1999/705/EC: Commission Decision of 20 July 1999 on the state aid implemented by the Netherlands for 633 Dutch service stations located near the German border (notified under document number C(1999) 2539) (Text with EEA relevance) (Only the Dutch version is authentic)
Date: 1999-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, Netherlands, State aid, distributive trades, frontier region, petrol

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/87

II

(Acts whose publication is not obligatory)

COMMISSION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 20 July 1999

on the state aid implemented by the Netherlands for 633 Dutch service stations located near the
German border

(notified under document number C(1999) 2539)

(Only the Dutch version is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(1999/705/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article
88(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic
Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,

(2)

Having called on interested parties to submit their comments
pursuant to the provisions cited above (1) and having regard to
their comments,

Whereas:

a new deadline of 10 February. On 16 February it sent a
reminder to the Dutch authorities. On 17 February the
the information
Dutch authorities supplied some of
requested.

Given that, after a considerable delay, the Dutch author-
ities' replies were still contradictory and insufficient, the
Commission decided to initiate the Article 88(2) pro-
cedure on 2 April 1998. At
the Dutch authorities'
request, however, initiation of the procedure was post-
poned. At a meeting on 13 May, the Dutch authorities
again requested a postponement and undertook to
provide the necessary information. The request was
rejected however in view of the considerable time that
had elapsed since notification.

1. PROCEDURE

(1)

By letter of 14 August 1997, registered as received on
18 August, the Dutch authorities notified the Commis-
sion of their intention to grant aid to 633 Dutch service
stations located near the German border. The Commis-
sion requested further
information by letter of 22
September, to which the Dutch authorities replied by
letter of 30 October, registered as received on 31
October. By letter dated 17 December, the Commission
those questions
requested clarifications in respect of
which had not been answered satisfactorily. On 15
January 1998 the Dutch authorities asked for the dead-
line to be extended. On 22 January the Commission set

(1) OJ C 307, 7.10.1998, p. 10.

(3)

(4)

On 3 June 1998 the Commission decided to initiate the
Article 88(2) procedure. This decision was commun-
icated by letter SG(98) D/6545 of 29 July, which
requested the Dutch authorities to submit their observa-
tions within one month,

i.e. by 29 August.

By letter of 2 September, registered as received on 4
September, the Dutch authorities requested a further
one-month delay,
i.e. until 29 September. This was
granted by the Commission on 9 September. By letter of
25 September, registered as received on 29 September,
the Dutch authorities requested another two months

L 280/88

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 10. 1999

from the date of dispatch of the Commission letter, i.e.
until 29 November. By letter dated 9 October,
the
Commission agreed to a final extension of one month,
i.e. until 29 October, informing the Dutch authorities
that, if the information had not been provided by that
date, it might be obliged to adopt a negative decision
purely on the basis of the available information. By letter
dated 29 October, registered as received on 4 November,
the Dutch authorities submitted their observations.

(8)

After the Commission had investigated these agree-
ments, it requested additional information by letter dated
5 May 1999. The Dutch authorities provided some of
the information requested by letter dated 20 May, regis-
tered as received on 21 May.

(5)

(6)

(7)

The Commission notice inviting interested parties to
submit their comments was published in the Official
Journal of
the European Communities on 7 October
1998 (2). By 9 November, the final deadline indicated in
the notice, 10 interested parties had submitted observa-
tions. These were communicated by letter dated 21
December to the Dutch authorities, who were given the
opportunity to respond.

On 17 February 1999 the Commission ordered the
Dutch authorities to provide the necessary information
since they had failed to prove that there was no cumula-
tion of aid. This decision was notified to the Dutch
authorities by letter SG(99) D/1411 of 25 February, in
which the Dutch authorities were requested to submit
their observations within 15 working days of
the
decision being published,

i.e. before 18 March.

By letters dated 17 March and 6 April, registered as
received on 17 March and 7 April, the Dutch authorities
provided (i) a list of all the aid recipients, i.e. 633 service
stations, (ii) a copy of the relevant legal basis, namely the
temporary aid scheme for service stations near the
(‘Tijdelijke regeling subsidie service
German border
stations grensstreek Duitsland’), dated 21 July 1997 and
amended on 15 December 1997,
(iii) a copy of the
agreements concluded by the Ministry of Finance and
Senter on implementing the temporary aid scheme (3),
and (iv) 574 exclusive purchasing agreements and ques-
tionnaires drawn up by Senter with regard to the eligible
service stations.

(2) OJ C 307, 7.10.1998, p.10.
(3) See point 18.

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE

the German border. Natural or

The aid is intended for 633 Dutch service stations
located near
legal
persons, partnerships or limited partnerships on whose
behalf one or more service stations are operated and
their successors in title are eligible. A list of aid recipi-
ents is attached to this decision.

The purpose of the aid is to compensate for the alleged
decline in turnover resulting from the increase in excise
duty on light oil that took effect in the Netherlands on 1
July 1997. The Dutch authorities are concerned that
Dutch consumers will be tempted to fill up at German
service stations in the border area as a result of this
increase.

The subsidy is calculated according to the quantity of
It decreases in proportion to the
light oil supplied.
distance from the German border,
i.e. service stations
located within 10 kilometres of the border will receive
NLG 100 (EUR 45) per 1 000 litres of light oil supplied
and those located between 10 and 20 kilometres from
the border will receive NLG 50 (EUR 23) per 1 000
litres of light oil supplied (4). These amounts were sub-
sequently doubled.

If excise duty on light oil in Germany is increased, the
aid will be reduced by 10/11 and 5/11 respectively of
the amount by which the excise duty on light oil per
1 000 litres in Germany is increased (5). Total aid would
amount
(EUR 52,7
some NLG 126 million
million (6)), depending on the turnover recorded by the
service stations and on whether excise duty is increased
in Germany. The duration of the aid scheme is three
years maximum,

i.e. until 1 July 2000.

to

(4) According to the legal basis amended by ministerial decree of 15
December 1997, Dutch Official Gazette (Staatscourant) No 241. The
original notice stated that service stations located within 10 kilo-
metres of the border would receive NLG 80 (EUR 36) per 1 000
litres of light oil supplied and those located between 10 and 20
kilometres from the border would receive NLG 40 (EUR 18) per
1 000 litres of
supplied. The original decree did not
provide for the amount of the aid to be doubled.

light oil

(5) Article 5 of the temporary aid scheme for service stations near the
German border of 21 July 1997, amended by ministerial decree of
15 December 1997.

(6) In accordance with the irrevocably fixed exchange rate between the
euro and the currencies of the Member States, which entered into
force on 1 January 1999.

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/89

(13)

In the notification (7) the Dutch authorities indicate that
the aid measure should be caught by the de minimis rule
given that a ceiling of EUR 100 000 per service station
will apply for the duration of the aid measure. In their
view, each service station can be regarded as a separate
enterprise and the Commission should approve these
measures without raising any objections.

station (Do/Do, Co/Do or Co/Co); (e) the brand of light
oil on sale;
the exclusive
(f) whether a copy of
purchasing agreements had been transmitted to Senter;
(g) the quantity of light oil sold each year; (h) whether a
price management system was operational; (i) whether
the oil company controls the dealer in question; and (j)
whether the service station is operated on an own-risk
basis.

(14) According to the Dutch authorities,

there are three

categories of service station in the Netherlands:

(15)

(16)

(17)

In the first category (dealer-owned/dealer-operated —
‘Do/Do’), the dealer owns the service station, operates it
at his own risk and is linked to the supplier by exclusive
purchasing agreements for a period of five years, with an
in accordance with
option for a further five years,
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 (8).

In the second category (company-owned/dealer-operated
— ‘Co/Do’), the dealer rents the service station, operates
it at his own risk and is linked to the oil company by
exclusive purchasing agreements in accordance with
Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 for as long as he rents the
service station.

third and final category (company-owned/
In the
the service station is
company-operated — ‘Co/Co’),
separated by employees or subsidiaries of the oil com-
panies. The employees/subsidiaries do not operate at
their own risk and are not free to choose their supplier,
with the result that Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 does
not apply to this category.

(18)

The Dutch Ministry of Finance instructed Senter, an
the Ministry of Economic Affairs
executive arm of
responsible for technology, energy and the environment,
to implement the measure (9).

(19) With a view to complying with the Commission's
request for clarification, Senter sent a questionnaire to
the relevant service stations. The following information
was requested: (a) the name of the service station; (b) the
name of the owner of the service station; (c) the enter-
(d) the classification of the service
prise's legal form;

the notification states that

(7) The notification by the Dutch authorities does not tally with the
temporary aid scheme for service stations near the German border.
the subsidy for the total
Point 6 of
maximum duration of
the aid measure (until 30 June 2000)
amounts to EUR 100 000 per service station, whereas Article 4 of
the temporary aid scheme, as published in Dutch Official Gazette
(Staatscourant) No 138 of 23 July 1997, states that the subsidy per
applicant may not exceed the NLG equivalent of EUR 100 000 for
the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 2000.

(8) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1984/83 of 22 June 1983 on the
application of Article 85(3) of the Treaty to categories of exclusive
purchasing agreements (OJ L 173, 30.6.1983, p. 5).

(9) Agreements between the Ministry of Finance and Senter on imple-
menting the temporary aid scheme for service stations near the
German border of 17 June 1998 (ref. ZTD850161.MIM).

3. GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE

(20)

The Commission's decision to initiate the Article 88(2)
procedure is based on two grounds:

(21)

(22)

(23)

First, the Commission takes the view that the de minimis
rule can apply if each service station can be regarded as
a separate enterprise. In its opinion, this cannot be the
case if several service stations are in the hands of one
(as can be the case with ‘company-owned/
owner
company-operated’ service stations) or if the freedom of
‘independent’ operators is circumscribed by both rental
and exclusive purchasing agreements to such an extent
that they are controlled de facto by the large oil com-
panies (as can be the case with ‘company-owned/dealer-
operated’ service stations).

Second, the Commission considers that,
in particular
circumstances, the de minimis rule may be interpreted as
a rebuttable presumption, namely that, even though the
amount of aid involved is small and therefore falls below
the de minimis threshold, the rule does not apply if the
aid has an effect on trade and competition between the
Member States.

Lastly, the Commission set out three requests in its
decision with a view to acquiring a clear picture of the
service stations' ownership structure and assessing
whether the ‘independent’ operators' freedom of action
was circumscribed to such an extent that they were
controlled de facto by the oil company in question:

‘1. a list of the owners of the 624 (10) service stations, a
breakdown of the 624 service stations into the three
categories and updated information on the market
shares of the 624 service stations, broken down by
owner;

(10) The Dutch authorities originally notified aid for 624 service
stations. However,
the list of recipients provided by the Dutch
authorities comprised 633 service stations. This decision therefore
concerns 633 and not 624 service stations.

L 280/90

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 10. 1999

2. comparable data on the ownership structure of
service stations in the Netherlands as a whole and in
the eligible area. If ownership in the Netherlands as a
whole is different to that in the eligible area, the
Dutch Government should explain why this is so;
and

3. copies of all combined exclusive purchasing and
rental agreements for each oil company so that the
Commission can assess whether the “independent”
operators' freedom of action is circumscribed to such
an extent that they are controlled de facto by the oil
company in question.’

(28)

Lastly, in the light of the comments received from third
parties following its decision to initiate the procedure,
the Commission required the Dutch authorities
to
provide it with information on the extent to which a
price management system (PMS)
the
agreements concluded by Q8 with service stations in the
eligible area. It also asked them to confirm whether the
other oil companies applied a similar scheme in that
area.

formed part of

4. GROUNDS

FOR

COMMISSION

DECISION

REQUESTING INFORMATION

(24) Given that the Dutch authorities had failed to provide a
satisfactory reply to the requests set out in the decision
to initiate the procedure, the Commission required them
to provide the information requested. The requests were
virtually identical to those set out in the Commission's
letter to the Dutch authorities dated 22 September 1997
and repeated in its letter dated 17 December 1997. The
Commission regarded the Dutch reply as insufficient for
the following reasons:

(25) With regard to the first request the Dutch authorities did
not provide in particular a list of the 633 service stations
and their owners, together with supporting documents,
nor did they indicate the breakdown between the three
categories. The Dutch authorities also failed to comment
on the apparently contradictory data concerning this
breakdown, as indicated in the Commission decision to
initiate the procedure.

that

(26) With regard to the second request, the Dutch authorities
did not make any specific comments but claimed in
they were unable to provide adequate
general
answers to questions 2 and 3. This appears to contradict
the position of the industry associations, which maintain
that there is no reason to suppose that the ownership
structure of service stations in the border area differs
substantially from that in the rest of the Netherlands.

(27) With regard to the third request, which concerned
copies of all combined exclusive purchasing and rental
the Commission
agreements for each oil company,
rejected the Dutch authorities' argument
the
industry associations did not have access to such in-
formation.

that

5. COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES

(29) After the Commission decision to initiate the Article
88(2) procedure in respect of the aid was published, the
Commission received comments from 10 interested
parties. Of these 10 sets of comments, (a) three origin-
ated from individual dealers (BP, BP and De Fakkel), (b)
four from oil companies (Q8, Texaco, Shell and Total)
and (c) three from industry associations (HOVE, BOVAG
and BETA). On 12 March 1999 the Commission also
received a letter from the dealer who currently chairs the
VEB (‘Vereniging
Exploitanten Benzinestations’ —
it
Federation of Petrol Station Operators). However,
could not take that letter into consideration as it was
received after the time limit laid down in the decision to
initiate the procedure had expired, i.e. after 9 November
1998.

(30)

(a) The three letters from individual dealers reproduced
the information requested by Senter in its question-
naire (11). In general, they express concern at the risk of
the aid being revoked and possibly recovered. Dealers
stress that the aid is necessary because their former
customers have filled up in Germany since excise duty
on light oil was increased in the Netherlands. De Fakkel
BV notified the Commission that
its
company into several legal entities in order to receive aid
for each of its service stations near the German border
(five out of 18 in total).

it had split

(31)

(b) The four oil companies in question (Q8, Texaco,
Shell and Total) maintain that the Dutch authorities
could not provide the requested exclusive purchasing
agreements because they have neither copies of them
nor the legal powers to obtain copies. They themselves
agreements without obtaining
cannot provide
in
permission

the

(11) See point 19.

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/91

each individual case from each contracting party. Total
considers that it is irrelevant whether or not the agree-
ments are provided. Texaco and Total argue that an oil
company's market share in the Netherlands, expressed as
the quantity of light oil sold, cannot be regarded as
reflecting the ownership structure of individual service
stations as
turnover can vary enormously between
stations. According to Texaco, Shell and Q8, Co/Do
dealers operate independently and at their own risk. As
evidence, Q8 produced a copy of a standard exclusive
purchasing agreement for Co/Do service stations. Texaco
takes the view that, under the de minimis rule, each
service station must be regarded as a separate enterprise.
Lastly, Total argues that the aid cannot be regarded as
distorting competition because it provides only partial
compensation to service stations for losses incurred.

(35) According to BOVAG (an association of dealers in
private cars and trucks, companies selling cars, motor-
bikes, caravans and trailers, repair outlets, carwashes,
driving schools, car rental and leasing companies, and
service stations), the aid granted under the de minimis
rule provides only partial compensation to service
stations for the losses incurred since excise duty was
increased. BOVAG points out that the dealer operates on
his own behalf and at his own risk in the case of Co/Do
as well. It also considers that aid should be payable per
service station even if a dealer owns more than one
service station. According to BOVAG, the findings of its
internal survey conducted in March 1998 among 3 300
service stations confirm the figures provided by the
Dutch authorities. A list of eligible service stations can
be obtained from Senter. Combined rental and distribu-
tion agreements must be obtained direct
from the
service stations concerned.

(32)

(c) Three industry associations submitted comments
after the procedure was initiated, namely NOVE, BETA
and BOVAG.

6. COMMENTS FROM THE DUTCH AUTHORITIES

(33) NOVE (Nederlandse Organisatie voor de Energiebranche)
represents 1 000 service stations and 500 oil suppliers
in the Netherlands. NOVE does not agree with the cor-
relation assumed by the Commission between a flagged
brand and the ownership structure. Nor does it under-
stand how the existence of a rental agreement can be
regarded as evidence of external control. As regards the
comprehensive list of owners and proof of ownership,
neither the Dutch authorities nor NOVE have access to
such information, which only the parties in question can
provide.

(34)

are

in the Do/Do category,

BETA (Belangenvereniging Tankstations) represents 850
members operating about 1 400 service stations. Only
independent dealers can become members of BETA, as
one of its principal activities is assisting its members in
their dealings with the oil companies. Roughly half of
the
BETA members
remainder being Co/Do. Both categories of
service
station are operated on an own-risk basis and the aid
therefore benefits them alone. According to BETA, 90 %
of recipients operate only one service station and should
therefore be able to keep the aid. As regards the
requested distribution contracts, BETA takes the view
that a copy of a standard contract should be sufficient.
Lastly,
it considers that the measure does not distort
competition, given that turnover in the eligible area has
declined by 15 to 25 % since the excise duty increase.

(36)

(37)

(38)

(39)

replied to the Commission
The Dutch authorities
decision to initiate the Article 88(2) procedure and to its
request for information by four letters (dated (a) 29
October 1998, (b) 17 March 1999, (c) 6 April 1999 and
(d) 20 May 1999) which are summarised below:

(a) In their reply of 29 October 1998 concerning the
decision to initiate the procedure, the Dutch authorities
stated that the first request set out in the Commission's
letter of 29 July 1998 had already been answered in
part. Since the information concerned by the second and
third requests had to be supplied by the industry associa-
tions, those bodies had been consulted. According to the
Dutch authorities,
they were
unable to supply the information requested because (i)
they did not have it and (ii) they did not understand why
it was necessary.

they had claimed that

Lastly, the Dutch authorities pointed out that the flag
flown by a service station (showing the brand of fuel on
sale) did not provide any indication of its ownership
structure. They concluded by stating their willingness at
all times to discuss alternative ways of obtaining the
information with the Commission.

The Dutch authorities attached to their reply an opinion
of the law firm De Brauw, Blackstone and Westbroek
issued on behalf of the industry associations concerned.
First, the firm provides a detailed analysis of the term
onderneming (‘undertaking’)
in
particular as laid down in the Merger Regulation and in
Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty.

in EC competition law,

L 280/92

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 10. 1999

(40)

(41)

(42)

(43)

(44)

(45)

The firm then comments on the requests made by the
Commission. The opinion states that some of the in-
formation concerned by the first request can be obtained
from Senter, chambers of commerce or the land registry
office (‘Kadaster’).

Regarding the second request, the law firm replies that it
has no reason to suppose that the ownership structure
of service stations in the border area is substantially
different from that in the rest of the Netherlands.

Lastly, the firm points out that it is not necessary to
provide all contracts for the entire country since the aid
concerns the border area only. In any event, the content
of those contracts cannot be relevant since the Ministry
of Finance regards each service station as a separate
enterprise. In conclusion, De Brauw refers to the import-
ance of the principle of equality in Community law.

the service stations concerned,

(b) In their initial reply to the Commission's request for
information dated 17 March 1999, the Dutch authorities
informed the Commission that they had requested the
aid recipients to provide (i) information on the owner-
(ii)
ship structure of
details of
the PMS and (iii) copies of any exclusive
purchasing agreements which could restrict dealers'
independence. Most
recipients complied, and their
replies were forwarded to the Commission. The Dutch
authorities' reply was accompanied by a list of all the
recipients indicating their legal status. Following the
Commission's
the Dutch
authorities claimed that they had contacted the owners
of service stations again with a view to obtaining the
information. This will be forwarded to the
relevant
Commission as soon as possible.

information,

request

for

(c) In their second reply to the Commission's request for
information dated 6 April 1999, the Dutch authorities
forwarded to the Commission the remaining replies
from aid recipients. This letter was accompanied by (i) a
copy of the agreements between the Ministry of Finance
and Senter implementing the temporary aid scheme for
service stations near the German border (12) and (ii) a
copy of the legal basis, which had been amended on 15
December 1997 (13). In total, the Commission received
574 exclusive purchasing agreements and questionnaires
drawn up by Senter.

(d) By letter dated 5 May 1999, the Commission called
on the Dutch authorities to answer urgently any ques-
tions in the request for information which had not yet
been dealt with and a number of questions relating to
the amended legal basis of 15 December 1997, with
retroactive effect to 1 July 1997, which had not been
notified to the Commission. Lastly,
the Commission
asked the Dutch authorities to indicate the measures the

(12) See footnote 9.
(13) See footnote 4.

Netherlands intended to take following the increase of
DEM 0,06 (EUR 0,03) per litre in excise duty on light
oil

introduced in Germany on 1 April 1999.

(46)

In reply to that letter, especially as regards questions not
yet dealt with, the Dutch authorities provided a table
showing the registration number under which the aid
was granted, the name of the service station concerned,
the legal form under which the service station operated,
the category of the service station (Do/Do, Co/Do or
Co/Co), whether the applicant for the service station
concerned had provided the information requested, the
brand of fuel and related articles sold in the service
station concerned, and the sort and type of agreements
that the Dutch authorities had received from the appli-
cant and forwarded to the Commission. The category
(Do/Do, Co/Do or Co/Co)
reproduced the data
submitted by the applicant. On the basis of the data
available to the Dutch authorities, if the various catego-
ries are applied to all grant applicants, some 43 % are
classified as Do/Do and 17 % as Co/Do. Of the applic-
ants 13 % declared that they were owners, owner/opera-
tors or operating on their own behalf and at their own
risk. One applicant (0,2 %) indicated the category Co/Co.

(47) According to the Dutch authorities, the fuel brands and
related articles indicated are also based on information
provided by the aid applicants. A number of applicants
(about 23 %) did not answer
this question. Con-
sequently, the information on market shares requested
by the Commission had to be based on the 77 % of the
service stations that replied. It should be noted that,
according to the Dutch authorities, those service stations
account for some 81 % of the light oil sold in the border
area. The market shares calculated using available data
are based on the reference period from July 1996 to
June 1997 inclusive. These market shares, which thus
relate solely to the Dutch-German border area and are
given for guidance only, are as follows:

Shell

BP/Mobil

Esso

Texaco

Total

Other (including own brand)

Avia

Fina

Q8 (KPN)

[...] %

[...] %

[...] %

[...] %

[...] %

[...] %

[...] %

[...] %

[...] %

(48)

In their reply, the Dutch authorities emphasise that these
market shares cannot provide any indication of
the
service stations' ownership structure. The fact that a
service station flies the flag of an oil company does not

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/93

mean that it is not operated wholly on the owner's own
behalf and at his own risk and can therefore be classified
as Do/Do or at least as Co/Do.

(49)

The Dutch authorities sent the question regarding the
application of a PMS by oil companies other than Q8 to
the oil companies and to the operators of the service
stations concerned. They have undertaken to forward
the replies to the Commission as soon as they receive
them.

(50) According to the Dutch authorities, PMS is included in
the contracts concluded between Q8 and dealers in the
eligible areas, with one exception. Under the contracts
concluded by Q8 with its dealers, the latter set their own
price for fuel sold. Dealers can thus negotiate with Q8
with a view to including PMS in the basic agreement.
Under PMS, Q8 can cover part of the reduction on the
recommended price offered by the dealer, in accordance
with the conditions laid down in the contract. Standard
tables forming part of the basic agreement indicate, for
each fuel, the proportion of each cent per litre of extra
pump discount that is borne by Q8 and by the dealer
respectively. Some dealers prefer to bear in full the risk
of additional pump discounts in return for a larger
reduction in the basic agreement.

(51) As regards the questions relating to the amended legal
basis,
the Dutch authorities provided the following
explanation. As early as 1 July 1997 aid was restricted to
i.e. the
a maximum of EUR 100 000 per enterprise,
natural or legal person on whose behalf and at whose
risk one or more service stations were operated. The
December 1997 amendment to which the Commission
refers did not affect the law's objective in that respect.
Conditional notification pursuant to Article 88(3) of the
EC Treaty does not apply to the present scheme, but to
the Dutch authorities'
intention — not yet carried
through — of extending its scope. This planned exten-
sion of the scheme involved application of the scheme
on an individual service station basis. This prompted the
Dutch authorities to ask the Commission whether aid on
such a basis was admissible under the de minimis rule
and, assuming that an extension was not allowed, to
notify it as a proposed aid measure. The Dutch author-
ities emphasise that this proposal will not be put into
effect until the Commission has taken a decision on it.

(52)

as

the

regards

questions

regarding

Lastly,
the
consequences for the aid scheme that the Dutch author-
ities draw from the recent excise-duty increase in
Germany, the Dutch authorities replied that, as of 1
April 1999, excise duty on light oil in Germany was
increased by DEM 0,06 (EUR 0,03) per litre, equivalent
to an increase of NLG 0,068 per litre,
i.e. NLG 68
(EUR 31) per 1 000 litres. Pursuant to Article 5(1) of
the temporary aid scheme for service stations near the

German border, the amount of NLG 100 (EUR 45) for
service stations located within 10 kilometres of
the
German border (category 1) was reduced as of 1 May
1999 by 10/11 of NLG 68, or NLG 62 (EUR 28). The
amount of NLG 50 for service stations located between
10 and 20 kilometres of the German border (category 2)
was reduced by 5/11 of NLG 68, or NLG 31 (EUR 14).
The new amounts came into effect on 1 May 1999 and
are therefore NLG 38 (EUR 17) per 1 000 litres for
category 1 service stations and NLG 19 (EUR 9) per
1 000 litres for category 2 service stations.

7. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID

7.1. Legal basis for the assessment

(53)

The Dutch authorities have indicated their intention to
the
grant aid to 633 service stations located near
German border. According to point 6 of the notification,
the aid ceiling for the entire (maximum) duration of the
aid measure (until 1 July 2000) is EUR 100 000 per
service station. The notification did not indicate the legal
basis for this arrangement.

(54) However, the Dutch authorities attached to the noti-
fication the Ministerial Decree on the temporary aid
scheme for service stations near the German border (14).
Article 4 of the Decree states that the aid per applicant
amounts
to the NLG equivalent of EUR 100 000
maximum for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June
2000.

(55)

The Dutch authorities explained in their cover letter that
the measure is less far-reaching and was introduced on 1
July 1997 pending the outcome of the procedure before
the Commission. They take the view that the measure is
virtually identical to the proposed one, except that it
does not apply to service stations as such, but to entre-
preneurs, i.e. to the natural or legal persons on whose
behalf and at whose risk one or more service stations are
operated and to their successors in title. They claim that
this aid measure, which does not satisfy the compensa-
tion objective in full, is clearly in line with the de minimis
rule.

(14) See footnote 7.

L 280/94

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 10. 1999

(56)

In their letter dated 20 May 1999, the Dutch authorities
explained that their reason for notifying the Commission
was to extend the scope of the existing scheme. The
extension of the scheme related to the application per
service station, and not per applicant. Accordingly, they
asked the Commission whether aid per service station
was admissible under the de minimis rule. According to
the Dutch authorities, this proposal has not been put
into effect.

(61) As there are doubts as to whether both the original aid
measure, based on the Ministerial Decree, and the noti-
fied extension fall under the de minimis rule, both the
original aid measure and the extension should have been
notified to the Commission. The Dutch authorities' argu-
ment that the notification obligation relates only to the
extension of the measure's scope is not, therefore, valid.
Similarly, the Dutch authorities should have notified the
Commission of the amendments to the legal basis, i.e.
the Ministerial Decree of 15 December 1997 on the
temporary aid scheme for service stations near the
German border, which has retroactive effect to 1 July
1997 (17).

(57) Given that the Dutch authorities had notified a proposed
aid measure without a legal basis but, at the same time,
had implemented a similar aid measure which did have a
legal basis but had not been notified, the question arose
whether the choice of aid ceiling per service station or
per applicant affected the Commission's assessment.

(62) Accordingly, the Dutch authorities have failed to meet
their obligation under Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty,
pursuant to which aid may not be granted until the
Commission has made its position known.

(58)

(59)

In that connection, it should be noted that the Ministry
of Finance instructed Senter to implement the temporary
aid for service stations located near the German border
as laid down in the relevant scheme. Following the
Commission's request for information, Senter provided,
via the Dutch authorities, a list of the 633 aid applicants.

instead of per

the existing measure at
Setting the aid ceiling for
service
EUR 100 000 per applicant
station would seem, at first sight, to have eliminated the
risk of aid cumulation in situations where the same
dealer operates several service stations. However, after
examining the 574 exclusive purchasing agreements and
questionnaires provided by Senter and corresponding to
the list of applicants which it had also provided, the
Commission noted that the cumulation rule had not
been complied with even when the ceiling was set per
applicant, and this for three reasons. First, the same
applicant appears several times in the list. Second, there
is nothing to prevent an applicant from benefiting from
the aid several
times by splitting its company into
legal entities, as did De Fakkel BV (15). Third,
several
setting the aid ceiling per applicant does not
take
account of the actual aid recipient under PMS (16).

7.2. Assessment of the measure in the light of the

request for information

(63) Although the Commission called on the Dutch author-
ities to provide it with the information requested, it still
possesses no information or only insufficient informa-
tion on 250 service stations, i.e. roughly 40 % of the
633 service stations eligible for aid, with the Dutch
authorities providing either no information at all (59
service stations) or insufficient information (191 service
stations).

(64)

The Commission takes the view that the information is
in cases where a service station merely
insufficient
completed the Senter questionnaire without providing
copies of its exclusive purchasing agreement, with the
result that its reply was not substantiated. For instance,
some service stations classified themselves as falling into
one of the three categories (Do/Do, Co/Do or Co/Co)
without providing any supporting evidence, while others
claimed to be independent but failed to substantiate this.

(a) The Dutch authorities provided the Commission
with no information at all on the following 59
service stations (18):

(60) Accordingly, the Commission's assessment of the aid
measure under the de minimis rule as described below
applies both to the aid measure notified and to the aid
measure implemented, which is based on the Ministerial
Decree on the temporary aid scheme for service stations
near the German border.

7, 11, 13, 46, 175, 201, 202, 222, 234, 249, 252,
258, 280, 291, 297, 298, 314, 323, 350, 364, 372,
373, 382, 393, 405, 407, 411, 416, 420, 476, 491,
510, 512, 531, 533, 535, 539, 551, 552, 553, 557,
568, 580, 588, 590, 599, 604, 610, 613, 620, 621,
625, 642, 644, 658, 663, 764, 765 and 766.

(15) See point 30.
(16) See points 83 to 86.

(17) See footnote 4.
(18) The numbering is the same as that indicated by the Dutch Govern-

ment.

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/95

(b) The Dutch authorities provided insufficient informa-

tion on the following 191 service stations:

the aid has an effect on trade and competition

if
between Member States.

2, 8, 9, 20, 27, 31, 41, 42, 59, 60, 61, 66, 68, 73,
76, 78, 82, 84, 94, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107,
108, 115, 116, 120, 121, 122, 124, 126, 130, 131,
134, 145, 149, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162, 164, 167,
182, 183, 184, 187, 196, 200, 205, 210, 212, 214,
216, 220, 225, 226, 227, 233, 237, 238, 240, 245,
250, 257, 267, 269, 270, 282, 286, 288, 295, 300,
307, 309, 310, 321, 327, 328, 331, 334, 340, 345,
349, 351, 353, 365, 369, 374, 375, 376, 378, 379,
380, 385, 389, 394, 399, 401, 402, 404, 418, 423,
434, 444, 447; 449, 450, 451, 455, 456, 460, 467,
471, 477, 478, 480, 481, 489, 498, 499, 500, 501,
502, 503, 504, 505, 507, 508, 509, 511, 513, 515,
516, 517, 520, 522, 526, 529, 530, 532, 534, 538,
542, 543, 546, 549, 554, 555, 556, 565, 566, 567,
571, 577, 579, 581, 585, 589, 591, 596, 602, 605,
609, 611, 612, 615, 616, 617, 618, 623, 624, 626,
629, 632, 637, 638, 639, 641, 643, 645, 646, 649,
653, 659, 662, 665, 666 and 769.

(65)

aid has

an appreciable

Since not all
the requested information has been
provided, the Commission cannot rule out the fact that
and
the
competition between Member States within the meaning
of the Commission notice on the de minimis rule for
state aid and in accordance with its provisional decision.
It will therefore have to take a final decision on the
service stations listed above.

effect on trade

7.3. Assessment of the measure in the light of the

de minimis rule

7.3.1. Assessment

in the light of

the second ground for

initiating the procedure

(66)

The Commission notice on the de minimis rule for state
aid (19) stipulates that the de minimis rule ‘sets a threshold
figure below which Article 92(1) can be said not to
apply, so that a measure need no longer be notified in
advance to the Commission under Article 93(3)’.

(67) On the basis of this wording, the Commission took the
view in its decision to initiate the procedure that, consid-
ering the particular circumstances of the case, the de
rule might be interpreted as a rebuttable
minimis
presumption; in other words, although the amount of
the aid is small and therefore falls below the threshold
laid down in the de minimis rule, that rule does not apply

(68) However, after further consideration, the Commission
has come to the conclusion that such a rebuttable
presumption would undermine the absolute character of
the de minimis rule. The idea underpinning the rule is
that, in so far as the aid ceiling is complied with, the aid
is deemed not to have any appreciable effect on trade
and competition and therefore does not fall within the
scope of Article 87(1). To derogate from this principle
on account of the special circumstances of the case
would give rise to legal uncertainty as regards the scope
and application of the de minimis rule in general.

(69) Accordingly, the Commission's assessment cannot be
based on a possible abuse of the de minimis rule but
must be made in the light of
the first ground for
initiating the procedure, namely the risk of aid cumula-
tion under the de minimis rule, either because one owner
possesses several service stations or because the supplier
has de facto control over the dealer by virtue of an
exclusive purchasing agreement.

7.3.2. Assessment

in the

light of

the

first ground for

initiating the procedure

(70) According to the amended de minimis rule (20),

‘the
ceiling for aid covered by the de minimis rule will now be
ECU 100 000 over a three-year period beginning when
the first de minimis aid is granted.’ The notice further
stipulates that:

‘The Commission has a duty to satisfy itself that Member
States are not giving their enterprises aid which is
incompatible with the common market. The Member
States are under an obligation to facilitate the achieve-
ment of this task by establishing machinery to ensure
that, where aid is given to the same recipient under
separate measures all of which are covered by the de
minimis rule, the total amount of the aid does not exceed
ECU 100 000 over a period of three years. In particular,
any decision granting de minimis aid or the rules of any
scheme providing for aid of this kind must include an
explicit stipulation that any additional aid granted to the
same recipient under the de minimis rule must not raise
the total de minimis aid received by the enterprise to a
level above the ceiling of ECU 100 000 over a period of
three years.’

(71)

In its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission
took the view that the de minimis rule could apply only if
each service station could be seen as a separate enter-
prise. A service station cannot be regarded as a separate

(19) OJ C 68, 6.3.1996, p. 9.

(20) See footnote 19.

L 280/96

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 10. 1999

enterprise if one owner possesses several service stations,
which may be the case with company-owned/company-
operated service stations (Co/Co) or where the freedom
of ‘independent’ operators is circumscribed to such an
extent by exclusive purchasing and rental agreements
that they are controlled de facto by the large oil compa-
nies, as in the case of company-owned/dealer-operated
service stations (Co/Do).

three years’) and that of

(72) On the basis of the wording of the de minimis notice
quoted above (‘any additional aid granted [...] must not
raise the total de minimis aid received by the enterprise to
a level above the ceiling of ECU 100 000 over a period
of
the Commission's first
ground — described above (21) — for initiating the
procedure, the comments of third parties (Texaco, Shell,
Q8, BETA, BOVAG) and of
the Dutch authorities
focused on whether the dealers in a Do/Do or Co/Do
structure could be regarded as independent and whether
it
they operated the service station
concerned at their own risk.

followed that

(73)

It follows from the comments of third parties and, in
particular, from the arguments put forward by the law
firm De Brauw, Blackstone and Westbroek on behalf of
the industry associations concerned and attached to the
Dutch authorities' reply to the decision to initiate the
procedure
reasoning is based on EC
competition law, and in particular on the concept of
‘undertaking’ as laid down in the Merger Regulation and
in Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (22).

their

that

(74) However,

the concept of

‘undertaking’ within the
meaning of the competition rules does not lend itself to
interpreting the de minimis rule for state aid. This is
because the principles underlying the respective rules are
different. In the competition field, the concept of ‘under-
taking’ is used, in particular, to identify anti-competitive
collusion between firms. Under those rules, ‘undertaking’
is a broad concept, with the degree of control being a
determining factor. However,
the de minimis rule is
concerned ultimately with determining who the actual
aid recipient is and whether the de minimis threshold has
been complied with for each recipient,
irrespective of
whether the oil companies control the dealers.

(75) After having examined in greater depth the 574
questionnaires
exclusive purchasing
provided by the Dutch authorities,
the Commission
identified elements of aid cumulation under the de

contracts

and

(21) See point 21.
(22) See point 39.

minimis rule even where the dealers were not controlled
within the meaning of the competition rules (23).

7.3.2.1. C l a s s i f i c a t i o n

o f

s e r v i c e
s t a t i o n s f o l l o w i n g t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f
t h e
e x c l u s i v e p u r c h a s i n g a g r e e m e n t s
a n d t h e S e n t e r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s

6 3 3

t h e

(76) As the Commission has examined each of

the 383
exclusive purchasing and rental agreements and can
therefore draw direct conclusions from them, some of
the information which it previously requested is no
longer needed.

(77)

the market

For instance, it is no longer necessary to compare the
ownership structure of services in the eligible area with
that
the
in the Netherlands as a whole. However,
Commission would point out that the Dutch authorities
have failed to provide a coherent explanation of the
differences as requested. Nor is it necessary to check
the oil companies
shares of
whether
concerned reflect the ownership structure.
Instead of
identifying the ownership structure on the basis of the
market share of a given oil company, the Commission
has opted to determine the ‘flag shares’ of certain oil
companies, in line with the view of the Dutch author-
ities and of most third parties. An oil company's ‘flag
share’ gives the number of service stations marketing its
brand.

(78)

By letter dated 20 May 1999, the Dutch authorities
submitted a list of the ‘flag shares’ of service stations in
the border area. According to them, this list is based on
information provided by the applicants (77 % of service
stations replied, representing 81 % of sales in the border
area).

Shell

BP/Mobil

Esso

Texaco

Total

Other (incl. own brands)

Avia

Fina

Q8 (KPN)

[...] %

[...] %

[...] %

[...] %

[...] %

[...] %

[...] %

[...] %

[...] %

(79) On the basis of

the individual analysis of

the 383
combined exclusive purchasing and rental agreements
provided by the Dutch authorities,
the Commission
arrived at the following breakdown of ‘flag shares’:

(23) The Commission does not take the view (Press release IP/86/631 of
19 December 1986) that a discount scheme operated to support
the margins of dealers that have to reduce their pump prices in
order to compete on their local market
involves indirect resale
price maintenance.

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/97

stations

(pure Co/Co). Although,

strictly
service
speaking, not a Co/Co service station, the situation in
which the same dealer has applied for aid more than
once and therefore appears several times in the list of
eligible recipients (de facto Co/Co) also belongs to that
category because of similar cumulation effects. Of the
633 eligible service stations 49 (8 %) belong to the
pure/de facto Co/Co category. The cumulation of aid
occurs either at
the oil company (pure
Co/Co) or at the level of the service station (de facto
Co/Co).

the level of

(a) The Commission has identified the following service

stations as pure ‘Co/Co’:

39, 147, 217, 218, 221, 276, 281, 287, 301, 319,
409, 414, 433, 457, 469, 486, 488, 541, 564, 575,
593, 614, 648, 655, 752, 760, 763 and 768.

(b) It has identified the following Do/Do and Co/Do
service stations as de facto Co/Co service stations
because the cumulation effect is almost identical to
that described above:

111, 112, 170, 174, 272, 273, 274, 333, 339, 347,
348, 359, 360, 362, 363, 395, 396, 432, 586, 587
and 754.

7.3.2.3. D o / D o

a n d C o / D o

s t a t i o n s
w i t h a P M S c l a u s e i n t h e i r e x c l u s i v e
p u r c h a s i n g a g r e e m e n t s

s e r v i c e

(80)

(81)

There are some notable discrepancies between the find-
ings of the Dutch authorities and those of the Commis-
sion in respect of a number of brands, such as BP, Esso
and Avia. These discrepancies can be attributed to the
different sources of information. As the Commission
examined the contracts individually whereas the Dutch
authorities based their list on the information supplied
by the applicants without supporting evidence,
the
Commission has decided that in future it will base its
assessment of the measures on its own statistics.

In addition, on the basis of the 574 exclusive purchasing
agreements and Senter questionnaires, of which 191 did
information for classification
not contain sufficient
purposes, and since 59 service stations did not provide
any information at all, the Commission has established
the following classification of the 633 eligible service
stations:

7.3.2.3.1. Dealer-owned/dealer-operated (Do/Do) service

stations

(83) After examining the Co/Co category, the Commission
turned its attention to the Do/Do category of service
station. On the basis of their exclusive purchasing agree-
ments, it found that there was a risk of aid cumulation
for some service stations at the level of the oil company
because of the inclusion of a PMS clause. Of the 179
Do/Do contracts, this is the case for 71 (11 % of the 633
eligible service stations).

Category I corresponds to Do/Do, category II to Co/Do and category III to
Co/Co.

(84)

7 . 3 . 2 . 2 . C o m p a n y - o w n e d / c o m p a n y - o p e r a t e d
( C o / C o ) s e r v i c e s t a t i o n s

(82) On the basis of the 574 exclusive purchasing agreements
and questionnaires, the Commission has concluded that
there is cumulation of aid in the Co/Co category given
the same company owns and operates several
that

against

competing petrol outlets

The purpose of a PMS clause is to protect the dealer's
turnover
in the
immediate vicinity of his service station. The clause
usually stipulates that the oil company may bear part of
the cost of the forecourt discount granted by the dealer
in so far as domestic and/or international market condi-
tions make a temporary or long-term adjustment of
these discounts desirable or necessary. Consultations
between the parties are often necessary before such
reductions are introduced. The actual aid provided by
the supplier is determined by means of a distribution
table or participation arrangements.
is
normally indicated on the invoice.

Its amount

L 280/98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 10. 1999

(85)

losses of

conditions,

The PMS clause obliges the supplier to compensate the
dealer, at least in part, for losses incurred as a result of
including market
extraordinary market
conditions deriving from legal obligations
such as
increases in excise duty. By granting aid to dealers as
income resulting from
compensation for
increases in excise duty on light oil in the Netherlands,
the Dutch Government is,
in fact, compensating the
supplier in full or in part for its obligation under the
PMS clause. If this aid were not granted, the supplier
would have to compensate the dealer. Where the
supplier has concluded distribution agreements with
several dealers, it will benefit a corresponding number of
times over.

(a) The Commission has designated the following as
Do/Do service stations without a PMS clause:

3, 4, 10, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 29, 32, 33, 47, 51,
52, 53, 62, 65, 69, 70, 75, 80, 83, 85, 92, 93, 95,
118, 119, 128, 129, 137, 138, 148, 151, 157, 173,
177, 181, 188, 191, 194, 204, 209, 213, 223, 229,
231, 232, 235, 239, 243, 247, 253, 260, 261, 262,
264, 275, 277, 285, 289, 303, 306, 311, 316, 322,
324, 335, 342, 354, 370, 381, 391, 397, 398, 406,
415, 421, 424, 425, 426, 458, 466, 470, 472, 487,
518, 521, 524, 525, 528, 558, 570, 582, 594, 597,
607, 619, 627, 628, 636, 650, 652, 656, 657, 660
and 750.

(b) It has designated the following as Do/Do service

stations with a PMS clause:

1, 26, 34, 40, 54, 56, 63, 79, 81, 86, 97, 113, 114,
135, 142, 155, 159, 160, 165, 166, 168, 172, 176,
179, 185, 206, 207, 208, 224, 241, 242, 244, 259,
263, 283, 284, 299, 308, 318, 320, 329, 337, 344,
352, 357, 368, 377, 383, 417, 419, 422, 429, 438,
440, 442, 454, 459, 461, 463, 473, 474, 483, 485,
497, 514, 606, 640, 661, 751, 753 and 755.

7.3.2.3.2. Company-owned/dealer-operated

(Co/Do)

service stations

(a) The Commission has designated the following as
Co/Do service stations without a PMS clause:

15, 36, 43, 44, 48, 50, 67, 77, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,
110, 132, 133, 139, 140, 141, 144, 146, 163, 186,
189, 192, 193, 197, 199, 215, 219, 251, 278, 290,
292, 294, 302, 304, 305, 312, 313, 317, 326, 330,
336, 338, 341, 343, 358, 361, 384, 388, 400, 413,
430, 437, 439, 445, 448, 453, 462, 482, 492, 493,
496, 537, 559, 562, 563, 574, 603, 622, 647, 756,
757 and 767.

(b) It has designated the following as Co/Do service

stations with a PMS clause:

5, 6, 12, 16, 18, 22, 25, 28, 30, 35, 37, 38, 45, 49,
55, 58, 64, 71, 72, 74, 96, 99, 100, 104, 117, 123,
125, 127, 136, 143, 150, 153, 161, 169, 171, 178,
180, 190, 195, 198, 203, 211, 228, 230, 236, 246,
248, 254, 255, 265, 266, 268, 271, 279, 296, 315,
325, 332, 355, 367, 371, 387, 427, 428, 436, 441,
443, 446, 452, 464, 484, 494, 506, 519, 523, 536,
578, 584, 608 and 762.

7.3.2.4. D o / D o

s e r v i c e

a n d C o / D o

s t a t i o n s
w h i c h d o n o t h a v e s i m i l a r e f f e c t s t o
C o / C o s e r v i c e s t a t i o n s a n d h a v e n o t
c o n c l u d e d
d i s t r i b u t i o n
e x c l u s i v e
a g r e e m e n t s c o n t a i n i n g a P M S c l a u s e :

(87)

It follows from the above that there is no cumulation of
aid where Do/Do or Co/Do service stations do not have
similar effects to Co/Co service stations and that there is
no cumulation of aid at the level of the oil company in
the absence of a PMS clause. Accordingly, this aid is
covered by the de minimis rule and Article 87(1) does not
therefore apply.

(a) The Commission has designated the following as
Do/Do service stations which do not have similar
effects to Co/Co service stations and have not
agreements
concluded
containing a PMS clause:

distribution

exclusive

(86)

the Commission examined the

remaining
Lastly,
stations, which fall into the Co/Do category. As with the
Do/Do category, it found that there was a risk of aid
cumulation for some service stations at the level of the
oil company because of the inclusion of a PMS clause.
Of the 155 Co/Do contracts, this is the case for 80 (or
13 % of the 633 eligible service stations). The conclusion
is the same as for Do/Do service stations. This figure
includes contracts containing a PMS clause as well as
clauses guaranteeing the dealer a minimum income since
the latter have the same effect as a PMS clause.

3, 4, 10, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 29, 32, 33, 47, 51,
52, 53, 62, 65, 69, 70, 75, 80, 83, 85, 92, 93, 95,
118, 119, 128, 129, 137, 138, 148, 151, 157, 173,
177, 181, 188, 191, 194, 204, 209, 213, 223, 229,
231, 232, 235, 239, 243, 247, 253, 260, 261, 262,
264, 275, 277, 285, 289, 303, 306, 311, 316, 322,
324, 335, 342, 354, 370, 381, 391, 397, 398, 406,
415, 421, 424, 425, 426, 458, 466, 470, 472, 487,
518, 521, 524, 525, 528, 558, 570, 582, 594, 597,
607, 619, 627, 628, 636, 650, 652, 656, 657, 660
and 750.

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/99

(b) It has designated the following as Co/Do service
stations which do not have similar effects to Co/Co
service stations and have not concluded exclusive
distribution agreements containing a PMS clause:

15, 36, 43, 44, 48, 50, 67, 77, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91,
110, 132, 133, 139, 140, 141, 144, 146, 163, 186,
189, 192, 193, 197, 199, 215, 219, 251, 278, 290,
292, 294, 302, 304, 305, 312, 313, 317, 326, 330,
336, 338, 341, 343, 358, 361, 384, 388, 400, 413,
430, 437, 439, 445, 448, 453, 462, 482, 492, 493,
496, 537, 559, 562, 563, 574, 603, 622, 647, 756,
757 and 767.

7.4. Assessment of the compatibility of the meas-
ures constituting aid within the meaning of
Article 87(1)

7.4.1. Aid within the meaning of Article 87(1)

(88)

The Commission examined the aid granted to (a) pure
Co/Co service stations,
(b) de facto Co/Co service
stations and (c) Co/Do and Do/Do service stations with
an exclusive purchasing agreement containing a PMS
clause in the light of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty,
which states that 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
is incompatible with the common market in so far as it
affects trade between Member States.

(89)

The aid granted constitutes aid within the meaning of
Article 87(1) for the following reasons:

(90)

(91)

(92)

(93)

First, the aid was granted using state resources since the
Dutch Ministry of Finance instructed Senter, an arm of
the Ministry of Economic Affairs responsible for tech-
nology, energy and the environment, to implement the
measure.

Second, the aid favours service stations located near the
border with Germany over those elsewhere in the Neth-
erlands and in neighbouring Member States, such as
Germany and Belgium.

Third, since these service stations receive compensation
for the excise-duty differential on light oil between
Germany and the Netherlands, Dutch consumers have
an incentive to fill up in the Netherlands instead of in
Germany, distorting competition on the light oil market
in the border area.

the measure is likely to affect

trade between
Lastly,
the eligible
Member States for
service stations are located near
the border with
Germany. Second, the very purpose of the measure is to

three reasons. First,

in turnover

compensate the owners of these service stations for the
alleged decline
resulting from Dutch
consumers filling up at German service stations as a
consequence of the increase in excise duty on light oil in
the Netherlands. Third, the aid is conditional on rising
duty in Germany.

7.4.2. Compatibility of the aid measures

The aid constitutes operating aid because it is designed
to avoid losses which the eligible service stations would
have to incur in the course of their normal daily busi-
ness. Its sole purpose is to compensate the owners of the
service stations concerned for the alleged decline in turn-
over
resulting from Dutch consumers filling up at
German service stations following the increase in excise
duty on light oil that took effect in the Netherlands on 1
July 1997. However, the Commission would point out
that the state aid rules are not an appropriate instrument
for
between
Member States. In that connection, it would also point
to the artificial nature of the aid measure, given that the
German Government increased excise duty on light oil
by 6 pfennigs (EUR 0,03) per litre with effect from 1
April 1999.

harmonising

differentials

excise-duty

In addition, strong doubts remain as to the need for the
aid, especially as regards service stations which have
concluded an exclusive purchasing agreement with a
PMS clause. If no state aid had been forthcoming, these
service stations would, under the PMS clause, have
turned to their respective suppliers with a view to
obtaining at least partial compensation for the losses
incurred. As described above (24), by granting the aid in
question, the Dutch authorities indirectly assisted the
suppliers, given that they paid something that would
normally have been paid by the suppliers. It is difficult
to accept that multinational oil companies should need
state aid to cope with an increase in excise duty on light
oil

in the Netherlands.

In the light of the above and in the absence of any
compensatory effects, operating aid of this kind qualifies
for one of the derogations set out in Article 87 of the EC
Treaty or Article 61 of the EEA Agreement only in
exceptional circumstances.

The derogations set out in Article 87(2) of the EC Treaty
do not apply in this case in view of the aid's characteris-
tics and since the aid is not designed in such a way as to
comply with the conditions governing the application of
those derogations.

(94)

(95)

(96)

(97)

(24) See points 84 and 85.

L 280/100

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 10. 1999

(98) Operating aid may be granted on an exceptional and
temporary basis to offset operating losses in Article
87(3)(a) regions. However,
the derogation from that
Article does not apply here given that the eligible area,
namely that part of the Netherlands located no more
is not
than 20 kilometres from the German border,
recognised as an area with an abnormally low standard
of living or serious underemployment.

(99) Nor can the aid in question be regarded as compatible
with the common market under the derogation set out
in Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty as aid to facilitate the
development of certain economic areas which does not
adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary
to the common interest.

(100) The aid is clearly not intended to promote the execution
of an important project of common European interest
within the meaning of Article 87(3)(b).

(101) Lastly, the aid measures do not promote culture and
heritage conservation within the meaning of Article
87(3)(d).

(102) Accordingly, the aid granted to (a) pure Co/Co service
stations,
(b) de facto Co/Co service stations and (c)
Co/Do and Do/Do service stations with an exclusive
purchasing agreement comprising a PMS clause does not
qualify for eligibility for one of the derogations under
Article 87(3) of the Treaty.

(104) The Commission adopts a negative decision regarding
the aid granted to these service stations (in total 450 of
the 633 eligible service stations) because these measures
are not compatible with the common market and the
functioning of the EEA Agreement.

(105) As regards the other service stations, which are not de
facto or pure Co/Co and have not concluded exclusive
purchasing agreements with a PMS clause, namely 183
of the 633 eligible service stations, the Commission
finds that the aid given to them is covered by the de
minimis rule and therefore does not constitute aid within
the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.

(106) Given that the Dutch authorities granted the aid to the
categories referred to in 103(a),
(b) and (c) above in
some cases before the Commission had taken a final
decision under the Article 88(2) procedure, this aid must
be repaid. Pure and de facto Co/Co service stations
which have failed to provide any information must
repay the aid. In the case of Do/Do and Co/Do service
stations which have concluded an exclusive purchasing
agreement containing a PMS clause, the aid must be
repaid by the actual recipients, i.e. the eight oil com-
panies concerned. These companies are indicated in the
annexed list of the 633 eligible service stations,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

8. CONCLUSION

Article 1

(103)

In the light of the above and, in particular, considering
that:

(a) in spite of the request for information, the Dutch
authorities have failed to provide all the requested
information in respect of 250 service stations;

(b) there is cumulation of aid as regards pure Co/Co
service stations given that the same company owns
and operates several service stations and as regards
de facto Co/Co service stations given that the same
dealer has applied for aid more than once and there-
fore appears several times on the list of eligible
recipients (49 service stations);

(c) by granting the aid, the Dutch Government can be
seen as in practice compensating the supplier, in full
or in part, for its obligation under the PMS clause
with regard to Do/Do service stations, thereby giving
rise to cumulation of aid at the level of the supplier
(nine suppliers (Shell, BP (including Aral, Mobil, OK
and Bim), Elf, Esso, Texaco, Total, Fina, Q8 and
Avia) for 151 service stations).

The aid which the Netherlands has implemented for 183
service stations located near the German border, amounting to
EUR 100 000 per service station, is covered by the de minimis
rule and does not therefore constitute aid within the meaning
of Article 87(1) of
the EC Treaty. The service stations
concerned are listed below. The numbers correspond to the list
of applicants provided in the letter from the Dutch Govern-
ment dated 7 April 1999. The list is annexed to this decision.

(a) Dealer-owned/dealer-operated (Do/Do)

service

stations:

3, 4, 10, 14, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 29, 32, 33, 47, 51, 52,
53, 62, 65, 69, 70, 75, 80, 83, 85, 92, 93, 95, 118, 119,
128, 129, 137, 138, 148, 151, 157, 173, 177, 181, 188,
191, 194, 204, 209, 213, 223, 229, 231, 232, 235, 239,
243, 247, 253, 260, 261, 262, 264, 275, 277, 285, 289,
303, 306, 311, 316, 322, 324, 335, 342, 354, 370, 381,
391, 397, 398, 406, 415, 421, 424, 425, 426, 458, 466,
470, 472, 487, 518, 521, 524, 525, 528, 558, 570, 582,
594, 597, 607, 619, 627, 628, 636, 650, 652, 656, 657,
660 and 750.

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/101

(b) Company-owned/dealer-operated (Co/Do) service stations:

(c) Dealer-owned/dealer-operated (Do/Do) service stations with

15, 36, 43, 44, 48, 50, 67, 77, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 110,
132, 133, 139, 140, 141, 144, 146, 163, 186, 189, 192,
193, 197, 199, 215, 219, 251, 278, 290, 292, 294, 302,
304, 305, 312, 313, 317, 326, 330, 336, 338, 341, 343,
358, 361, 384, 388, 400, 413, 430, 437, 439, 445, 448,
453, 462, 482, 492, 493, 496, 537, 559, 562, 563, 574,
603, 622, 647, 756, 757 and 767.

Article 2

The aid which the Netherlands has implemented for 450
service stations located near the German border, amounting to
more than EUR 100 000 per
recipient over a three-year
period, is incompatible with the common market and with the
functioning of
the EEA Agreement. The service stations
concerned are listed below. The numbers correspond to the list
of applicants provided in the letter from the Dutch Govern-
ment dated 7 April 1999. The list is annexed to this decision.

(a) Service stations for which the Dutch authorities provided

no information or insufficient information:

‘no information’: 7, 11, 13, 46, 175, 201, 202, 222, 234,
249, 252, 258, 280, 291, 297, 298, 314, 323, 350, 364,
372, 373, 382, 393, 405, 407, 411, 416, 420, 476, 491,
510, 512, 531, 533, 535, 539, 551, 552, 553, 557, 568,
580, 588, 590, 599, 604, 610, 613, 620, 621, 625, 642,
644, 658, 663, 764, 765 and 766;

‘insufficient information’: 2, 8, 9, 20, 27, 31, 41, 42, 59,
60, 61, 66, 68, 73, 76, 78, 82, 84, 94, 101, 102, 103,
105, 106, 107, 108, 115, 116, 120, 121, 122, 124, 126,
130, 131, 134, 145, 149, 152, 154, 156, 158, 162, 164,
167, 182, 183, 184, 187, 196, 200, 205, 210, 212, 214,
216, 220, 225, 226, 227, 233, 237, 238, 240, 245, 250,
257, 267, 269, 270, 282, 286, 288, 295, 300, 307, 309,
310, 321, 327, 328, 331, 334, 340, 345, 349, 351, 353,
365, 369, 374, 375, 376, 378, 379, 380, 385, 389, 394,
399, 401, 402, 404, 418, 423, 434, 444, 447, 449, 450,
451, 455, 456, 460, 467, 471, 477, 478, 480, 481, 489,
498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 507, 508, 509,
511, 513, 515, 516, 517, 520, 522, 526, 529, 530, 532,
534, 538, 542, 543, 546, 549, 554, 555, 556, 565, 566,
567, 571, 577, 579, 581, 585, 589, 591, 596, 602, 605,
609, 611, 612, 615, 616, 617, 618, 623, 624, 626, 629,
632, 637, 638, 639, 641, 643, 645, 646, 649, 653, 659,
662, 665, 666 and 769.

(b) Company-owned/company

operated

(Co/Co)

service

stations:

‘pure’: 39, 147, 217, 218, 221, 276, 281, 287, 301, 319,
409, 414, 433, 457, 469, 486, 488, 541, 564, 575, 593,
614, 648, 655, 752, 760, 763 and 768;

‘de facto’: 111, 112, 170, 174, 272, 273, 274, 333, 339,
347, 348, 359, 360, 362, 363, 395, 396, 432, 586, 587
and 754.

a price management system (PMS):

1, 26, 34, 40, 54, 56, 63, 79, 81, 86, 97, 113, 114, 135,
142, 155, 159, 160, 165, 166, 168, 172, 176, 179, 185,
206, 207, 208, 224, 241, 242, 244, 259, 263, 283, 284,
299, 308, 318, 320, 329, 337, 344, 352, 357, 368, 377,
383, 417, 419, 422, 429, 438, 440, 442, 454, 459, 461,
463, 473, 474, 483, 485, 497, 514, 606, 640, 661, 751,
753 and 755.

(d) Company-owned/dealer-operated (Co/Do) service stations

with a price management system (PMS):

5, 6, 12, 16, 18, 22, 25, 28, 30, 35, 37, 38, 45, 49, 55,
58, 64, 71, 72, 74, 96, 99, 100, 104, 117, 123, 125, 127,
136, 143, 150, 153, 161, 169, 171, 178, 180, 190, 195,
198, 203, 211, 228, 230, 236, 246, 248, 254, 255, 265,
266, 268, 271, 279, 296, 315, 325, 332, 355, 367, 371,
387, 427, 428, 436, 441, 443, 446, 452, 464, 484, 494,
506, 519, 523, 536, 578, 584, 608 and 762.

The actual recipients in categories (c) and (d) are the oil com-
panies with which these service stations concluded exclusive
purchasing agreements. The annexed list
indicates the oil
company concerned in each individual case.

Article 3

The Netherlands shall

1.
take all necessary measures to
recover from the recipients the aid referred to in Article 2 and
unlawfully made available to them.

law. The aid to be recovered shall

Recovery shall be effected in accordance with the proced-
2.
ures of national
include
interest from the date on which it was made available to the
recipients until the date of its recovery. Interest shall be calcu-
lated on the basis of the reference rate used for calculating the
grant equivalent of regional aid.

Article 4

The Netherlands shall
inform the Commission, within two
months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken
to comply with it.

Article 5

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Done at Brussels, 20 July 1999.

For the Commission

Monika WULF-MATHIES

Member of the Commission

L 280/102

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 10. 1999

List of applicants under the temporary aid scheme for service stations near the German border. The numbers
tally with the list of applicants given in the letter from the Dutch Government dated 7 April 1999

ANNEX

No

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Auto Schmitz B.V.

T.E.M. Twente B.V.

Autobedrĳf G.H.V. B.V.

Van Lin Velden B.v.

M.J.J. Verbiesen

W.H. Merx

Autoservice Fermans Exclusive B.V.

Autobedrĳf J; Meyknecht

Garage Knops B.V.

Autocentrum Merjenburgh B.V.

H. Boxem

Henk Santing Emmen B.V.

Service Station Valkenhuizen Jo Brouwers B.V.

H.J.M. Ras-Bosman

V.O.F. Paul Janssen Esso Velperbroek

Hendrikx-Maes V.O.F.

Hendrix Automobielbedrĳf B.V.

V.O.F. Zelftankstation J. Hilgers

Autoservice Bedrĳf Fransen B.V.

B.E.M. Stationair B.V.

Automobielbedrĳf G+H B.V.

J.H.M. Huntjes

Garage Vencken B.V.

J.H.M. Wiertz

V.O.F. Muyzers-Mertens

Mennink-Veldboom B.V.

Gebr. Wismans

H.J.W. Roerdinkholder

RoVo Expoloitatie B.V.

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/103

No

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

58

59

60

61

62

63

B.V. Automobielbedrĳf Veenhuis

Ter Huurne's Handelsmaatschappĳ B.V.

Tankstation van Donkelaar B.V.

V.O.F. Garage Borgers

Jansen-van Maasacker V.O.F.

J.D. Kok Service Stations B.V.

Th. A. Hegeman B.V.

V.O.F. Shell Station Baexem

V.O.F. Hermans

Makro Zelfbedieningsgroothandel C.V.

Firma Jan Cox

Auto Quick Service B.V.

Autobedrĳf G.J. Arentsen B.V.

V.O.F. Peters-Kersten

Jansen V.O.F.

Benzinestation Den Oordt B.V.

J.L.M. Palmen

Kooiker en Zoon V.O.F.

Tank- en Servicestation Jansema B.V.

Atol Tankstation B.V.

V.O.F. Service Station van Steenwĳk

Autobedrĳf De Jong Hardenberg B.V.

Automobielbedrĳf Peeten B.V.

Autobedrĳf Veders B.V.

Van Remmen-Gademan B.V.

A.J.A. Boosten

Makkinga B.V.

V.O.F. Peters-Jaspers

Kok V.O.F.

Technische Handelsonderneming van Dooren B.V.

B.V. Garage van Ameln

Autocenter Hegeman B.V.

Garagebedrĳf Venderbosch B.V.

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

L 280/104

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 10. 1999

No

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

Autobedrĳf van Gool B.V.

A. Platvoet Handelsmaatschappĳ B.V.

Platvoet Exploitatiemaatschappĳ B.V.

Esso ‘St. Vitusholt’

Vos-Meekes B.V.

Autobedrĳf Olde Monnikhof B.V.

F.M. Trip

V.O.F. P. van Oosterbaan

V.O.F. Holtslag

Autobedrĳf De Jong

R.P.A. van Gestel

Fa. Geerlings Teunissen

D.A. Gaikhorst

Shell Servicebedrĳf Herman Ten Thĳ V.O.F.

H. Peeters Service B.V.

V.O.F. Garage Hans Gerritsen

Tankstation J. Klein Gunnewiek V.O.F.

Tankservice Haarhuis V.O.F.

Autobedrĳf Jansen

Fa. Mos-Luttikhuis

W.A.M. Litmaath

Krabbenborg Transport B.V.

Service Station Vehof V.O.F.

W.S. Trumpi h.o. Shell Zwartewater

Vollenhoven Olie B.V.

Autobedrĳf Ger Bemelmans V.O.F.

Weĳers V.O.F.

Esso Overmaat V.O.F.

Autoservice Besouw B.V.

Autocentrum Biermans B.V.

Tankstation Lux B.V.

Autobedrĳf J. Pinners

B.V. Automobielbedrĳf van Straten & Zoon

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/105

No

97

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

V.O.F. J. Köster

B.H.O.

Tankstation Mekers-De Geulekamp B.V.

Mastebroek B.V.

Autrorĳschool en Tankstation Oudeboon

Auto-en Carrosseriebedrĳf Ambting B.V.

P.C Spakman B.V.

Autobedrĳf van Boven Erica B.V.

Firma Gebroeders Pelgrom

Garage Grooten B.V.

V.O.F. Suntjes-Wolters

Autobedrĳf Bloo Neede B.V.

F.J Rolink B.V.

Rolink B.V

V.O.F. M.C. Bagchus en Zn.

V.O.F. Garage Jansen

Oliehandel Kuster B.V.

Auto ter Riet B.V.

Van Gerven Venray V.O.F.

Garage Gommans B.V.

Service Garage de Pont B.V.

Autobedrĳf Ueffing C.V.

Gebroeders Klein Gunnewiek V.O.F.

Poelen auto's Mook V.O.F.

Esso Etten Bosman V.O.F.

Automobielbedrĳf Ruesink Ruurlo B.V.

Tankstation Gebr. Bruynen Kessel B.V.

Rĳmar B.V.

Service Station R. Bolhaar B.V.

Autoservice Wim van de Biesebos

J.W. van der Sluis

Haagmans Taxicentrale voor Valkenburg e.o B.V.

Garage Veger B.V.

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

L 280/106

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 10. 1999

No

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

Auto Roeloffzen B.V.

P.N.W. de Jong

Autobedrĳf Egberink V.O.F.

Tankstation Gerrit Smit

G. Runherd

Autobedrĳf Demmer B.V.

Service Garage J. Boermans

Fa. Gebr. J. en F. Tielemans

Th. Van de Weĳer en Zn. V.O.F.

J.A. Louwman

Automobielbedrĳf J.G. Lesscher B.V.

Automobielbedrĳf Lo Vugleveen B.V.

Schiphorst B.V.

H.B. Mensink B.V.

V.O.F. Knol

A.C.M. Olie B.V.

Taxi B. Jansen B.V.

Auto Smeets Echt B.V.

V.O.F. Molendĳk

B.P. Henk van der Wielen V.O.F.

Autobedrĳf de Groot V.O.F.

R. Dekker

Autoschade Timmermans B.V.

L. Schaars

D.C.B. Gennep B.V.

J.H. Metting

Witvoet Olieprodukten B.V.

Garage Hartgerink B.V.

Tankstation/Garage Staring B.V.

Shell „zelftank” Larenstein (Bhegani)

Schreurs Wessem B.V.

A.J.M. Schiepers

Vluggen Automaterialen B.V.

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/107

No

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

Automobielbedrĳf P. Janssen

Mobil Service de Grens

L. Huisman

V.O.F. Esso tholen

Franssen-Kleĳkers V.O.F.

Service Station Beursgens B.V.

V.O.F. Texaco Toussaint-Meĳs

Autobedrĳf Brilman B.V.

Autobedrĳf Schuurhuis V.O.F.

Automobielservice Beursgens B.V.

Autobedrĳf Evers

Autobedrĳf De Vossenbrink B.V.

Automobielbedrĳf Wedsterdiep B.V.

Texaco Benzinestation M. Rĳks B.V.

Garage Bergsteyn B.V.

Doevendans Handelsonderneming C.V.

V.O.F. De Rooĳ-Geers

V.O.F. Autobedrĳf G. Heikens

Hoogendĳk A.T.W. B.V.

Automobielbedrĳf Joosten Oploo B.V.

Otoskoop B.V.

Automobielbedrĳf S.M. Duivelaar V.O.F.

V.O.F. Sjoerd Olde Monnikhof

Garage Vroomen V.O.F.

Th. M. Tĳssens

Exploitatiemaatschappĳ L. Zdrojewski B.V.

J.H. Thelen

M. Mengels

V.O.F. Esso Worseling

G. Kruit Handelsonderneming B.V.

Service Station Tonny Wessels V.O.F.

H.B. Willemsen

VéBé van Steĳn B.V.

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

L 280/108

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 10. 1999

No

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

E.H. Reink

Automobielbedrĳf Nabuurs B.V.

Automobiel en Garagebedrĳf Kock B.V.

Self Service Tankstation Hondsiep B.V.

Tankshop Boxmeer B.V.

V.O.F. Shell Hattem-Gravesteyn

Texaco Self Service Olde Nordkamp

Auto Berendsen B.V.

Heron automaterialen B.V.

J.H.F. van Sante

Cillekens Brandstoffen B.V.

Smeets & Geelen Tankstations B.V.

Bouw-en Handelsonderneming J; Peeters B.V.

V.O.F. M.J.C. Pluim en Zn.

Automobielbedrĳf Th. Wenting B.V.

Autocentrum Cents B.V.

Tankstation Jagt B.V.

M.W.N. Touw

Auto Vencken B.V.

Nĳol Exploitatie Tankstations B.V.

Nĳol Oliemaatschappĳ B.V.

Bossewinkel V.O.F.

V.O.F. W.J. Wenmaekers

Groothandel en Exploitatiemaatschappĳ Noord-

Esso Brunssum V.O.F.

Fa. J.W. Winkelhorst en Zonen

Automobielbedrĳf A.J.H. Jetten B.V.

Autobedrĳf Jan Booltink B.V.

Direcks Service Station Bocholtz B.V.

Correct Monnereau B.V

Mobil Selfservice stations Oldenzaal-Twello

Firma Autobedrĳf Wiefferink

J. Kram

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/109

No

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

Morsink V.O.F.

Firma J.W. Oonk

Jac. Van Egmond B.V.

Roeleveld-Rolink B.V.

Garage V.O.F Rikhof

Service Station Christophe V.O.F.

A. Prulm-van Rossum

V.O.F. Ooink

Brandstof Exploitatie Bellingwolde B.V.

Handelsmaatschappĳ H. Knol Almelo B.V.

Europa Garage Hardenberg B.V.

Euro-Autohuis B.V.

Roba Rĳssen B.V.

V.O.F. Hidding

Autobedrĳf J. van Hinsberg B.V.

Thĳs Reĳnen B.V.

Autobedrĳf Gebr. Van Tienen

B. ledema V.O.F.

Garage Braakhuis Almelo B.V.

Fa. Jos Cranssen

Diepemaat Tankstation B.V.

A. Lenters V.O.F.

Tankstation „de Witte” V.O.F.

Herinx V.O.F.

Th. W.J. Vermeulen

Pilar B.V.

V.O.F. Esso Servicestation Franssen

Autobedrĳf Cortenbach V.O.F.

Tankstation Wikkerink B.V.

Autobedrĳven J. Hoiting Dalen Emmen

Autobedrĳf De Jong Slagharen

Garage W. Godeke V.O.F.

Hoegen Dĳkhof B.V.

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

L 280/110

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 10. 1999

No

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

294

295

296

297

298

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

V.O.F. Zelftankservice Oldenboom

Tankstation Overstegen B.V.

Autobedrĳf Sanders B.V.

J. Borggreve en J.J. Knobben V.O.F.

Fa. A.M. Kleinsman en Zoon

Autobedrĳf Louis Petit B.V.

Service Station Rene Prevoo V.O.F.

Shell Hengelo Zuid B.V.

Self Service de Bleek B.V.

Self Service Station Weghorst B.V.

V.O.F. Garage Bogers-Vissers

Schreurs Oliemaatschappĳ B.V.

De Heikant Wessem B.V.

J. van Helmond B.V.

V.O.F. Duyn

V.O.F. Achten

Vissers Oliehandel B.V.

Schimmel Mill B.V.

J.G.N. van der Vleden

Autobedrĳf Gendringen V.O.F.

Esso Station Lindenheuvel

CAV Ulestraten-Schimmert-Hulsberg

Kaptien's Oliehandel B.V.

Esso Service Dordsebrug

Servicestation Middel

V.O.F. Autobedrĳf Jo Rutten Wĳchen

Servicestation Gebr. Frissen B.V.

V.O.F. Total servicestation 't Meertje

J.W. Mengels

Salland Oliemaatschappĳ B.V.

V.O.F. de Boer

Weghorst-Oliko B.V.

Automobielbedrĳf Chris Blĳ

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/111

No

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

Autobedrĳf Postema V.O.F.

Garage Grĳsen

Servauto Nederland B.V.

F. Thĳssen BIM Tankstation V.O.F.

Garagebedrĳf G. Slots B.V.

Fa. Autobedrĳf Coenjaerts

G.M. Janssen

Esso Midwolda V.O.F. Jansen

Firma Reuvekamp V.O.F.

Hein Overbeek V.O.F.

Minli Strĳthagen B.V.

Minli Heerlen B.V.

Hessels Autobedrĳf

M. Loeffen

Autobedrĳf de Grote Emmen B.V.

De Grote Rĳksweg Emmen B.V.

t Singraven B.V.

Autobedrĳf te Brake V.O.F.

V.O.F. van der Vegt

Garage Nieuwenhuizen B.V.

Vlutters Handelsonderneming B.V

G. van der Haar

M.T.M. Van Daal Haps B.V.

Handelsonderneming Gebr. Jans B.V.

V.O.F. BP Tnakstation Nĳenhuis

Servicestation Huben V.O.F.

V.O.F. Esso Self Service „De Kluis”

BP Station „De Hasseler Es”

T.E.M. Zwolle B.V.

V.O.F. J. en M. Lucassen-de Mulder

Alg. Service-en Verkoopm. Arnhemse Poort B.V.

Sparu B.V.

Autobedrĳf Zwĳnenberg V.O.F.

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

L 280/112

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 10. 1999

No

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

367

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

V.O.F. Bisselink

Autoservice J. van Deursen B.V.

Garage Schel B.V.

Autobedrĳf Jansen Binnenmars

V.O.F. Shell Service „De Ijzeren Klap”

J.J.H. Jansen

Esso Self Service V.O.F. „Drempt”

Tankstation 't Heukske V.O.F.

V.O.F. City Autoservice

Autobedrĳf Hans Berndes B.V.

Garage Oomen B.V.

Van de Berg's Rotonde V.O.F.

J. Bron

H. Schollen

Autobedrĳf Nĳland Duiven B.V.

Gebroeders Nĳland B.V.

J. Potze B.V.

H.H. Albers

Auto Caubo Valkenburg B.V.

Tankstation en automobielbedrĳf Tromp C.V.

Zuid-Drents Oliecentrum B.V.

V.O.F. Kort Vatthermond

Autoservice Hoogland V.O.F.

Autoverhuur van der Weerdt B.V.

J. Janssen

R.G.M. Stapper

M.M.J. Stapper-v.d. Bosch

Metaro B.V.

Self Service Station Borne B.V.

Self Service Hasselerbaan B.V.

Van Lent-Spiekerman V.O.F.

Firma H. Th. J. van Londen

S.W.M. Baltussen

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/113

No

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

387

388

389

391

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

404

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

V.O.F. Evers

Gebr. Derks Beers B.V.

Autobedrĳf Rutten B.V.

Tankstation Caberg

V.O.F. Postulart-van Cleef

Oliecentrum Strĳbosch B.V.

Tankstation Bekhuis

Garage van den Berg Plasmolen B.V.

V.O.F. Auto Service Center Lichtenvoorde

Automobielbedrĳf Brunlink B.V.

V.O.F. Gebroeders Helnen

Autobedrĳf Saak en Vorenholt V.O.F.

Strĳbosch en Zn. B.V.

Garage Kruiter

Autobedrĳf Bakker en Zoon V.O.F.

Garage-Tankservice D.H. van Aalderen

Tankstation Frazer V.O.F.

Theo's Tankshop

V.O.F. Bastings

R. Timmerman Tankstation Mobil V.O.F.

J.M. Spoolder-Dooren

Vos Maasbracht B.V.

Handelsonderneming Sjaak Arns B.V.

F.K. Frings

Ufkes Hoogebrug B.V.

Ufkes Parkzicht B.V.

V.O.F. Tnakstation Heuthorst

Wikkering-Winterswĳk B.V.

Automobielbedrĳf A.B. Willemsen

BP-station van Wĳk

Autobedrĳf Boerrigter

G&G Exploitatiemaatschappĳ B.V.

Auto Jipp B.V.

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

L 280/114

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 10. 1999

No

405

406

407

409

411

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

432

433

434

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

Olie Centrum Nederland B.V.

J.A.A. Peters

V.O.F. Nĳenhuis

De Haan Minerale Oliën B.V.

Van der Molen V.O.F.

Auto Langwerden

Post Exploitatie Maatschappĳ B.V.

Autobedrĳf Lennaerts B.V.

V.O.F. Seubers

Autobedrĳf Leo Martens B.V.

Firma Overbeek

H. Heĳligers V.O.F.

Garage Snippe

Autobedrĳf Huiskes B.V.

Autobedrĳf De Kock V.O.F.

W.F. Milder

Autobedrĳf J.J. Scheppink

H.M. Geurts Holding B.V.

V.O.F. H.J. Dieperink & Zoon

Borrekuil B.V.

Shell Ganzeweide V.O.F.

Autoservice Het Ambacht Westervoort B.V.

Esso Biljoen Rob Bosman

Top Zwartemeer B.V.

A.J.J. Kolkman

Van Huët V.O.F.

Mobil Selfservice Andre Florack

V.O.F. Trip

Blekkink Aalten B.V.

BIM Velswĳk

Autobedrĳf Reizigersberg

Kap Tankstation V.O.F.

V.O.F. Kroezen

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/115

No

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

466

467

469

470

471

472

473

474

476

477

478

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

J. Vermeulen

Esso Diederen V.O.F.

Autobedrĳf Schipdam B.V.

E.C.G. Geervliet

A. Gezel

Tank-en service station Beulen-Slangen V.O.F.

T.E.M. Nĳmegen B.V.

Roadrunner Service B.V.

Beheersmaatschappĳ Gebr. Van Kleef B.V.

P.J. Pont Almelo B.V.

Auto Hobby van der Werff B.V.

M.G.W. Ruypers

Autobedrĳf Hukkelhoven

V.O.F. J.W. Lensink en T.W. Heinen

Gebr. Jongste B.V.

Autobedrĳf Brouwer B.V.

V.O.F. G. Nelissen St. Geertuid

V.O.F. Autobedrĳf Theo van Huet

Autobedrĳf Roelofs V.O.F.

Pek V.O.F.

Tankstation Schasfoort B.V.

R.A.J. Maes

V.O.F. Autobedrĳf Freke en Zoon

Tankstation Westsingel B.V.

B.V. B.E.M.

C.M.J. van der Aa-Lammerink

Tankstation De Holz B.V.

Autobedrĳf Bleumink B.V.

Garage Vossebeld

Automobielbedrĳf Johnny Peterman B.V.

Demarol B.V.

Brand Oil Servicestation B.V.

Firma Fieten

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

L 280/116

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 10. 1999

No

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

491

492

493

494

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

P. Molema

V.O.F. Autobedrĳf Webbink

Auto Reinders B.V.

Braam Autoservice B.V.

Garagebedrĳf B. Hendriksen B.V.

Vakgarage Voortman V.O.F.

Oliehandel Fr. Hopmans B.V.

Autobedrĳf Renkens

NedOil Tankstations B.V.

Anac Tank-en Service Station V.O.F.

Jeurissen B.V.

Auto Maessen V.O.F.

Esso Station „Het Anker” V.O.F.

Q8 Servicestation Jansen V.O.F.

Westerhof V.O.F.

G.B. Selfservicestation Kessel-Adriaans B.V.

Snĳders Cuyk B.V.

V.O.F. Heimans-Coenen

Garage Mestrom Groesbeek B.V.

Autobedrĳf Vloet Mill B.V.

Garage Lammerts B.V.

Automobielbedrĳf Gerard Tap

V.O.F. Roosenboom

F. Tĳsse Claase B.V.

Opgenoot Tankservice B.V.

V.O.F. Gebrs. Mertens en Zn.

Van Beek V.O.F.

Diesel Oil Company B.V.

Autobedrĳf Klaas Snippe

H.A.T. Bens

De Vrĳe Pomp Coevorden B.V.

T.E.M. Arnhem B.V.

Auto Heersmink B.V.

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/117

No

515

516

517

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

528

529

530

531

532

533

534

535

536

537

538

539

541

542

543

546

549

551

552

553

554

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

I.L. Pierik-Bomers

W. Witvoet

Garage Tankstation Milder V.O.F.

Tankstation J.G. Blokzĳl V.O.F.

V.O.F. Kremer

C.J.G. Heerink

Auotbedrĳf Hondebrink B.V.

Texaco Tankstaion J.A. Holland

M.J.M. Philipsen

Autoedrĳf Ben van der Aa B.V.

Garage-en Autoschadeschadebedrĳf Herbers

V.O.F. Keupink

Coöperatie Tuinbouwcentrum Lent B.A.

Oosterveen's Hobbycentrum B.V.

Overĳsselse Olie Combinatie B.V.

Fa. S. Brakke

H.J.A.A. Bodelier

T en H Beheer B.V.

A.C. Lohmann

Autobedrĳf J.B. Heĳnen V.O.F.

V.O.F. Kengen-Gilissen

J.A.N. Beuken

J.H.M. Feĳts

Actomat B.V.

F.L.M. Krauth

H. Benerink-Folbert

J. Benërink

W. Smit-Ten Donkelaar

Wed. L. Dalhuisen B.V.

V.O.F. W.H. Heyenrath

Tankstation De Grens

Zĳm's Boulevard Garage B.V.

V.O.F. J. Derks en Zn.

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

L 280/118

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 10. 1999

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

No

555

556

J.G.J. Engels

J.J.L. Alofs

557

V.O.F. van der Woey

558

Bean Exploitatiemaatschappĳ B.V.

559

Automobielbedrĳf Van de Weem B.V.

562

Garage Binnenmars B.V.

563

R. Leus

564

De Fakkel B.V.

565

V.O.F. Autobedrĳf van Haren

566

TEM Peelland B.V.

567

J. Kleine

568

Johannes Willem Dĳs

570

H. Wermke

571

V.O.F. Sahil

574

V.O.F. Bosserhof

575

Van Gelder Aardolie B.V.

577

V.V. Tankstation U.S.A.

578

Tankstation 't Klinkertje

579

Autobedrĳf Diepenmaat V.O.F.

580

Garage Hofkamp V.O.F.

581

A.J.B.M. Scholten

582

Firma Bos-Niers

584

Emos B.V.

585

OK Nederland B.V.

586

Grooters Rekken B.V.

587

Grooters Eibergen B.V.

588

Total de Laares V.O.F.

589

Veka B.V.

590

Autobedrĳf Buursink B.V.

591

Driessen Oosterbeek B.V.

593

GeHa Krediettank B.V.

594

Albert M. Kaspers

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/119

No

596

597

599

602

603

604

605

606

607

608

609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

617

618

619

620

621

622

623

624

625

626

627

628

629

632

636

637

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

Aardappelhandel van Melis B.V.

E.J.A. Geerdink

Schadeherstel Twente B.V.

Service Station v/h J.P. Veger

Fokko Meĳer B.V.

Autobedrĳf Belderink B.V.

T.E.M. Salland B.V.

V.O.F. de la Roy

Zegam Zevenaar B.V.

V.O.F. Bongers

V.O.F. W. Pierik Konstruktiebedrĳf

Autobedrĳf Vruggink

Erkens Servicestation en verhuurbedrĳf

Autorĳschool Kruidhof B.V.

Fa. D.W. Westerveld en Zn.

M.H.H. Körver

Th. Rutten en Zn. Autobedrĳf B.V.

BP Jans Vording

V.O.F. H.J. Rensing en Zoon

J.H.W. Plagge

Garage Looman B.V.

A.E.M. Rouleaux

De Wit's Autocenter Vlagtwedde B.V.

Stegehuis V.O.F.

W.E. van Gessel B.V.

AutoRent Bastiaans

Autobedrĳf Schiphorst-Bloemendal B.V.

T.G.N. Strĳbosch

Fa. J.H. & W.D. Bouwmeester

Autobedrĳf Berenpas B.V.

Fa. De Jonge V.O.F.

Ellerie T.T.T. V.O.F.

V.O.F. Bovee

Autobedrĳf Chr. Kerres B.V.

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

L 280/120

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30. 10. 1999

No

638

639

640

641

642

643

644

645

646

647

648

649

650

652

653

655

656

657

658

659

660

661

662

663

665

666

750

751

752

753

754

755

756

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

Rekrea Service Engelage V.O.F.

Autobedrĳf Krabbe

Autobedrĳf Wessels Dedemsvaart B.V.

Garage Kerkdĳk

Tankstation Erik Derks

V.O.F. Autobedrĳf Geve

Johan Henk Gankema

J. Hĳnekamp

E. Gottschall

Van den Bosch en Jansen B.V.

Oliehandel van den Belt B.V.

J.B.H. Wildenborg

Tankservice Amby B.V.

H.M. Olde Heuvelt

V.O.F. Gebr. Th.J. en W.J. Tangelder

Oliehandel de Croon Twello B.V.

Automobielbedrĳf Eef Wessels

Keulen Kerensheide B.V.

V.O.F. Overberg

V.O.F. Weghorst Service

V.O.F. Shell Centrum Wĳchen

Autobedrĳf Mattĳssen B.V.

J.H. Nĳland

Autobedrĳf A.B. Lesscher B.V.

Autobedrĳf Haarhuis

L.M.A. Geelen

Service Station Tatelaar B.V.

B.F.H. Auto's B.V.

Sakko B.V.

Autobedrĳf Magnus

Top Zwartemeer

V.O.F. F. en H.W. Voortman

S.H.J. Bos

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

30. 10. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 280/121

No

757

760

762

763

764

765

766

767

768

769

Applicant

Oil company/Label
contract

Oil company/Label
group

M.J.A. van der Loo

Vissers Tankstations B.V.

L.L. Boekestĳn-Van Lier

Retail Operating Company B.V.

Shell ZT TEO B.V.

Snelgas Nederland B.V.

Robing Tankstations B.V.

Visschedĳk

Vissers Tankstations B.V.

Auto Service 't Heukske

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]

[...]