42. The Commission considers that, according to Article
3(2)(c) of the car framework, the cost benefit analysisshould in the present case be carried out comparing thechosen site of Bridgend with a hypothetical alternative sitewithin the EEA of CEECs. Such cost benefit analysis isrequired by the Commission if the intensity of theplanned regional aid is higher than 10% of the regionalceiling.
43. The Commission also notes that the amount considered as
eligible investment differs in the notification letter, whereGBP 213 million eligible investment is reported, and inthe CBA, where reported eligible investment amounts toGBP 271,6 million. The Commission doubts that onlyeligible costs were included in the CBA and for the calcu-lation of the aid intensity, and therefore that the reportedaid intensity of 5,37% is correct. In order to clarify thispoint, the Commission needs further clarification on theexact amount and timing of eligible costs. TheCommission would also ask the UK authorities to usethe year 2000 for the calculation of the net presentvalue of the investment and aid streams.
4.DECISION
44. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the
Commission, acting under the procedure laid down in
Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, requests the UnitedKingdom to submit its comments and to provide all
such information as may help to assess the aid, withinone month of the date of receipt of this letter. Amongother information, the Commission requests:
— the necessary information in order to assess the
training aid measure under the training aid Regulation,
— a CBA analysis comparing the costs of carrying out the
project in the chosen site of Bridgend with the costs ofcarrying out an identical project in a hypothetical sitein the EEA of CEECs,
— a detailed account of the investment amount
considered as eligible by the UK authorities, and of
the calculation of the net grant equivalent of the
regional aid measure.
45. The Commission requests your authorities to forward a
copy of this letter to the potential recipient of the aidimmediately.
46. The Commission wishes to remind the United Kingdom
that Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty has suspensory effect,and would draw your attention to Article 14 of CouncilRegulation (EC) No 659/1999, which provides that all
unlawful aid may be recovered from the recipient.»
Non-oppositionàuneconcentrationnotifiée
(AffaireCOMP/M.2544—Masterfoods/RoyalCanin)
(2002/C 79/05)
(Texteprésentantdel'intérêtpourl'EEE)
Le 15 février 2002, la Commission a décidé de ne pas s'opposer à la concentration notifiée susmentionnée
et de la déclarer compatible avec le marché commun. Cette décision est basée sur l'article 6, paragraphe 2,du règlement (CEE) n
o4064/89 du Conseil. Le texte intégral de la décision est disponible seulement en
anglais et sera rendu public après suppression des secrets d'affaires qu'il peut contenir. Il sera disponible:
— en support papier viales bureaux de vente de l'Office des publications officielles des Communautés
européennes (voir page 4 de couverture),
— en support électronique dans la version «CEN» de la base de données CELEX sous le numéro de
document 302M2544. CELEX est le système de documentation automatisée du droit communautaire.
Pour plus d'informations concernant les abonnements, prière de s'adresser à:EUR-OP
Information, marketing et relations publiques2, rue MercierL-2985 Luxembourg[téléphone (352) 2929-42718; télécopieur (352) 2929-42709].FR C 79/10 JournalofficieldesCommunautéseuropéennes 3.4.2002