05 
0,19 
0,00 
0,12 
0,00 
5,27 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
5,27 
0,27 
0,00 
0,27 
5,91 C2A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
.0,00 
0,00 
0.00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0.00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0.00 
0,00 
0,00 D1A 
0,00 
0,00 
29,16 
0,00 
0.00 
0.00 
0,00 
0,00 
29,16 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
29,16 TOTAL 
151,22 
4,03 
164,90 
16.73 
0.00 
2.55 
0,73 
7,42 
66.91 
70,57 
361,04 
93.00 
4.54 
98.15 
71,41 
4.67 
1,50 
159,17 
151,21 
0,00 
151,21 
832,40 
72 
United Kingdom 
TableA4/12 
Total state aid - annual average 1992 -1994 
in Million ECU 
SECTORS/FUNCTION 
1.1. Agriculture 
1.2. Fisheries 
2.1. Industry/Serv.: Horizontal Objectives 
2.7.7. Research and Development 
2.1.2. Environment 
2.1.3. SME 
2.1.4. Trade 
2.1.5. Energy sa ving 
2.1.6. General Investment 
2.1.9. Other Objectives 
2.2. Industry/Services: Partie. Sectors 
2.2.7. Steel 
2.2.2 Shipbuilding 
2.2.3. Transports 
of which Regulations 1191/69 and 1192/69 
2.2.4.1. Coal: Aid to current production 
2.2.4.2. Coal: Other aids 
2.2.5. Other sectors 
3. Regional Aids 
3.7. Regions under 92(3)c 
3.2. Regions under 92(3)a 
TOTAL (1+2 + 3) A1A 
520,49 
22,30 
444,58 
236,50 
7,22 
80,23 
103,40 
0,12 
10,25 
6,86 
1.904,55 
0,00 
6,42 
1.349,73 
1.344,83 
7,33 
298,39 
242,68 
576,99 
775,64 
401,35 
3.468,92 A2A 
0,00 
0,00 
26,05 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
26,05 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
62,95 
62,95 
0,00 
89,00 B1A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
4,54 
4,54 
0,00 
4,54 C1A 
0,00 
0,00 
0,01 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,01 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
30,62 
0,42 
30,19 
30,62 C2A 
0,00 
0,00 
13,19 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
13,19 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
'0,00 
0,00 
13,19 D1A 
0,00 
0,00 
22,07 
0,00 
0,00 
21,11 
0,96 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
0,00 
29,27 
0,00 
29,27 
51,34 TOTAL 
520,49 
22,30 
505,89 
236,50 
7,22 
101,34 
104,36 
0,12 
49,49 
6,87 
1.904,55 
0,00 
6,42 
1.349,73 
1.344,83 
7,33 
298,39 
242,68 
704,37 
243,56 
460,82 
3.657,61 
73 

ANNEX III 
COMMUNITY FUNDS AND INSTRUMENTS 
75 
Community Funds. Instruments and Programmes 
Below a brief description of the main Community funds, instruments and 
programmes is given. It should be noted that the Cohesion Financial 
Instrument and Cohesion Fund were established in April 1993 and May 
1994 respectively. Moreover in July 1993, halfway through the reporting 
period, the second reform of the Structural Funds (EAGGF-Guidance, ERDF, 
Social Fund, FIFG) took place thereby confirming the basic principles which 
inspired the first reform in 1988 and bringing in a number of operational 
improvements. A further innovation was that, in accordance with the 
conclusions of the Edinburgh European Council, the resources of the 
Structural Funds allocated to four Member States eligible for assistance 
from the Cohesion Fund (Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal) would double 
in real terms between '1992 and 1999 and that total funding for the 
Structural Funds over the period 1994-99 would amount to ECU 141 471 
million (at 1992 prices). A new instrument was also introduced with the 
entry into operation in 1994 of the FIFG to provide support for the 
restructuring of the fisheries sector. 
Close on the heels of the Structural Funds reform, the 4th FPRD (4th 
Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development) was 
also adopted for the period 1994-1998. This new Framework Programme 
now includes all the Community research and development activities. Its 
budget is ECU 13,1 billion. Its overall structure has been streamlined to 
respond to three major challenges: 
developing scientific and technological excellence in Europe, to meet 
the needs of industry and improve the quality of life in the Member 
States. 
furthering cooperation and improving the coordination and 
exploitation of the Member States' research efforts. 
framing and implementing other Community policies. 
EAGGF-Guarantees 
The Common Agricultural Policy is a general system of market support 
based on external protection and internal intervention. As such, it is 
comparable to import quotas and customs tariffs, systems which bring 
about a transfer of resources between sectors, without the recourse to 
direct aid. Much of EAGGF Guarantee expenditure is concerned with a 
system of support of this type and therefore cannot be regarded as 
comparable to expenditure on aid. Moreover, the breakdown by Member 
State has little meaning in this case because the ultimate beneficiary may 
not be in the Member State where the expenditure took place. Around 35% 
of expenditure is in the form of price compensation aid granted to 
producers or processors. 
EAGGF-Guidance 
The activities of the EAGGF Guidance Section are divided into direct 
measures and indirect measures. Direct measures may be considered as aid 
to public and private investors in respect of investment projects or 
76 
programmes. In recent years direct measures have accounted for around 
half of the Guidance budget. Indirect measures on the other hand are 
carried out on the Community's initiative and with its financial help but they 
are executed by Member States. As a result the expenditure will have been 
covered in most cases under the heading of national aid. In general they 
can be considered as socio-structural measures (e.g. farmers' early 
retirement scheme), remedial measures in favour of the less-favoured 
regions, or investment aid at the farm level. 
FIFG 
Structural assistance for the fishing industry was first granted as far back 
as 1971, the year in which it was agreed to use funds from the Guidance 
Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund 
(EAGGF) to encourage the construction and modernisation of inshore and 
pelagic fishing vessels together with the processing and marketing of fish. 
In 1978 the original rules were replaced by a series of annual interim 
measures widened in scope to encompass the restructuring of the inshore 
fleet and the development of aquaculture. 
In 1983 a system of multiannual programmes was put into effect, based 
around schemes under which aid could be granted for restructuring the 
industry and conversion of fishing activities. In 1986 the need to reinforce 
this approach resulted in the whole range of structural measures for the 
fleet and aquaculture being grouped together in a single regulatory 
framework . 
Schemes designed to assist the processing and marketing of fishery 
products developed from a different source, which was shared with the 
structural policy for processing and marketing of agricultural products. For a 
long time, one and the same Regulation covered the processing and 
marketing of both types of products. However, in order to ensure that 
better account was taken of the specific requirements of the fisheries 
sector, the two were split in 1989; assistance for the processing and 
marketing of fishery products has since had its own rules, integrated from 
that date into the Community's Structural Funds arrangements. 
In 1993 the structural elements of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) were 
overhauled and three major changes were introduced. These ensured 
greater coherence between different aspects of the policy, removed the 
partition which had divided the CFP from other Community activities and, 
took account of the changes affecting the sector. The CFP's structural 
measures were integrated into the Community's system of structural funds 
when these were reformed in 1993. Moreover the different fishery finances 
available for such activity were regrouped in one fund known as the 
Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG). 
Social Fund 
The objectives of the Social Fund are to improve employment opportunities 
for young people (under the age of 25) and for other groups deemed to be 
in need of support (long-term unemployed, the handicapped, migrant 
77 
workers and' other socially disadvantaged groups). The Fund therefore 
contributes to the financing of operations carried out by the public or 
private operators in the following areas: 
the prevention of long term unemployment; 
vocational training; 
technical advice concerned with job creation; 
facilitate the adaptation of workers to industrial changes and changes 
in production system. 
All applications for assistance are submitted through the Member States. 
Money from the Social Fund is paid out on a horizontal and not on a 
sectorial basis, so an extrapolation corresponding to the concept of aid 
within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty is not possible. 
Regional Fund 
The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) aims to reduce disparities 
within the Community by providing financial support to: 
regions whose development is lagging behind (Objective 1); 
regions in industrial decline (Objective 2); 
rural problem areas (Objective 5b). 
This support is focused mainly on infrastructure, human resources and 
productive investment. 
As ERDF aid is generally paid out on a horizontal and not on a sectorial 
basis, identification of expenditure which corresponds to the concept of 
State aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty is not always 
possible. As an alternative, figures relating to industry and services and, 
economic development have been retained; the data obtained by using this 
approach therefore only provide an idea of the scale of ERDF aid involved. 
Cohesion Financial Instrument - Cohesion Fund 
After the principle of the Cohesion Fund had been incorporated into the 
Maastricht Treaty, the Edinburgh European Council further decided to 
establish a provisional instrument to provide Community financial support to 
the beneficiary Member States from 1993 while awaiting the entry into 
force of the Treaty which in turn permitted establishment of the Cohesion 
Fund. 
The Commission adopted the proposal for a Regulation establishing the 
cohesion financial instrument based on Article 235 of the Treaty which was 
subsequently adopted by Council on 30/IV/93 and extended until the end of 
1994. 
The Cohesion Fund was established by Article 130d of the EC Treaty, as 
amended by the Treaty of Maastricht and represented a further stage in the 
policy of solidarity initiated mainly through the Structural Funds. This Fund 
makes its own specific and complementary contribution since it is grounded 
principally in the requirements stemming from the prospect of economic and 
78 
monetary union (which is already starting to become a reality). From the 
outset the Fund has created its own identity on the basis of three major 
principles. 
The first is its limited field of implementation: the protocol on economic and 
social cohesion states that the Cohesion Fund "will provide Community 
financial contributions to .... Member States with a per capita GNP of less 
than 90% of the Community average." 
Secondly, assistance is restricted to the part-financing of projects in the 
fields of the environment and trans-European transport networks. 
Thirdly, as a result of its links with the implementation of economic and 
monetary union, the Fund assists Member States which have drawn up a 
programme complying with the conditions on excessive public deficits as 
laid down in Article 104c. 
In addition the Cohesion financial instrument and later (from May 1994) 
Cohesion Fund, contributed towards the objective of cohesion. However 
given that most of the credits available were devoted to infrastructure 
projects and not productive investment, the figures are only presented for 
information below in Table B. 
Community Research and Technological Development (RTD) 
Community research activities are conducted essentially at two levels: 
(I) by shared cost actions with third parties for RTD projects and by 
coordination of research activities in the Member States (Indirect 
actions). 
(II) At the Joint Research Centre (Direct actions). 
DG XII (Science, Research and Development) administers the indirect 
actions of the Framework Programme together with DG III (Industry), DG VI 
(Agriculture), DG VII (Transport), DG XIII (Telecommunications, Information 
Market and Exploitation of research), DG XIV (Fishery) and DG XVII 
(Energy). According to the 4th Community Framework on RT&D an amount 
of about ECU 13,1 billion from the EU budget will be spent on support for 
research during the period 1994-1998. Most of the budget is going to 
universities, research centres and industry. A little bit more than ECU 950 
million is allocated to support the European Joint Research Centre. 
ECSC financial operations 
Financial assistance is provided by the ECSC in the form of loans and 
grants. The loans fall into three main categories: 
industrial loans; 
conversion loans; 
loans for workers' housing 
79 
and are granted at market rates. The fact that the financial institutions 
which distribute the loans are non profit-making could be advantageous to 
the recipient of the loan but this advantage is not considered as aid for the 
purposes of the Treaties. The situation with regard to grants is different. 
Whilst interest subsidies (on loans) would normally be considered as 
constituting aid, other measures, notably payments of a social nature to 
former steel and coal sector workers, are less likely to be considered as 
such. 
European Investment Bank 
The mission of the Bank is to further the objectives of the European Union 
by making long-term finance available for sound investment. Created by the 
Treaty of Rome, shareholders are the Member States and the Board of 
Governors is composed of the Finance Ministers of these States. To receive 
support, projects and programmes must be viable in four fundamental 
areas: economic, technical, environmental and financial. Through the Bank's 
own lending operations and ability to attract other financing, the range of 
funding possibilities is widened. Through the borrowing activities, the Bank 
contributes to the development of capital markets throughout the Union. 
The Bank's policies are established in close cooperation with the Member 
States and the other Institutions of the European Union. There is also close 
cooperation with the business and banking sectors and the main 
international organizations in the field. 
European Investment Fund 
The European Investment Fund is a new financial agency set up to provide 
guarantees to support medium and long-term investment in two crucial 
areas for the development of the European economy; Trans-European 
Networks (TEN) and Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises. Established in 
June 1994, the Fund is a new and unique partnership in which the 
European Investment Bank and the European Union, through the 
Commission, cooperate with the banks and financial institutions of the 
Member States. By Commission Directive dated 15 March 1994, it was 
granted Multilateral Development Bank status. 
The fundamental objective of the Fund is to draw more private capital into 
infrastructure finance and to improve the flow of financial resources to the 
small and medium business sector. It will do this by developing mechanisms 
to transfer and share financial risk and will concentrate on the provision of 
financial guarantees on medium and long-term lending by banks and other 
financial institutions. 
In addition to senior long-term debt for TEN projects it will be able to cover 
private placements, bond issues, revenue or asset backed securities and 
subordinated debt. For SME finance it can cover portfolios of loans, credit 
lines and securitized assets. 
NCI loans (New Community Instrument) 
The aim of NCI loans was to finance investment projects which contributed 
to greater convergence and integration of Member States' economic 
80 
policies. A large part of the finance (approx. 60%) was used to finance 
projects in the field of energy, infrastructure, and development of small and 
medium-sized enterprises. Loans were also granted to restore infrastructure 
in Community areas affected by earthquakes. The loans were administered 
by the European Investment Bank on behalf of the Union. Interest rates 
were set at market rates, plus a margin to cover overheads for each 
currency. The only assessable economic benefit to the recipient could 
originate from the non-profit-making nature of the Bank. Such an advantage 
would be insignificant in the present context. 
II. Statistical Data 
1. Table A sets out in global terms the financial intervention of the Community 
for the years 1 990 to 1 994. 
2. y Table B shows other Community instruments granted for the years 1990 to 
1994. 
3. Tables C1 and C2 indicate, for the periods 1990-1992 and 1992-1994 
respectively, the average annual volume of Community intervention broken 
down by Member State where ever possible. 
4. It should be noted that a direct comparison between the volume of 
Community intervention shown here and the national State aid described 
earlier in this Survey (i.e. aid financed by national budgets and tax systems) 
is misleading, since in many cases it is difficult, if not impossible, to 
determine the aid element contained in the Community interventions, which 
is not paid directly to firms like State aid. 
In the agricultural sector, making comparisons could result in erroneous 
conclusions being drawn owing to the fact that those who benefit from 
Community intervention are for the most part not firms. As regards 
comparison between the different Member States, the benefits of 
Community intervention are felt by all operators in the Union irrespective of 
where the expenditure (i.e. export refunds or intervention buying) took 
place. As to comparison between Community and national expenditure, 
expenditure by the Union is strongly influenced by the differences between 
fluctuating world prices and Community prices for agricultural products, 
which is not the case with most national expenditure. 
5. Further details of Community Funds are given in the Technical Annex. 
6. Further detailed information on Community funds and instruments can be 
found in the following documents 
-Research and Technological Development Activities of the EU, annual report 
1995. ISBN 92-77-93761-0 
-The Structural Funds in 1994, 6th annual report. ISBN 92-827-5727-7 
-The First report on Economic and Social Cohesion 1996. ISBN 92-827-8877-
6 
81 
-Cohesion financial instrument Cohesion Fund. Combined Report. ISBN 92-
827-5739-0 
-Annual Report Cohesion Financial Instrument 1993/1994. ISBN 92-77-
84777-8 
-ECSC Financial report 1994. ISBN 92-827-4625-9 
-Trans-European Networks Report. ISBN 92-826-8995-6 
-The Twenty fourth Financial Report concerning the European Agricultural 
Guidance and Guarantee Funds-Guarantee Section. 1994. ISBN 92-77-
94440-4 
-European Investment Bank 1995 Annual Report ISBN 92-827-6303-X 
82 
Table A 
Annual Community Expenditure 
Million ECU 
EAGGF Guarantee-Agriculture 
EAGGF Guidance-Agriculture 
EAGGF Guarantee-Fisheries 
EAGGF Guidance-Fisheries/EFFG- FIFG(from 1994) 
SOCIAL FUND 
REGIONAL FUND (1) 
COHESION FUND 
EC R&TD FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME 
ECSC Grants 
Resettlement Art. 56.2(b) 
Steel social Art. 56.2(b) 
Coal social Art. 56.2(b) 
Research Art. 55 
Interest relief Art. 54/56 
TOTAL 1990 
26503,3 
1973,9 
23,6 
226,6 
3504,2 
776,0 
-
1602,0 
184,0 
45,2 
40,0 
93,9 
82,2 
35054,9 1991 
31824,8 
2408,1 
26,2 
294,0 
4785,8 
1152,0 
-
1567,0 
166,1 
20,0 
35,7 
128,1 
104,5 
42512,3 1992 
32005,4 
2874,4 
32,1 
358,4 
5894,2 
1374,0 
-
2391,0 
154,8 
46,2 
50,0 
120,2 
106,0 
45406,7 1993 
34496,3 
3092,4 
32,4 
401,8 
6306,8 
1635,0 
1565,0 
2094,0 
182,4 
60,0 
50,0 
124,6 
114,3 
50155,0 1994 
32831,4 
3335,4 
35,5 
391,0 
5826,8 
1803,0 
1853,0 
2019,0 
157,0 
86,0 
40,0 
52,0 
51,5 
48481,6 
(1) part corresponding approximately to the concept of aid within the meaning of Article 92 of the Treaty 
83 
Table B 
Other Community Instruments 
Million ECU 
ECSC (new loans issued) 
European Investment Bank* 
European Investment Fund** 
NCI (new loans issued) 1990 
993,8 
12526,3 
-
23,6 1991 
1382,2 
14398,8 
-
39,2 1992 
1486,2 
16066,0 
-
-1993 
918,3 
17672,6 
-
-1994 
673,4 
17656,0 
643,0 
-
* Financing provided within the EU 
** Guarantees approved 
SOURCES: Annual reports 
84 
Table C1 
Community Average Annual Expenditure by Member State (1990-1992) 
Million ECU 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
GREECE 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
IRELAND 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
PORTUGAL 
UNITED KINGDOM 
TOTAL EAGGF 
Guarantee 
1227,1 
1161,2 
4811,4 
2119,8 
2990,4 
6130,1 
1604,5 
4839,2 
3,1 
2628,9 
317,5 
2278,0 
30111,2 EAGGF 
Guidance 
22,6 
18,6 
206,5 
285,9 
458,6 
435,2 
161,6 
294,4 
5,7 
16,1 
244,6 
100,6 
2250,4 EAGGF 
Guarantee 
Fisheries 
0,2 
1,4 
0,8 
0,7 
10,5 
8,0 
1,4 
1,6 
-
0,1 
1,0 
1,6 
27,3 EAGGF Guid 
Fisheries/& 
EFFG-FIFG 
2,5 
16,3 
18,7 
21,2 
86,1 
27,5 
9,2 
47,7 
-
9,2 
44,4 
10,3 
293,1 SOCIAL 
FUND 
129,8 
42,9 
537,2 
395,7 
867,8 
590,4 
347,7 
522,4 
2,9 
109,7 
448,2 
733,4 
4728,1 REGIONAL 
FUND 
33,7 
9,0 
219,0 
67,7 
197,7 
90,3 
109,0 
129,0 
4,3 
5,7 
171,7 
63,7 
1100,8 COHESION 
FUND 
(from 1993) EC R&TD 
Framework 
Programme* 
1853,0 
1853,0 ECSC 
GRANTS* 
459,0 
459,0 TOTAL 
1415,9 
1249,4 
5793,6 
2891,0 
4611,1 
7281,5 
2233,4 
5834,3 
16 
2769,7 
1227,4 
3187,6 
2312,0 
40822,9 
It is not possible to effect a breakdown by Member State. 
85 
Table C2 
Community Average Annual Expenditure by Member State (1992-1994) 
Million ECU 
BELGIUM 
DENMARK 
GERMANY 
GREECE 
SPAIN 
FRANCE 
IRELAND 
ITALY 
LUXEMBOURG 
NETHERLANDS 
PORTUGAL 
UNITED KINGDOM 
Technical 
Assistance 
TOTAL EAGGF 
Guarantee 
1278,7 
1257,1 
4979,7 
2522,5 
4011,5 
7680,5 
1513,9 
4469,0 
6,9 
2207,5 
519,2 
2664,7 
33111,2 EAGGF 
Guidance 
35,8 
28,7 
434,2 
353,8 
530,4 
602,5 
179,5 
421,3 
8,4 
24,5 
371,4 
110,2 
3100,7 EAGGF, 
Guarantee 
Fisheries 
0,2 
3,4 
0,9 
0,9 
10,7 
10,1 
2,2 
1,1 
-
0,1 
1,8 
1,8 
33,2 EAGGF Guid 
Fisheries/& 
EFFG-FIFG 
4,6 
29,6 
16,3 
36,1 
127,1 
31,9 
7,8 
52,1 
-
7,9 
50,3 
20,0 
383,7 SOCIAL 
FUND 
154,7 
54,3 
798,5 
461,2 
1146,7 
665,6 
307,0 
886,6 
5,0 
163,5 
597,9 
768,3 
6009,3 REGIONAL 
FUND 
30,0 
6,5 
304,4 
131,9 
273,7 
145,6 
120,6 
181,1 
3,9 
12,9 
279,3 
113,9 
1603,8 COHESION 
FUND** 
(& instrument) 
306,3 
936,4 
154,8 
309,0 
0,8 
1707,3 EC R&TD 
Framework 
Programme 
* 
2168,0 
2168,0 ECSC 
GRANTS* 
465,0 
465,0 TOTAL 
1504,0 
1379,6 
6534,0 
3812,7 
7036,5 
9136,2 
2285,8 
6011,2 
24,2 
2416,4 
2128,9 
3678,9 
0,8 
2633,0 
48582,2 
(*) It is not possible to effect a breakdown by Member State 
(**) 1993-1994 only. 
86 

ISSN 0254-1475 
COM(97) 170 final 
DOCUMENTS 
EN 01 08 10 09 
Catalogue number : CB-CO-97-162-EN-C 
ISBN 92-78-18759-3 
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-2985 Luxembourg