1999/592/ECSC: Commission Decision of 9 December 1998 on State aid which Germany is planning to implement in favour of MCR Gesellschaft für metallurgisches Recycling mbH, Eberswalde (Brandenburg) (notified under document number C(1998) 4277) (Text with EEA relevance) (Only the German text is authentic)
Date: 1998-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, State aid, aid to industry, environmental protection, environmental standard, iron and steel industry

L 224/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25. 8. 1999

COMMISSION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 9 December 1998

on State aid which Germany is planning to implement in favour of MCR Gesellschaft für metallur-
gisches Recycling mbH, Eberswalde (Brandenburg)

(notified under document number C(1998) 4277)

(Only the German text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(1999/592/ECSC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and
Steel Community, and in particular Article 4(c) thereof,

Having regard to Commission Decision No 2496/96/ECSC of
18 December 1996 establishing Community rules for State aid
industry (1), and in particular Article 3 thereof,
to the steel

Having called on interested parties to submit their comments
pursuant
to those provisions and having regard to their
comments,

Whereas:

I. PROCEDURE

By letter dated 29 April 1997 Germany notified the Commis-
sion of a proposal to grant environmental aid to the company
MCR Gesellschaft für metallurgisches Recycling mbH, herein-
after referred to as MCR. The proposal was notified pursuant to
Article 6 of Decision No 2496/96/ECSC of 18 December 1996
establishing Community rules for State aid to the steel industry,
hereinafter referred to as the Steel Aid Code.

The Commission asked for further information by letters dated
22 May 1997, 11 July 1997 and 1 October 1997. Germany
furnished the Commission with supplementary information by
letters dated 20 June 1997, 24 September 1997 and 23
October 1997.

By letter dated 19 January 1998 the Commission informed
Germany of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in
Article 6(5) of the Steel Aid Code in respect of the proposal to
grant environmental aid.

In addition the Commission issued a suspension order pursuant
to the second subparagraph of Article 6(4) of the Steel Aid
Code concerning the payment of a regional
investment aid
which was approved in 1994.

(N 671/94).

In December 1994 the Commission had approved regional
investment aid to the same project
It did so
pursuant to Articles 1 and 5 of Commission Decision No
3855/91/ECSC of 27 November 1991 establishing Community
rules for aid to the steel industry (2), (hereinafter referred to as
the ‘1991 Steel Aid Code’). According to the second subpara-
graph of Article 1(3) the deadline for payments of this type of
aid falling under Article 5 was 31 December 1994.

The Commission Decision to initiate the procedure was
published in the Official Journal of the European Communities (3).
The Commission called on interested parties to submit their
comments.

The Commission received comments from interested parties. It
forwarded them to Germany, which was given the opportunity
to react, its comments being received by letter dated 7 July
1998.

Germany furnished additional information by letters dated 27
February 1998, 12 June 1998, 21 August 1998, 18 September
1998, 27 October 1998, 4 November 1998, 11 November
1998 and 12 November 1998.

II. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID

The aid is to be granted for a new plant which can recycle old
from metal parts. Germany
motor vehicles and residues
claimed the emissions produced by the MCR process improved
on existing environmental standards.

(1) OJ L 338, 28.12.1996, p. 42.

(2) OJ L 362, 31.12.1991, p. 57.
(3) OJ C 114, 14.4.1998, p. 8.

25. 8. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 224/11

The notification concerned a proposal to grant environmental
aid in the form of an interest subsidy attached to two loans to
MCR. One loan of DEM 65 million was to be granted via the
ERP-Umweltkredit programme at an interest rate of 4,75 %
fixed for 10 years; the duration of the loan is 20 years, with no
repayments of principal being demanded in the first five years.
Another loan of DEM 32 million was to be granted via the
DtA-Umweltkredit programme. The interest rate was to be
fixed for 10 years at 5,93 % and the loan maturity was 20
years with a three-year grace period. Both loans were to be
covered to the extent of 80 % by a deficiency guarantee
provided by the Land.

Finally, the Commission had serious doubts whether the invest-
ment subsidy approved in 1994 was still compatible with the
common market, because the (new) Steel Aid Code, contrary to
the 1991 Steel Aid Code, does not provide a legal basis for
regional
investment aid in (the eastern part of) Germany. It
appeared that the regional aid had not been paid before 31
December 1994 and that it was likely to be paid immediately
following a request by MCR. The Commission therefore
ordered a suspension of the disbursement until it had adopted
a final decision regarding this investment subsidy.

During the procedure Germany changed its proposal to grant
aid. As regards the loan of DEM 65 million, the effective
interest rate has been reduced to 3,80 %. For the loan of 32
million, Germany has undertaken not to grant the loan at an
interest rate below the five- to 10-year reference rate applicable
at the time the loan is granted. Furthermore, the guarantee will
cover 80 % of
to a maximum of
amounting
DEM 67 976 000, which is the total amount eligible for aid.
Contrary to what was stated at the time of the opening of the
procedure, MCR will pay a premium for the guarantee. The
guarantee will be provided under
the Federal Guarantee
Programme in favour of Private Enterprises, which was
approved by Commission Decision in cases N 81/93 and
N 297/91. The fee is 0,5 % p.a. of the sum loaned, together
with a one-off application fee of DEM 25 000.

loans

the
In opening the procedure the Commission stated that
interest subsidy attached to the two loans constituted State aid
corresponding to the difference between the interest rate on the
loans and the long-term reference rate of 6,15 % (on 1
November 1998 this reference rate was reduced to 5,41 %).
Furthermore, the guarantee was considered to entail a State aid
element.

The Commission opened the procedure because the informa-
tion provided at the time did not enable a distinction to be
drawn between the investment cost necessitated by the envir-
onmental protection and the basic investment. In addition, it
was not possible to examine the proportionality of the State
aid — that is, to examine the level of aid in relation to the
environmental improvement that is achieved and the invest-
ment necessary for achieving the improvement.

Furthermore, Germany claimed that the new production facility
could achieve energy savings of some 50 %. However, the
advantage resulting from these savings was not taken into
account when assessing the eligible costs.

Also, the Commission questioned whether the project would
lead to a significant improvement on mandatory environmental
standards. This was reinforced by the fact that the same project
was considered in 1994 under Article 5 of the 1991 Steel Aid
Code dealing with State aid for investment.

III. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES

The Commission received comments from four interested
parties. Usinor, Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH and Neue Maxhütte
Stahlwerke GmbH directly encouraged the Commission to take
a negative decision, while Federec Metal
to a large extent
expressed its disbelief regarding the expected environmental
benefits.

In the comments it was contested that the cost necessitated by
the environmental protection measures would amount
to
DEM 97 million. Furthermore, reference was made to attempts
to recycle such scrap which had previously proved unsuccessful
in the steel sector. It was also stated that MCR would be unable
to produce semi-finished steel.

It was argued that the project was uneconomic and therefore
not eligible for aid. Reference was made to a study by Roland
Berger, who in 1994 concluded that a recycling project would
not be viable. It was further argued that, although in 1994 the
MCR process might still have appeared viable, it was now no
longer viable owing to scrap price trends, quality problems
with semi-finished goods and prices for the disposal of plastic
waste. On this basis, it was claimed that the State would have
to intervene as a guarantor and competition would be distorted
in the long term. Furthermore, it was stated that the investment
grant of DEM 24 million would be sufficient on its own to
upgrade an existing plant in order to achieve emission values
which would meet
the 17. BundesImmissionsschutzVerord-
nung (17th Federal Order concerning Protection against Emis-
sion — 17.BImSchV).

It was also stated that it was doubtful whether the MCR process
would be environmentally friendly, since it would discharge
huge amounts of gas, which should also be treated in accord-
ance with the environmental legislation. Furthermore, it was
argued that
the environmental effects should be measured
against what could be expected to be mandatory standards in
the future. In fact it would be appropriate to compare the
effects with the standards applied in France through the
‘Accord Cadre sur le traitement des Véhicules Hors d'Usage’
(Framework agreement on the processing of
end-of-life
vehicles).

Finally, it was stressed that the 1991 Steel Aid Code had to be
adhered to and, therefore, the regional investment aid approved
in 1994 should not be paid to MCR.

L 224/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25. 8. 1999

IV. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY

As regards the environmental nature of the project, Germany
states that the MCR process will result in emissions which are
significantly below the applicable mandatory standards. The
standard applying to MCR as a steel plant is the fourth Bundes-
immissionsschutzverordnung, hereinafter referred to as the 4.
BImSchV, and not the 17th BImSchV, as was stated at the time
of the opening of the procedure. The latter applies to inciner-
ator plants. The difference between emissions by MCR and the
levels set out in the fourth BImSchV is displayed in the table
below.

Difference between emissions by MCR and the levels set out in
the fourth BImSchV

Chemical
compound

Fourth BImSchV or
technical instruction air

Emissions from MCR

(mg)

SO

2

HF

HCl

NO2

Cd, Ti

Hg

Sb, As, Pb, Cr, Co,
Cu, Mn, Ni, V, Sn

Total mass of dust

500

5

30

500

0,2

0,2

5,0

20

20

0,5

3

0,09

< 0,05

< 0,05

< 0,05

7

According to Germany the 17th BImSchV is the strictest
standard in Europe and the MCR process produces emissions
20 to 60 % lower than levels in that order.

Apart from the low emission levels the recycling process is in
itself favourable to the environment since it is a comprehensive
process for the complete and environmentally sound disposal
of scrap metal from motor vehicles and other types of problem
scrap material.

At present, motor vehicles that are to be stripped down and
used as scrap for electric arc furnaces are fed into a shredder.
At the end of the shredding process parts of the vehicle such as
the engine, tyres, etc. are removed but waste arises in the form
of organic material (plastics, paints, etc.) which had originally

the vehicles. According to Germany some
been part of
600 000 tonnes of these highly toxic waste products have to
be dumped each year.

In the MCR plant, through the physical processing of specific
types of heavily polluted scrap metal which cannot be further
processed using existing procedures, and through treatment
involving a high-temperature smelting process, secondary raw
materials such as zinc and lead are recycled. After the removal
of liquids and certain parts of the vehicle, the remainder is
pressed into bundles and then fed into the smelter. The organic
material still present in the bundles is transformed, via carbon-
isation, into coke and serves as a highly concentrated energy
carrier. As the energy is being released in the heart of the
less external energy is required for the smelting
smelter,
process, resulting in the claimed energy savings of up to 50 %.

The MCR process has the following advantages over existing
disposal/recycling processes:
— a reduction in the use of primary energy (by up to 50 %),
— emission levels that are well below legal standards, and
— avoidance of waste comprising light plastic shredding res-

idues, some of which are highly toxic.

To underline the environmental benefits of the project, atten-
tion is drawn to the fact that the process developed by MCR in
itself achieves an objective of environmental policy within the
European Union. It is known that highly toxic substances can
contaminate soil and groundwater and shredder waste is
classed under international, Community and Member State
waste legislation as hazardous (see the proposal for a Council
Directive on end-of-life vehicles of 9 July 1997 (1), one of the
priorities of which is to develop strategies and measures to
prevent such waste.) The Basle Convention on the Control of
Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their
Disposal also classes light plastic shredding residues as haz-
ardous.

Germany also states that the process reduces the quantity of
flue gas to a minimum. This is achieved by avoiding feeding
the process with additional air and by avoiding the use of air to
cool the flue gas. In contrast to other technologies, MCR will
operate a closed system for its flue gas. The gas is treated in a
multi-stage cleansing process which involves consecutive
phases of purification. As a result, the emissions of flue gas and
its components are as much as 90 % lower than those asso-
ciated with comparable processes.

Regarding the proposal to grant subsidised loans, Germany
argues that the period for which the interest rate on a loan is
fixed is the economically relevant criterion for determining the
interest rate rather than the loan's maturity. For the loans
amounting to DEM 65 million and DEM 32 million, the loan
interest rate is fixed for only 10 years, even though the
maturity is 20 years. If the loan continues beyond the 10-year
period, the loan conditions must be renegotiated. The borrower
has the right simply to terminate the lending relationship after
10 years. Otherwise, the interest rate will be adjusted to the
current market rate. The five- to 10-year reference rate should
therefore be used instead of the longer-term reference rate
when assessing the aid element.

Contrary to what was stated at the time of the opening of the
procedure, Germany indicated that a guarantee fee of 0,5 % p.a.
of
application fee of
DEM 25 000 are paid for the 80 % performance guarantee.

sum loaned and a one-off

the

(1) OJ C 337, 7.11.1997, p. 3.

25. 8. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 224/13

As was requested at the time of the opening of the procedure,
Germany has produced a precise breakdown of the investment
costs necessitated by the achievement of the environmental
improvement and the cost of a new plant meeting the statutory
environmental standards with the same capacity. The difference
in cost is claimed to be DEM 69 810 000, as follows:

Cost
of investment

Electric
steel plant
(Values in DEM)

MCR plant
(Values in DEM)

Additional cost
for MCR
(in DEM)

of

Cost
and buildings

land

18 590 000

22 700 000

4 110 000

Cost of plant
and equipment

41 700 000

107 400 000

65 700 000

Total cost

60 290 000

130 100 000

69 810 000

At the opening of the procedure, the Commission pointed out
that lower production costs, such as energy costs, would have
to be deducted from the eligible cost. Germany now states that
it is realistic to assume that the yearly energy savings will
amount to DEM 500 000 to 600 000. The plant will, on the
other hand, require higher production costs of approximately
DEM 300 000 to 350 000 for maintenance and operation
because the process is more complex than in a traditional
plant. Based on a 10-year period, the current value of the
overall savings in production costs is put at DEM 1 834 000.
Consequently, the amount eligible for environmental aid is
DEM 67 976 000.

It was agreed that

the account was not subject

Germany takes the view that MCR received the investment
grant approved in Case N 671/94 before 31 December 1994.
MCR was informed by letter dated 27 December 1994 that an
investment grant of DEM 24 092 500 had been awarded.
According to the Investment Bank of the Land of Brandenburg,
the amount was credited to MCR's account on 30 December
to
1994.
termination by either party. MCR can have payments made out
of the funds paid into the account provided it can demonstrate
that
the organisation
providing the grant can no longer exercise control over the
take-up of funds. This means that the organisation providing
the grant no longer has access to the funds, which have been
paid into the account in the name of MCR. Germany accord-
ingly considers it inappropriate to investigate the investment
grant as part of the current proceedings under Article 6(5) of
the Steel Aid Code.

taken place, whilst

investment has

not create (primary) energy savings and will not exclude the
production of dangerous organic shredder waste, the disposal
or dumping of which still poses considerable problems for the
local authorities responsible. The Clausthal-Zellerfeld technical
university has produced an independent study which concludes
that the MCR process represents an intelligent solution to the
problem, and simultaneously provides a method for treating
materials of this type, which has hitherto been lacking. Further-
more, Germany stressed once more that the MCR process also
results in a significant reduction in the levels of flue gas emis-
sion.

It is correct that the process is not in itself intended to produce
steel, but rather primarily fulfils a disposal function which
results in the recovery and recycling of the constituent ma-
terials, thereby saving resources. A side-benefit of this process
is that it does not generate the harmful waste products asso-
ciated with the shredding process. Because the MCR process
involves smelting the recovered material and then subjecting it
to further processing, a viable product is obtained, comparable
in quality to that of a standard electric steel plant, and one
which is perfectly suitable for use in further manufacturing
processes, such as in a rolling mill. The quality produced is
Baustahlqualität St 37.

The Roland Berger study quoted by Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke
GmbH did not, as that undertaking maintains, come to the
conclusion that the metallurgical recycling process is funda-
mentally uneconomic, but rather that the parameters and the
technical configuration that had been laid down for the project
planned by them were unrealistic. Furthermore,
the MCR
process is not comparable with the approach assessed for Neue
Maxhütte Stahlwerke.

Germany argues that the statement regarding the lack of viab-
ility of MCR is invalid because it is based on false assumptions.
In contrast to an electric furnace production line, the MCR
process does not use any shredder waste (the price for which is
currently over DEM 200 per tonne) and there are no disposal
costs associated with this MCR process. The annual tonnage of
scrap used by MCR amounts to no more than 90 000 tonnes
of car-body scrap and other types of problem scrap. The car-
body scrap is procured almost exclusively from local suppliers
and does not therefore affect conditions of supply in southern
Germany. The MCR business plan was reviewed by Price
Waterhouse, which concluded that the investment in question
is an economically viable project, and, moreover, is a process
that sets significant new standards in environmental protection
including new standards for the treatment of ecologically
damaging materials. This is an objective which is in line with
that enshrined in the proposal for a European Union Directive
on scrapped automobiles.

In the reply from Germany to the comments from third parties
it is stated that, since Germany has already reduced the eligible
amount, the argument that DEM 97 million is too high is no
longer valid. Furthermore,
it is stressed that the project has
positive effects on the environment. The emissions from MCR
will be significantly below mandatory standards, moreover, and
they will be 20 to 60 % below those set out in the 17th
BImSchV. Furthermore, a comparable conventional plant will

Germany points out that the Aicher group, to which Neue
Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH and Lech Stahlwerke GmbH
belong, has stakes in both a waste incineration facility and an
underground waste dump, to which the supply of organic
shredder waste would decline if other methods of disposal were
introduced.

L 224/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25. 8. 1999

V. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID

As MCR is engaged in the production of a product which is
mentioned in Annex I to the ECSC Treaty, the notified State aid
has to be examined in the light of that Treaty. Article 4(c) of
the ECSC Treaty explicitly prohibits State aid. However, the
Steel Aid Code derogates from Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty.

One purpose of the Steel Aid Code is to ensure that the steel
industry and other industries have equal access to aid for
environmental protection. Article 3 of
the Steel Aid Code
stipulates that State aid for environmental protection may be
deemed compatible with the common market if it is in compli-
ance with the rules laid down in the Community guidelines on
State aid for environmental protection (1), and in conformity
with the criteria for their application to the ECSC steel industry
outlined in the Annex to the Steel Aid Code.

Point 3.2.1 of the environmental aid guidelines authorises, in
principle, aid for investment
in land, buildings, plant and
equipment intended to reduce or eliminate pollution in order
to protect the environment within the limits laid down in the
guidelines. The eligible costs must be strictly confined to the
extra investment costs necessary to meet environmental object-
ives and general investment costs not attributable to environ-
mental protection are excluded. In particular, in the case of
new or replacement plants, the cost of the basic investment
involved merely to create or
replace production capacity
without improving environmental performance is not eligible.

According to point 3.2.3 B of the environmental aid guidelines,
State aid for investment which allows significantly higher levels
of environmental protection to be attained than those required
by mandatory standards may be authorised up to a maximum
of 30 % gross of the eligible costs. The level of aid actually
granted for exceeding standards must be in proportion to the
improvement of the environmental protection that is achieved,
and to the investment necessary for achieving the improve-
ment.

The Annex to the Steel Aid Code imposes strict conditions and
safeguards to avoid general investment aid for new plants or
equipment being granted under cover of environmental protec-
tion. Where aid is granted to encourage firms to contribute to
significantly improved environmental protection regarding an
investment which is not
the
investor will have to demonstrate that a clear decision was
taken to opt for higher standards which necessitated additional
investment — that is to say, that a lower cost solution existed.
Any advantage in terms of lower production costs from these
significant improvements has to be deducted from the costs
that are eligible for the aid described in point 3.2.3 B of the
environmental aid guidelines.

replacing an existing plant,

Initially, Germany claimed that, out of the total investment of
DEM 130,1 million, DEM 97 million could be considered
necessary to improve significantly on mandatory environ-
mental standards. No distinction was made between investment
costs which were necessitated by the achievement of the envir-

(1) OJ C 72, 10.3.1994, p. 3.

improvement and the basic investment. However,
onmental
during the proceedings Germany has provided a detailed
comparison of the cost of an MCR plant exceeding mandatory
standards and a lower-cost solution with a comparable capacity
which meets the mandatory standards, the cost of the basic
investment involved merely to create or replace production
capacity without improving environmental performance being
ineligible for aid. In addition, by the identification of a lower-
cost solution, it has been demonstrated that a clear decision
was taken to opt for higher standards which necessitated addi-
tional investment. Furthermore, the Commission has assessed
the overall savings in production cost resulting from the signi-
ficant improvements, and the savings have, as required by the
Steel Aid Code, been deducted from the eligible cost. Finally,
the claim by interested parties that the project is unviable does
not appear to the Commission to be convincing, as it is mani-
festly based on inaccurate information. Therefore, on the basis
of the information provided by Germany, the Commission is
satisfied that the amount of DEM 67 976 000 is eligible for
environmental aid.

At the opening of the procedure the Commission questioned
whether the project would lead to a significant improvement
on mandatory environmental standards. It has been resolved
that the applicable mandatory standards for MCR as a steel
plant are the fourth BImSchV. The emissions from MCR will be
well below the mandatory standards, and they will be signi-
ficantly (20 to 60 %) below the far stricter standards for incin-
erator plants set out in the 17th BImSchV. The Commission
must assess the MCR process in relation to the mandatory
standards and is not in a position, as was suggested by an
interested party, to assess the project against what might be the
future mandatory standards.
the Commission
acknowledges the importance of the recycling of toxic waste by
MCR. On this basis the Commission is satisfied that the project
is eligible for environmental aid.

In addition,

When assessing the aid element
the Commission initially
compared the interest rates on the 20-year loans with the
long-term reference rate. However, it accepts Germany's argu-
ment that the five-year reference rate covering loans running
for five to 10 years should be applied in this case because the
interest rate is fixed for only 10 years.

As regards the loan of DEM 65 million, based on the differ-
ence between the interest rate of 3,80 % and the reference rate
of 4,87 % the interest subsidy has an aid intensity of 7,85 %
which amounts to an aid intensity of 7,5 % when calculated on
the basis of the whole eligible amount. The assessment is based
on the condition that, if the DEM 65 million loan is renego-
tiated after 10 years,
it will be granted at a market-related
interest rate. Since Germany has agreed to grant the loan of
DEM 32 million on the basis of the five-year reference rate
applicable at the time the loan is granted, the Commission
considers that this loan does not constitute aid. The Commis-
sion considers the guarantee covering 80 % of a maximum of
DEM 67 976 000 to have an aid intensity of 0,5 %. The overall
aid intensity for the environmental aid is therefore 8,0 %,

25. 8. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 224/15

which is below the 30 % ceiling laid down in the environ-
mental guidelines. In view of the significant improvement on
the mandatory standards, the Commission concludes that the
level of aid being granted is in proportion to the improvement
of environmental protection and to the investment necessary
for achieving that improvement.

On the basis of the information provided by Germany that the
investment grant authorised under the 1991 Steel Aid Code
was credited to an account
in the name of MCR on 30
December 1994 and of the information that the organisation
providing the grant no longer has access to the funds, the
Commission considers that the grant was paid to MCR before
the 31 December 1994 deadline. Since the aid was paid in
accordance with the 1991 Steel Aid Code, the Commission
ought to lift the suspension of payment ordered under Article
6(4) of the Steel Aid Code.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the above the Commission concludes that the
loan of DEM 65 000 000 and the guarantee covering 80 % of
loans amounting to a maximum of DEM 67 976 000 for an
investment
improving significantly on mandatory environ-
mental standards can be authorised under Article 3 of the Steel
Aid Code. Furthermore,
the loan of DEM 32 000 000 is
considered not to constitute State aid. In addition, the Commis-
sion is lifting the order suspending the regional investment aid
of DEM 24 092 500. The Commission will, however, request
Germany to inform it of the renegotiated conditions of the
loan of DEM 65 000 000 if the loan is not terminated after 10
years,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The environmental aid which Germany is planning to imple-
ment in favour of MCR Gesellschaft für metallurgisches Re-
cycling mbH, Eberswalde in the form of an interest-subsidised
loan of DEM 65 000 000 and a guarantee covering 80 % of a
maximum of DEM 67 976 000 is
compatible with the
common market for coal and steel.

Article 2

The order
Commission Decision N 671/94 is hereby lifted.

suspending the investment aid authorised by

Article 3

Germany shall
inform the Commission of the renegotiated
conditions of the loan of DEM 65 000 000 if the loan is not
terminated after 10 years.

This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.

Article 4

Done at Brussels, 9 December 1998.

For the Commission

Karel VAN MIERT

Member of the Commission