WRITTEN QUESTION E-0057/01 by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Examination of illegal subsidies to the Georgsmarienhütte steelworks.
Date: 2001-01-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Federation State, Germany, Lower Saxony, State aid, control of State aid, industrial plot, iron and steel industry, price of land, sanction (EU)

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/103

The subject of National Missile Defense (NMD) has however been raised on several occasions during
discussions between M.
Javier SOLANA, the Secretary General/High Representative for the Common
Foreign and Security Policy, and his US counterparts. The Secretary General/High Representative has
echoed the views expressed by a number of Member States on the importance of maintaining global
stability through an agreed security framework. He has also underlined the need for full and transparent
consultations between the US and its European allies on this issue.

(2001/C 235 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0057/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Examination of illegal subsidies to the Georgsmarienh(cid:252)tte steelworks

1.
In 1993 the Land of Lower Saxony granted Georgsmarienh(cid:252)tte steelworks (formerly Kl(cid:246)ckner, now
Georgsmarienh(cid:252)tte GmbH) over DEM 80 million. This payment was judged illegal by the EU. At the start
of the year 2000 the Lower Saxony Government reported that DEM 46 million including interest had been
paid back by the steelworks.

(a) Can the Commission confirm that at the start of the year 2000 the amount of DEM 46 million was

paid back by the steelworks to the Land of Lower Saxony?

(b)

Is it true that the Commission judges the remainder of the amount paid as illegal?

2.
Parallel with the aid granted by Lower Saxony, Landkreis Osnabr(cid:252)ck and the town of Georgsmar-
ienh(cid:252)tte purchased land from the steelworks at exorbitant prices (approximately DEM 20 million). With
the reclamation of this land it has emerged that both municipalities have been left with considerable
deficits which were figured in from the outset as undisclosed subsidies. Has the Commission included these
real estate transactions in the examination of illegal subsidies?

3.
The (cid:145)H(cid:252)ttenbahn(cid:146) railway line has been sold backwards and forwards between the steelworks and
Landkreis Osnabr(cid:252)ck or its transport undertaking VLO, with a sizeable profit for the steelworks each time.
Has the Commission included these transactions in the examination of illegal subsidies?

Does the Commission plan,

4.
question and to set in train any necessary action? Will it notify any such action to MEP Breyer?

if it has not already done so, to follow up the information in this

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

Following proceedings initiated in November 1993 (1) pursuant

to Article 6(4) of Commission
1.
Decision No 3855/91/ECSC of 27 November 1991 establishing Community rules for aid to the steel
industry (2), DEM 15 243 million in aid for Georgsmarienh(cid:252)tte GmbH (GMH) was authorised by Commis-
sion Decision No 95/437/ECSC of 1 February 1995 (3).

On 15 July 1997 the Commission decided to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(5) of Decision
No 2496/96/ECSC of 18 December 1996, establishing Community rules for State aid to the steel
industry (4) in respect of DEM 61,64 million in aid paid by the Land of Lower Saxony to Georgsmar-
ienh(cid:252)tte.

In its Decision of 29 July 1998, the Commission ruled that the aid was incompatible with the ECSC Treaty
and the common market (5).

On 3 November 1998 Georgsmarienh(cid:252)tte Holding GmbH lodged an appeal against this Decision with the
Court of First Instance of the Communities (T-181/98). The case is still pending.

C 235 E/104

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

Under Article 2 of the Decision, Germany was required to recover the aid together with interest. The
amount of aid to be repaid was reduced by DEM 24 496 million to DEM 37 144 million provided that the
sale of the Westerkamp site was cancelled.

In January 2000 the German government sent the Commission information from which it appeared that
GMH had repaid aid amounting to DEM 46 million, including interest to the Land of Lower Saxony. On
8 May 2000 it sent the Commission further information from which it appeared that the sale of the
Westerkamp site had been cancelled.

On that basis, the Commission can confirm that the aid deemed incompatible has been repaid by
Georgsmarienh(cid:252)tte Holding GmbH to the Land of Lower Saxony. No other aid for Georgsmarienh(cid:252)tte
was deemed unlawful in the Commission Decision of 29 July 1998.

As stated in the Commission Decision of 29 July 1998, GMH sold to the Nieders(cid:228)chsische
2.
Landesentwicklungsgesellschaft mbH (NILEG) in February 1994 several real estate assets for a total of
DEM 14,5 million. The sale, as part of this transaction, of the Westerkamp site at a loss price of
DEM 24 496 million was deemed unlawful aid that was compatible neither with the ECSC Treaty nor
with the common market (answer to Question 1).

Other land transactions between the Osnabr(cid:252)ck rural district, the town of Georgsmarienh(cid:252)tte and the
GMH steelworks were not included in the Commission(cid:146)s examination of the aid.

3.
The German authorities have not yet notified the Commission of any repeated sale, between the
Osnabr(cid:252)ck rural district or its transport undertaking VLO and Georgsmarienh(cid:252)tte, of the (cid:145)H(cid:252)ttenbahn(cid:146)
railway line, at a profit to the steelworks.

4.
The Commission will ask the German government for further information on these land sales. If
assessment of the information shows that initiation of the proceedings provided for in Article 6(5) of
Decision No 2496/96/ECSC establishing Community rules for State aid to the steel industry is necessary,
the Commission will initiate such proceedings.

In that event, the initiation of proceedings would be announced in the Official Journal of the Communities.

(1) OJ C 71, 9.3.1994.
(2) OJ L 362, 31.12.1991.
(3) OJ L 257, 27.10.1995.
(4) OJ L 338, 28.12.1996.
(5) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999.

(2001/C 235 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0058/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Storage of environmentally damaging waste by the Georgsmarienh(cid:252)tte steelworks

Part of the subsidy of over DEM 80 million which Georgsmarienh(cid:252)tte steelworks in 1993 received
1.
from the Land of Lower Saxony, went on the recycling (feedback into the production process) of 250 000
tonnes of converter dust and 80 000 tonnes of blast-furnace sludge (with high concentrations of heavy
metals such as cadmium, lead, zinc, mercury plus oil waste), stored illegally at Westerkamp in Georgsmar-
ienh(cid:252)tte. Following the abandonment of the recycling plan these highly toxic substances are still being
stored in the same place without bottom insulation and demonstrably are heavily polluting soil and
groundwater (see Professor Hollmann(cid:146)s expert opinion). Nonetheless the Land, via its district government
Weser Ems, approved the location as well as the mixing, levelling and surface covering, while further
discharges into the environment continue in the absence of lateral and bottom insulation. In view of the
increasing environmental pollution, does the Commission approve of the storage of toxic substances
authorised by the authorities of Lower Saxony at Westerkamp?