98/541/EC: Commission Decision of 18 November 1997 on aid which Belgium (Wallonia) plans to grant in the form of a premium for growing winter rape for non-food purposes [notified under document number C(1997) 3697] (Only the French and Dutch texts are authentic) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 1997-11-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Walloon region (Belgium), agricultural guidance, aid to agriculture, application of EU law, control of State aid, oil seed rape

L 254/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16. 9. 98

II

(Acts whose publication is not obligatory)

COMMISSION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 18 November 1997

on aid which Belgium (Wallonia) plans to grant in the form of a premium for
growing winter rape for non-food purposes

(notified under document number C(1997) 3697)

(Only the French and Dutch texts are authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(98/541/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of
Article 93(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of
22 September 1966 on the common organisation of the
market in oils and fats (1), as last amended by Regulation
(EC) No 1581/96 (2), and in particular Article 33 thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92
of 30 June 1992 establishing a support system for produ-
cers of certain arable crops (3), as last amended by Regula-
tion (EC) No 1422/97 (4),

Having,
in accordance with the first subparagraph of
Article 93(2) of the Treaty, given notice to the parties
concerned to submit their comments,

Whereas:

of the Treaty, of the proposed aid measure referred to
above.

By letter SG(95) D/3326 of 20 March 1995, the Commis-
sion initiated against the abovementioned draft scheme
the procedure provided for in Article 93(2) of the Treaty
and gave notice to the Belgian Government to submit its
comments and,
in a communication published in the
Official Journal of the European Communities (5), gave
notice to the other Member States and other interested
parties to submit their comments.

No comments were submitted by the Belgian authorities
or by any interested parties.

In the absence of any comments, in particular by the
Belgian authorities, the doubts as to whether the scheme
is compatible with the Treaty remain, for the reasons set
out below.

I

II

By letter of 5 December 1994, recorded as received on 7
December 1994, the Belgian Permanent Representation
notified the Commission, in accordance with Article 93(3)

(1) OJ 172, 30. 9. 1966, p. 3025/66.
(2) OJ L 206, 16. 8. 1996, p. 11.
(3) OJ L 181, 1. 7. 1992, p. 12.
(4) OJ L 196, 24. 7. 1997, p. 18.

The scheme against which the Commission initiated the
procedure provided for in Article 93(2) of the Treaty
consists of a premium for the production of winter rape
for non-food purposes. The premium is worth BEF 2 000
(about ECU 50) per hectare of winter rape grown for

(5) OJ C 142, 14. 5. 1996, p. 4.

16. 9. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 254/25

non-food purposes on fallow land receiving aid under a
set-aside scheme in accordance with Community and
national legislation.

No 1765/92 nor Regulation (EEC) No 334/93 allow
Member States to grant aid in addition to the Community
compensation for set-aside land used for growing prod-
ucts for non-food purposes.

The premium is payable in respect of one hectare or
more, up to a limit of 20 hectares per farmer. The re-
cipient must:

(cid:190) conclude a cultivation contract in accordance with
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 334/93 (1), as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 2991/95 (2), laying
down detailed implementing rules for the use of land
set aside for the provision of materials for the manu-
facture within the Community of products not
primarily intended for human or animal consump-
tion,

(cid:190) comply with the methods of production (use of ferti-
lisers and plant-protection products) described in
detail in the ‘Environment Charter' for winter rape
grown for non-food purposes.

III

In its letter of
account of the following:

formal notice the Commission took

The Belgian authorities state that the purpose of the
scheme is to find new outlets and diversify farm produc-
tion. They also claim that the measure is designed to
further environmental protection by adjusting production
methods in accordance with the Environment Charter.

After scrutinising the draft scheme the Commission has
concluded that, since it is payable per surface area unit,
the aid has no lasting effect on the development of the
sector and is therefore to be regarded as operating aid
incompatible with the common market. The Commis-
sion’s confirmed view is that a direct effect of this scheme
is to improve the possibilities of production and disposal
of the products by the operators concerned compared
with other operators (in Belgium or in other Member
States) who do not receive aid of a comparable nature.

The national aid is awarded in order to encourage the
production of a crop that is governed by the rules of a
common organisation of the market. According to con-
sistent case-law of the Court of Justice of the European
those rules are to be regarded as a
Communities,
complete and exhaustive system that precludes Member
States from introducing measures that derogate from
them or bring them into question. The aid does not,
therefore, qualify for any of the exemptions provided for
in Article 92(3) of the Treaty.

On the point that the aid is to be granted in the context
of the Community provisions of the common agricultural
policy, it should be noted that neither Regulation (EEC)

Since the aid is granted for crops grown on land governed
by the system provided for in Regulation (EEC) No 1765/
92, it is contrary to the provisions of that Regulation,
under which an intervention system is to stabilise agricul-
tural markets in the context of the common organisation
concerned (see Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1765/
92).

Accordingly, any intervention by the State in the field
governed by Regulation (EEC) No 1765/92 would be
tantamount
to State interference in a ‘complete and
exhaustive system' which, the Court of Justice has repeat-
edly confirmed, falls solely within the competence of the
Community.

the Belgian authorities to
Regarding the intention of
improve
environmental protection the Commission
would point out that Article 7(3) of Regulation (EEC) No
1765/92 applies to land set aside. Under that provision,
Member States are to apply to the land in question envir-
onmental safeguard measures that take into account the
characteristics of the land taken out of production. The
application of production methods that are compatible
with environmental protection requirements are thus to
be regarded as the fulfilment of an obligation that is
already applicable under Community legislation.

Moreover, in the case of set-aside land used for growing
products for non-food purposes, Article 10 of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2078/92 (3), as last amended by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2772/95 (4), precludes
the implementation of national aid measures in addition
to those provided for in the Regulation (which themselves
may not be granted for environmental programmes for
growing products for non-food purposes on land set
aside).

scheme should therefore be
The proposed national
regarded as incompatible with Article 10 of Regulation
(EEC) No 2078/92.

IV

By virtue of Article 33 of Regulation No 136/66/EEC,
Articles 92, 93 and 94 of the Treaty are, subject to any
provisions of that Regulation to the contrary, applicable
to the production and marketing of the products referred
to in Article 1.

(1) OJ L 38, 16. 2. 1993, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 312, 23. 12. 1995, p. 9.

(3) OJ L 215, 30. 7. 1992, p. 85.
(4) OJ L 288, 1. 12. 1995, p. 35.

L 254/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

16. 9. 98

They accordingly apply also to winter rape.

Pursuant Article 92(1) of the Treaty any aid granted by a
Member State or through State resources in any form
whatsoever which distorts or
to distort
competition by favouring certain undertakings or the
production of certain goods is, in so far as it affects trade
between Member States, incompatible with the common
market.

threatens

The measures in question constitute aid granted within
the meaning of Article 92(1) of the Treaty.

They improve the economic situation of recipient under-
takings in relation to competitors who do not receive
such assistance. Accordingly, they distort or threaten to
distort competition in the manner referred to above.

Taking into account, on the one hand, the volume of rape
trade (1995: exports from Belgium (including Luxem-
bourg) to the other Member States: ECU 7,81 million;
imports into Belgium (including Luxembourg) from the
other Member States: ECU 71,37 millions (1)) and, on the
other hand, Belgium’s production (18 900 tonnes)
compared with that of the other Member States (8,05
million tonnes) (2),
trade
between Member States since it favours domestic produc-
tion at the expense of imports from the other Member
States.

likely to affect

the aid is

In this connection it should be emphasised that even aid
that is relatively small, or the relatively modest size of the
recipient undertaking does not a priori rule out the poss-
ibility of trade between Member States being affected.

In the light of the above the aid in question is State aid
that fulfils the criteria under Article 92(1) of the Treaty.

In particular, an exception is allowed only where the
Commission is able to establish that the aid is necessary
to achieve one of the objectives concerned. To grant the
benefit of such derogations to aid which is not necessary
for that purpose would be tantamount to allowing adverse
effects on trade between Member States and distortions of
competition that are without justification in terms of the
Community interest and, by the same token, to allowing
operators from certain Member States to enjoy unwar-
ranted advantages.

In the case at hand the scheme does not contribute to
attaining the objective in question. The Belgian Govern-
ment has not provided, nor has the Commission found,
any justification to the effect that the scheme fulfils the
requirements for applying one of the exceptions provided
for in Article 92(3).

It is not a scheme intended to promote the execution of
an important project of common European interest
within the meaning of Article 92(3)(b) since, by virtue of
its possible impact on trade, the scheme is contrary to the
common interest.

Nor is it, within the meaning of that provision, intended
to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of the
Member State concerned.

Nor has the scheme been notified as a regional aid
pursuant to Article 92(3)(a) of the Treaty.

The Commission may regard aid intended to facilitate the
development of certain economic activities or of certain
economic regions as compatible with the common
market pursuant to Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty if the aid:

There are, however, exceptions to the principle of incom-
patibility set out in Article 92(1) of the Treaty.

(cid:190) does not adversely affect

trading conditions to an

extent contrary to the common interest

V

The Article 92(2) exceptions
incompatibility
evidently do not apply in this case, nor have they been
invoked by the Belgian authorities.

to that

A strict interpretation must be applied to the exceptions
provided for in Article 92(3) of the Treaty when scru-
tinising any regional or sectoral scheme or any individual
case in which a general aid scheme is being applied.

(1) Comext 2.
(2) Eurostat.

and

(cid:190) facilitates the development of certain economic activ-
ities or certain regions by promoting the disposal of
production that is specific to them.

By definition, being aid of the type described in Article
92(1), it distorts or threatens to distort competition but, by
virtue of Article 92(3)(c), it is automatically incompatible
only if it does so in a manner that is contrary to the
common interest.

In view of the infringements noted in III, granting the aid
in question does not
in any way serve the common
interest.

16. 9. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 254/27

Consequently the Commission notes that the measure
does not qualify for the exemptions provided for in
Article 92(3)(a) and (c) in the case of aid designed to
promote or
facilitate the economic development of
regions or of certain activities referred to at (c).

The aid cannot, therefore, qualify for any of the exemp-
tions provided for in Article 92 of the Treaty and is
therefore to be regarded as
incompatible with the
common market. It may not, therefore, be granted,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The aid provided for in Article 2 of the draft Order of the
Government of the Region of Wallonia on the granting of
a premium for growing winter rape for non-food purposes

is incompatible with the common market pursuant to 92
of the EC Treaty and may not be granted.

Article 2

The Belgian Government shall, within two months of
being notified of this Decision, inform the Commission
of the measures it has taken to comply with it.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.

Done at Brussels, 18 November 1997.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission