WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3983/98 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO Aid to the SNIACE company (Spain)
Date: 1999-01-04
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, European Parliament
Subjects: Austria, Spain, State aid, aid to undertakings, complaint to the Commission, control of State aid, interest, regional aid, restriction on competition, social-security contribution













EUR-Lex - 91998E3983 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E3983

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3983/98 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO Aid to the SNIACE company (Spain)  


Official Journal C 341 , 29/11/1999 P. 0024 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-3983/98by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission(4 January 1999)Subject: Aid to the Sniace company (Spain)Can the Commission confirm that it has received a complaint from the Austrian undertaking, Lenzing, alleging that the Sniace company of Cantabria, Spain, has been the beneficiary of central and regional government aid?Has it received the statements from the central and regional governments in Spain, denying that any aid which might lead to unfair competition has been granted?Is it aware that some of the products manufactured by Lenzing and Sniace compete for the same market?Is it aware of the potential damage that this complaint may cause to Sniace's financial and social standing?Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission(12 February 1999)Following a complaint made by Austrian firm Lenzing A.G. about various forms of illegal state aid received over a period of several years by Sniace S.A., a competitor of Lenzing in the area of viscose fibres, and taking into account the comments made by the Spanish authorities and a number of third parties, including other competitors of Lenzing, during a formal investigation under Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty, the Commission adopted a final partially negative decision on 28 October 1998.According to the Decision, two of the measures under investigation did constitute aid, namely agreements to defer social security contributions at non-market interest rates and a repayment agreement with the wage guarantee fund, Fogasa, also at non-market interest rates. In line with its practice in previous cases, the Commission rejected the Spanish government's assertion that the measures in question fell outside the scope of the state aid rules on the grounds that they were generally applicable under Spanish law. The Commission held that it was evident that the public authorities were able to exercise discretionary treatment towards the firm in question. Since the aid was not based on any approved scheme and Spain had not attempted to justify the aid on the basis of a valid restructuring plan, the Commission decided that the aid was incompatible with the common market and ordered its recovery. The decision did not quantify the amount of aid but stated that it was at least equivalent to the difference between the interest rates granted in the agreements with the social security treasury and Fogasa and the market rates.The Commission was unable to establish the existence of aid in any of the other measures under examination, but reserved its position on the question of whether the firm's failure to pay statutory environmental levies might constitute aid.The Commission is mindful of the potential consequences of its decisions on aid beneficiaries and competitors and therefore endeavours to apply the state aid rules in an objective and impartial manner.