Auxílios estatais - Reino Unido

Auxílio C 7/03 (ex N 107/02) - Fundo SBS para viveiros de empresas

Convite para apresentação de observações, nos termos do n.o 2, do artigo 88.o, do Tratado CE

(2003/C 104/02)

(Texto relevante para efeitos do EEE)

Por carta de 5 de Fevereiro de 2003, publicada na língua que faz fé a seguir ao presente resumo, a Comissão notificou o Reino Unido da sua decisão de dar início ao procedimento previsto no n.o 2, do artigo 88.o do Tratado CE relativamente ao auxílio acima mencionado.

As partes interessadas podem apresentar as suas observações a este respeito no prazo de um mês a contar da data de publicação do presente resumo e da carta, enviando-as para o seguinte endereço: Comissão Europeia Direcção-Geral da Concorrência

Registo dos Auxílios Estatais

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

Estas observações serão comunicadas ao Reino Unido. Qualquer interessado que apresente observações pode solicitar por escrito o tratamento confidencial da sua identidade, devendo justificar o pedido.

RESUMO

1. Procedimento

Por carta de 31 de Janeiro de 2002, registada em 4 de Fevereiro de 2002, as autoridades britânicas notificaram o auxílio supramencionado, nos termos do n.o 3 do artigo 88.o do Tratado CE. Por carta de 28 de Fevereiro de 2002, a Comissão solicitou informações suplementares, que foram fornecidas pelas autoridades britânicas por carta de 26 de Abril de 2002, registada em 30 de Abril de 2002. As autoridades britânicas apresentaram novos elementos e argumentos relativos à notificação, por carta de 13 de Maio de 2002. Em 24 de Maio de 2002, realizou-se uma reunião entre as autoridades britânicas e a Comissão, seguida de um novo pedido de informações, por carta de 4 de Julho de 2002, e de uma reunião com um membro da representação permanente do Reino Unido, em 29 de Agosto de 2002. As autoridades britânicas responderam, por carta de 13 de Setembro de 2002, registada em 18 de Setembro de 2002. Esta carta levantou novas questões, que conduziu a um novo pedido de informações por parte da Comissão, em 29 de Outubro de 2002, e a outra reunião com um membro da representação permanente do Reino Unido em 14 de Novembro de 2002. As autoridades britânicas enviaram a sua resposta em 3 de Dezembro de 2002, registada na Comissão em 9 de Dezembro de 2002.

2. Descrição da medida

O objectivo deste regime, com um orçamento de 75 milhões de libras esterlinas (115,5 milhões de euros), destina-se a fomentar o desenvolvimento de viveiros de empresas para pequenas e médias empresas do Reino Unido, com vista a proporcionar às PME condições propícias ao seu desenvolvimento durante a fase de arranque. O objectivo do regime é assim conceder empréstimos às empresas que pretendam criar ou desenvolver viveiros de empresas. Estes viveiros beneficiários fornecerão gabinetes administrativos às PME.

As autoridades britânicas alegam que a assistência prestada através destes empréstimos se limitará ao mínimo necessário, de acordo com o avaliado por peritos independentes. Em determinados casos, quando se trata de propriedades públicas, as autoridades britânicas indicaram que poderão recorrer a concursos públicos para conceder o auxílio e limitá-lo ao mínimo necessário. Estes empréstimos serão concedidos desde que o candidato não tenha conseguido obter um financiamento, parcial ou total, nos mercados financeiros privados. A taxa de juro destes empréstimos será fixada em 6 %, valor muito próximo do índice de referência comunitário (6,01 % actualmente). Cobrirão entre 30 % e 50 % dos custos de aquisição dos locais e de construção. Também podem abranger os custos iniciais de comercialização incorridos pelos arrendatários e até 25 % das necessidades totais de capital de exploração do projecto durante a fase inicial.

Os beneficiários dos empréstimos podem ser promotores imobiliários, de empresas especializadas no sector do apoio a empresas ou entidades sem fins lucrativos. Não serão impostas restrições à localização do projecto: as autoridades britânicas solicitaram a possibilidade de conceder estes empréstimos a projectos situados em regiões beneficiárias ou não de assistência, independentemente do mutuante que explora o viveiro de empresas ser uma grande empresa ou uma PME.

As autoridades britânicas não assumiram, assim, a qualquer compromisso específico sobre o montante dos auxílios concedidos no âmbito destes empréstimos. Comprometeram-se apenas a limitar os auxílios ao mínimo necessário para assegurar a continuidade do projecto, segundo a avaliação dos peritos independentes. Além disso, solicitaram a possibilidade de complementar os auxílios concedidos através destes empréstimos com outras fontes de financiamento até alcançar esse limiar mínimo necessário.

Simultaneamente, as autoridades britânicas consideram que esta medida tem como principal objectivo o acesso das PME aos viveiros de empresas beneficiários dos auxílios. Alegam que estes viveiros fornecerão normalmente estes locais aos utilizadores finais à taxa de mercado. A fim de garantir que assim seja, os peritos independentes assegurar-se-ão de que os arrendamentos pagos pelos utilizadores finais estejam de acordo com a taxa de mercado. Qualquer diferença entre a taxa efectivamente paga e os níveis do mercado será considerada um auxílio de minimis, de acordo com o Regulamento (CE) n.o 69/2001 da Comissão.

3. Apreciação da medida

3.1. Existência de auxílio

Os empréstimos concedidos no quadro deste regime terão uma taxa de juro de 6 %, valor muito próximo da taxa de referência comunitária actual para o Reino Unido que é de 6,01 %. No entanto, dado que uma das principais condições para conceder os empréstimos ao abrigo deste regime é que o mutuário não possa obtê-los junto de entidades financeiras privadas, a Comissão considera que os mesmos contêm um elemento de auxílio. Não são fornecidas as garantias normalmente exigidas pelos bancos e se os bancos privados estivessem dispostos a conceder empréstimos a alguns ou à globalidade destes projectos apenas o fariam aplicando uma taxa mais elevada. A Comissão considera que estes empréstimos podem constituir um auxílio aos mutuários, na acepção do n.o 1 do artigo 87.o do Tratado CE.

O mesmo é válido no caso do beneficiário do auxílio ser uma empresa sem fins lucrativos. Contrariamente ao argumento avançado pelas autoridades britânicas, o facto de o mutuário ser uma entidade sem fins lucrativos não é relevante para a aplicação das regras relativas aos auxílios estatais no caso de desenvolver uma actividade económica aberta à concorrência.

Por último, graças a estes empréstimos, os mutuários criarão ou explorarão viveiros de empresas em benefício das PME. Não podemos excluir que a parte do auxílio concedida pelo Estado à criação destes viveiros tenha repercussões nos utilizadores finais, por exemplo sob forma de arrendamentos mais baixos. Por conseguinte, esta medida pode igualmente constituir um auxílio estatal na acepção do n.o 1 do artigo 87.o do Tratado CE para os utilizadores finais dos viveiros de empresas.

3.2. Apreciação do auxílio

No que diz respeito aos utilizadores finais dos viveiros de empresas, as autoridades britânicas comprometeram-se a assegurar que este auxílio aos utilizadores finais é concedido de acordo com o disposto no Regulamento (CE) n.o 69/2001 relativo aos auxílios de minimis.

Quanto aos auxílios às empresas que criam esses viveiros, a Comissão concluiu que não podem beneficiar de isenção com base nas orientações comunitárias relativas aos auxílios estatais com finalidade regional ou no Regulamento (CE) n.o 70/2001 da Comissão, que constituem as duas únicas bases jurídicas possíveis para obter uma isenção deste regime. Em primeiro lugar, estes empréstimos podem abranger uma parte das exigências de capital de exploração durante a fase de arranque, o que pode constituir um auxílio ao funcionamento. Além disso, as autoridades britânicas comprometeram-se a respeitar os limiares em matéria de intensidade de auxílios fixados nas orientações comunitárias relativas aos auxílios estatais com finalidade regional e no Regulamento (CE) n.o 70/2001. Também solicitaram a possibilidade de conceder auxílios a grandes empresas nas regiões não elegíveis. Por último, as normas relativas à cumulação de auxílios não são muito claras.

Uma vez que este auxílio não pode beneficiar de uma isenção no quadro das regras existentes, as autoridades britânicas apresentaram uma justificação para a isenção baseada na comunicação relativa aos auxílios estatais e capital de risco, na qual se indica que "nos casos em que uma transferência efectuada pelo Estado é compatível com as regras dos auxílios estatais, a Comissão considera que uma medida que proporcione um incentivo mínimo a outros operadores económicos para efectuarem essa mesma transferência deverá também ser autorizada, ainda que, de um ponto de vista técnico, esteja envolvido um auxílio a esses operadores."(1). Segundo as autoridades britânicas, uma vez que o auxílio aos utilizadores finais dos viveiros de empresas é uma transferência compatível (o seu nível de auxílio corresponde a um auxílio de minimis), e dado que o incentivo aos mutuários no sentido de proporcionarem estes viveiros é mínimo, o auxílio a estes últimos deveria ser autorizado.

A Comissão aplicou esta disposição da comunicação relativa ao capital de risco ao sector do desenvolvimento imobiliário, num determinado processo. Tratava-se de um auxílio concedido a promotores imobiliários para os incentivar a reabilitar e a proporcionar alojamento social(2). No entanto, afigura-se que a utilização deste raciocínio ao capital de risco fora do âmbito do auxílio estatal pode ter consequências de grande envergadura. Por exemplo, como no caso em apreço, este raciocínio poderia ser utilizado para contornar as regras em vigor sobre auxílios estatais, de acordo com o actualmente estabelecido nos regulamentos de isenção por categoria, enquadramentos e orientações. Também incitaria os Estados-Membros a distribuírem o auxílio com recurso a intermediários, convertendo-os, assim, em beneficiários do mesmo.

Nestas circunstâncias, a Comissão deverá reflectir sobre a oportunidade de confirmar a utilização desta disposição da comunicação relativa aos auxílios estatais e capital de risco fora do seu âmbito específico. Além disso, no caso de se confirmar uma utilização mais ampla desta disposição, importa igualmente definir as condições concretas de aplicação deste princípio, especialmente em áreas que, como a promoção imobiliária, são tão diferentes do capital de risco, e determinar se, no caso em apreço, estão reunidas as condições pertinentes. Neste ponto, a Comissão refere que as autoridades britânicas não apresentaram informações suficientes para demonstrar que o auxílio concedido a um intermediário para fornecer o viveiro de empresas corresponde efectivamente ao mínimo necessário.

4. Conclusões

Tendo em conta o exposto, com base nas informações disponíveis e na avaliação preliminar supra, a Comissão decidiu dar início ao procedimento previsto no n.o 2 do artigo 88.o do Tratado CE. Em conformidade com o artigo 14.o do Regulamento (CE) n.o 659/1999 do Conselho, qualquer auxílio concedido ilegalmente poderá ser objecto de recuperação junto do beneficiário.

CARTA

"The Commission wishes to inform the United Kingdom that, having examined the information supplied by your authorities on the aid referred to above, it has decided to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

1. PROCEDURE

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

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

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

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

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE

2.1. Title and legal basis

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

2.2. Objective of the measure

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

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

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

2.3. Mechanisms for granting the loans

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

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

2.4. Characteristics of the loans

These loans will have the following characteristics:

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

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

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

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

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

2.5. Eligible costs

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

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

- Fixtures and fittings equipement.

- Associated professional fees.

- Initial marketing of development for tenants.

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

2.6. Beneficiaries

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

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

2.7. Scope

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

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

2.8. Intensities

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

2.9. Cumulation

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

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

2.10. Budget and duration

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

3. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURE

According to Article 6 of the Procedural Regulation(4), the decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure shall summarise the relevant issues of fact and law, shall include a preliminary assessment of the Commission as to the aid character of the proposed measure, and shall set out the doubts as to its compatibility with the common market.

3.1. Existence of aid under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty

Under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, 'any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, insofar as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market'.

3.1.1. Aid to the undertakings establishing and operating the incubators

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

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

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

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

3.1.2. Aid to the end-users of the incubators

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

3.2. Assessment of the aid measure

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

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

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

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

- the rules on cumulation remain unclear,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. CONCLUSION

In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, requests the United Kingdom to submit its comments and to provide all such information as may help to assess the aid, within one month of the date of receipt of this letter.

The Commission wishes to remind the United Kingdom that Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty has suspensory effect, and would draw your attention to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, which provides that all unlawful aid may be recovered from the recipient."

(1) Ver ponto V.6 da comunicação relativa aos auxílios estatais e capital de risco (JO C 235 de 21.8.2001, p. 3).

(2) Processo N 497/01, subvenções ao regime de habitação própria.

(3) OJ C 273, 9.9.1997.

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

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

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

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

(8) Idem, point V.6.