2002/204/EC: Commission Decision of 30 October 2001 on the waste disposal system for car wrecks implemented by the Netherlands (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2001) 3064)
Date: 2001-10-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, control of State aid, motor car, waste recycling

L 68/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.3.2002

II

(Acts whose publication is not obligatory)

COMMISSION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 30 October 2001

on the waste disposal system for car wrecks implemented by the Netherlands

(notified under document number C(2001) 3064)

(Only the Dutch text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/204/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,

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

Whereas:

1. PROCEDURE

(1)

By letter dated 19 September 2000 (registered on 25
the Netherlands
September 2000 under A/37820),
authorities notified the Commission that they intended
to extend the waste disposal system for car wrecks. The
original system and the first extension were approved in
1995 and 1998 respectively, as
the Commission
concluded that the measure did not constitute aid within
the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty (2).

letter dated 7 December 2000 (D/56086). The Nether-
lands authorities replied by letter dated 8 December
2000 (registered on 11 December 2000 under A/
40432). A further request for information was sent by
letter dated 10 January 2001 (D/50042). The Nether-
lands authorities replied by letter dated 19 January 2001
(registered on 24 January 2001 under A/30634).

(3)

By its decision of 28 February 2001 the Commission
initiated the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the
Treaty with respect to the waste disposal system. By
letter dated 2 March 2001 (D/286578), the Commission
informed the Netherlands of this decision. After having
asked for more time (letter dated 29 March 2001, regis-
tered as A/32658 on 29 March 2001), which was
granted by letter dated 5 April 2001 (D/51465), the
Netherlands reacted to the decision by letter dated 5
June 2001 (registered on 13 June 2001 as A/34642).

(2)

By letter dated 9 October 2000 (D/55102), the Commis-
sion requested further information. The Commission
reminded the Netherlands authorities of this request by

(4)

(1) OJ C 111, 12.4.2001, p. 2.
(2) Letter D/17343 of 28 December 1995 concerning State aid NN 93/
95 and letter D/7090 of 17 August 1998 concerning State aid
N 656/97. In paragraph 15 of its guide to procedures in State aid
cases, the Commission wrote that notification is required whenever
there is a sufficient likelihood in the light of the case law of the
Court of
Justice and the Commission's practice that a measure
involves State aid (Competition law in the European Communities,
Volume IIA, Rules applicable to State aid, European Commission
1998). Footnote 8 to this paragraph adds that the Commission is
willing to give informal advice on whether notification is required.

(3) See footnote 1.

The decision was published in the Official Journal of the
European Communities (3) and interested third parties were
their comments on the aid. The
invited to submit
Commission received 10 comments,
though two of
them were received only after the period of one month
from the date of publication had expired. The Nether-
lands was asked to comment on these letters by letters
dated 21 May 2001 (D/52087) and 16 July 2001 (D/
52884). The Netherlands sent
its comments on the
comments from interested parties by letter dated 20

12.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 68/19

June 2001 (registered on 22 June 2001 as A/34929) and
by letter dated 3 August 2001 (registered as A/36368
on 7 August 2001). Two meetings between the
Commission, the Netherlands authorities and ARN, the
central organisation in the waste management system
(see below), took place on 21 March 2001 and 4 May
2001 respectively.

The Dutch authorities took the view that the prolonga-
tion of the system could not await the Commission's
final decision and declared the new system generally
binding in view of the expiry of the previous period.

2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURES

The aim of the waste disposal system is to ensure that
the companies that manufacture and sell cars also take
responsibility for a high degree of recycling and reuse of
car wrecks. Because of
the significant environmental
consequences involved, the European Parliament and the
Council adopted a Directive on end-of-life vehicles (here-
inafter the car wrecks Directive) (4). The Directive sets an
objective for 2006 of 85 % reuse and recovery and 80 %
reuse and recycling for all end-of-life vehicles (5). The
corresponding figures for 2015 are 95 % and 85 %.
Having reached the first objective, the participants in the
Dutch system want to realise the latter objective well
before 2015.
In line with the principle of producer
responsibility and the ‘polluter pays’ principle, an impor-
tant responsibility for reaching these objectives lies with
car manufacturers and importers.

sector organisations (6)
In the early 1990s,
several
combined to form the non-profit Foundation Car &
Recycling (Stichting Auto & Recycling, hereinafter the
SAR) and developed a nationwide collection and recy-
cling system for car wrecks (7). For the implementation
and management of the recycling system, the SAR set
up a private limited liability company, Auto Recycling
Nederland BV (hereinafter ARN), that is 100 % owned
by the SAR. ARN is responsible for the organisation and
logistic administration of the recycling of car wrecks.
This system became operational on 1 January 1995.

The core of the system is a voluntary agreement among
all manufacturers and professional importers of cars in
the Netherlands (combined within the RAI). They agreed
to pay a charge for each car that is registered for the first
time in the Netherlands. The charge is collected by ARN,

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(4) Directive 2000/53/EC of

the
Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles, OJ L 269,
21.10.2000, p. 34.

the European Parliament and of

(5) Lower targets may be laid down for vehicles produced before 1

January 1980.
(6) RAI on behalf of

the car producers and importers, BOVAG on
behalf of the garage industry, FOCWA for the car manufacturers,
STIBA for the car dismantling industry and SVN (now MRF) for the
shredder industry.

(7) The SAR is managed by four directors. The industry organisations
BOVAG, FOCWA, RAI and STIBA have the right to appoint one
director each. The SAR is advised by an Advisory Committee,
whose members are representatives of interested government bodies,
environmental and/or consumer organisations. They are appointed
by the board of the SAR.

and recycling the

which uses the resources for the cost of dismantling the
car wrecks
collected materials,
including transport. The agreement is concluded each
time for a period of three years. The notified agreement,
dated 19 July 2000, stipulates that the car manufacturers
and importers pay EUR 45 (NLG 99,17) per car that is
being registered in the Netherlands, regardless of brand
or type (8). For the first two periods, the charge was
EUR 113 (NLG 250) and EUR 68 (NLG 150) per car
respectively.

(9)

(10)

The charge of EUR 45 (NLG 99,17) per car is based on
a complex calculation. The most important variables in
this calculation are the average composition of a car
wreck, the average cost of dismantling and recycling a
car wreck, the expected number of car wrecks and the
expected number of new cars registered in the Nether-
lands. Another important variable is the extent to which
the existing reserves are used for current dismantling
premiums. The charge is a flat rate that applies to any
brand or type of car, because, according to ARN, the
cost of dismantling and recycling is about the same for
each car wreck and differentiation would not really be
possible.

In order to ensure that all car manufacturers and impor-
ters pay this charge, the Netherlands Government has
declared the agreement generally binding on all manu-
facturers and importers in the market for the period 1
January 2001 — 1 January 2004 (9). The Minister for
Housing, Planning and the Environment can grant an
exemption if the requesting party ensures disposal of the
car wrecks in at least an equivalent way to disposal
the system that has been declared generally
under
binding (10).

(11)

Premiums are paid only for parts of car wrecks which
according to the Netherlands authorities cannot be
dismantled/collected and recycled in an economically
viable manner. At present ARN grants waste disposal
premiums for the dismantling of 18 materials.

ARN materials

Norm 2001

Batteries

Oil

Coolant

Brake fluid

Tyres

13,6 kg

4,9 l

3,6 l

0,3 kg

27,3 kg

(8) In 7 % of cases, the charge is paid by a private person.
(9) Article 15(36) of the Law on Environmental Management gives the
Minister for Housing, Planning and the Environment the power to
declare an agreement generally binding.

(10) Article 15(38) of the Law on Environmental Management.

L 68/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.3.2002

ARN materials

Norm 2001

Inner tubes

PUR foam

Glass

Rubber strips

Safety belts

Coconut fibre

Windscreen washer fluid

Bumpers

Hubcaps

Rear lights and indicators

Grilles

Fuels

LPG tanks (number per wreck)

0,2 kg

6,5 kg

25,4 kg

7,7 kg

0,4 kg

0,9 kg

0,9 kg

5,2 kg

0,7 kg

1,4 kg

0,8 kg

5,0 kg

0,06

(15)

The administrative cost of the system is budgeted at
EUR 3,8 million (NLG 8,4 million)
in 2000 and is
expected to grow to EUR 4,5 million (NLG 10 million)
in later years.

(16) Any dismantling company may become ARN certified
and thus eligible for the premiums, provided it meets
certain objective criteria, e.g. having certain environ-
mental licenses, being registered in the online registra-
tion system for car dismantling (ORAD), having working
facilities of at least 72 m2 and certain machines and
tools, and using software that is in line with ARN stan-
dards. The certification procedure is carried out by an
independent certifying body, Société Générale de Surveil-
lance.
that dismantling
companies be recognised by the Netherlands vehicle
registration authority (RDW). It is provided by law that
only companies with a legal establishment in the Nether-
lands can obtain such recognition, so in fact only those
companies can obtain the waste disposal premiums.

In addition, ARN requires

There are plans to add airbags, safety belt fasteners, air
conditioning and plastic fuel tanks to the list from 2003
onwards.

(12)

In the theoretical situation that all materials are disman-
tled according to the 2000 norm, the total cost amounts
to EUR 87,55 (NLG 192,93) per wreck, i.e. EUR 71,05
(NLG 156,58) for the costs of dismantling, EUR 13,39
(NLG 29,50) for the costs of packaging and collection
and EUR 3,11 (NLG 6,85) for costs of recycling. Due to
inflation, a higher recycling percentage (including new
materials to be recycled) and technological developments
with respect to cars, the cost is expected to increase over
time. Accordingly, the expected total figure for 2003 is
EUR 107,50 (NLG 236,89). For some of the materials,
the recycling premium is actually negative, which means
that the dismantling company receives a payment from
the recycling company for the material to be recycled
which is deducted from the premium received from
ARN.

recycling companies.

(17) A tender procedure is used for awarding contracts for
collecting and transporting the dismantled materials to
the
Interested companies are
invited to prove that they fulfil certain minimum tech-
nical and financial standards, such as an environmental
transport licence, appropriate facilities and experience.
One company per province is selected,
taking into
account in particular the cost price of collection, tech-
nical quality and organisational suitability. The collection
of used oil

is subject to a system regulated by law.

(18) A tender procedure is also used for awarding contracts
for the recycling of materials. Interested companies have
to fulfil a number of minimum technical and financial
requirements,
licence,
appropriate equipment, no bankruptcy history and no
criminal record. ARN selects the most attractive offers
for the material
in
particular the cost price of recycling, working methods,
technical quality and organisational suitability.

in particular an environmental

taking into account

in question,

(19)

Producers and importers of cars are free to pass the
charge on to the buyers, or to refrain from doing so if
they wish.

(13)

Currently about 267 car dismantling companies are
affiliated to ARN. They dismantle about 90 % of all car
wrecks in the Netherlands (286 595 in 2000). ARN pays
the dismantling contributions only for the quantity of
raw material that has actually been dismantled. This is
on average 88,5 % of
the norm quantities, corre-
sponding to EUR 62,9 (NLG 138,57) in 2000.

(20)

(14) ARN estimates the number of car wrecks in 2001 at
between 344 000 and 372 000. ARN's market share is
around 90 %. The total amount disbursed in 2000
amounted to about EUR 23,9 million (NLG 52,7
million).

Part of the proceeds of the charge is used for professio-
nalisation and pilot projects. The annual budget
for
professionalisation amounts to EUR 0,5 million for the
period 2001-2005, while from 2006 onward it will
amount to EUR 0,2 million. The annual budget for pilot
projects relating to recycling is EUR 3,4 million for the
period 2001-2003, and EUR 2,2 million for later years.
Research topics include method analysis for dismantling,
development of the appropriate tools, equipment and
machinery, development of quality control systems,
research into new separation technologies, optimisation
of logistic systems, research into new products, market
studies and development of IT-systems.

12.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 68/21

3. REASONS FOR THE INITIATION OF THE PROCE-
DURE LAID DOWN IN ARTICLE 88(2) OF THE
TREATY

(21)

(22)

The Commission initiated the procedure laid down in
Article 88(2) of the Treaty because it had doubts on
several aspects of the system. First of all, it seemed that
the dismantling contributions were likely to constitute
overcompensation for the dismantling companies with
potential spillover into the spare parts market. Secondly,
the nature of the professionalisation and pilot projects,
financed by the levy, was unclear.

the Commission expressed doubts as
Furthermore,
regards potential
the
infringement of Article 29 of
Treaty (restrictions on exports), as ARN allows disman-
tling companies to participate in the system only if they
are recognised by the Netherlands vehicle registration
authority (RDW). Since it is provided by law that only
companies with an establishment in the Netherlands can
obtain such recognition, in practice only such compa-
nies can obtain the premiums.

(23)

The Commission did not express specific doubts as
regards potential aid for car manufacturers and impor-
ters or for packaging, collecting and recycling compa-
nies. However, interested parties were given the oppor-
tunity to comment.

responsibility for its waste streams (12). However, Renault
challenges the fact that a charge is paid regardless of the
stage of life of the vehicle and regardless of its residual
economic value. Car manufacturers make an effort to
‘design for recycling’ and they would like to see a return
on these investments in differentiation of the treatment
cost of their products, rather than having to pay for an
average vehicle.

(26)

The second car manufacturer, Peugeot, argues that the
ARN system is based on an incomplete and even
contestable approach, which leads to an overestimation
of the cost of treating car wrecks. Moreover, ARN did
not take account of differences in efficiency, which were
evident
from certain European developments. The
restriction to car dismantling companies having an
establishment in the Netherlands was therefore not justi-
fied and was against European legislation. Finally,
Peugeot regrets the total absence of transparency, as
ARN refused to communicate the results of its research.
As these results were unique in Europe, they should be
shared, allowing further analysis.

4. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES

(27)

(24)

the procedure (11),

Following the publication of the notice on the initiation
of
the Commission received nine
comments from third parties. Three of the comments
came from car manufacturers, three from associations of
companies active in the (waste) PUR foam market, one
from a consultant working for a group of Dutch waste
disposal companies, one from the United Kingdom
authorities and one from the central organisation in the
system, ARN. A fourth association of companies active
in the field of PUR foam subsequently reacted in
response of the other three reactions. However, this
latter comment, and also one of the car manufacturers'
comments, were not sent within the period of one
month following publication of the notice in the Official
Journal.

4.1. Comments from car manufacturers

(25)

The three comments from car manufacturers focus on
quite different aspects of the ARN system. The first,
Renault, welcomes the system as it places responsibility
for a product at the last stage of its life on the consumer.
It also thinks that the requirement for car dismantling
companies to have an establishment in the Netherlands
is a small concession to a Member State taking up its

finds

The third car manufacturer, General Motors Europe
(hereinafter GME),
it unacceptable that ARN
applied an average price, which effectively meant that
car manufacturers were involuntarily subsidising ineffi-
cient players. GME maintains that the average price is
based on the worst cost-base structure, and it alleges
that Dutch dismantling companies use the excess
amount of money they get through the ARN system to
buy car wrecks in Germany. This would constitute unfair
competition. If car manufacturers were involved in the
process, which would seem normal since they are the
payers, they would have a real system of tender offers
with the cars going to the most efficient dismantling
companies. This would force all the dismantling compa-
nies to make the productivity improvements that are
required. GME thinks that there is a lot of room for
productivity improvement. Moreover, GME believes that
the system favours almost only dismantling, with no
money being invested in energy recovery, which would
be a good way to reach recycling quotas. Like Peugeot,
GME argues that ARN is not sufficiently transparent,
since it does not provide access to the results of tech-
nical studies. Neither is it clear how the recycling quotas
are achieved and how the recycled materials, e.g. seat
belts, are used. Finally, GME considers that the restric-
tion of the ARN system to companies with an establish-
ment in the Netherlands is a fairly complex issue. GME
believes that the operators must be able to communicate
in the home language of each country if there is to be
proper monitoring.

(11) See footnote 1.

(12) Both of

these remarks negate the polluter-pays principle, which

forms the basis of the ARN system.

L 68/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.3.2002

4.2. Comments

from associations of companies

active in the (waste) PUR foam market

(28)

Three sets of comments,
from the European Plastic
Converters, the European Isocyanate Producers Associa-
tion and the European Association of Manufacturers of
Moulded Polyurethane Parts for the Automotive Industry
(supported also by the European Association of Flexible
Polyurethane Foam Blocks Manufacturers), draw atten-
tion to the alleged effects of the ARN system on the
for waste PUR foam. The three associations
market
maintain that for many years the industry in the Nether-
lands has been recycling PUR foam scraps from indus-
trial waste on a voluntary basis, without any subsidy and
in a profitable way. However, the ARN subsidies for
about 6,5 kg per vehicle have a detrimental impact on
the price level of the recycled PUR. The final result is
that the non-subsidised PUR foam recycling activities are
squeezed out of the market. One of the associations
points to the alternatives provided for by the car wrecks
Directive: prevention, reuse, recycling and other forms
of recovery of end-of-life vehicles and their components.
Another adds that the system discriminates against other
filling materials used in car seats or other car parts
because there would be no similar obligations. Finally, it
is argued that recycling PUR foam separately might not
be the most economical solution, as the energetic value
of automotive shredder residue is much higher if all
types of plastics,

including PUR foam, are left in it.

(29) A later comment by the Association of Plastic Manufac-
turers in Europe, however, supported the view that if
plastics recycling is to develop along the lines prescribed
by the legislation, there needs to be a source of funding.
The ARN system would represent one type of frame-
work to provide such support for plastics recycling.

4.3. Comments on behalf of the waste disposal

companies

ular, the fact that ARN has concluded a contract with
only one waste oil collecting company for the whole
country is called into question. The documents state that
the collecting and treatment of hazardous waste,
like
waste oil, oil filters and batteries, are profitable activities.

(31)

4.4. Comments

from the United
authorities

Kingdom

The United Kingdom authorities stress that in trans-
posing the car wrecks Directive each Member State will
need to take account of
the different systems and
industry structures that they have in place. Economic
operators should not be prevented from entering into
commercial negotiations about contracts on either a
variable or a fixed payment basis, and they should be
able to agree fixed price contracts if that is what they
wish. It would be unnecessarily complex to oblige oper-
ators to enter into variable contracts.

4.5. Comments from ARN

(32) ARN submitted extensive information on the system, a
new study on the cost price of car dismantling and a
report on the market structure in the car dismantling
sector. The Netherlands authorities fully support
the
ARN comments, and there is a large overlap between
those comments and the reaction of the Netherlands.
These two sets of comments are therefore dealt with
together in the following section.

5. COMMENTS FROM THE NETHERLANDS AND FROM

ARN

5.1. General issues

(33)

authorities

The Netherlands
and ARN begin by
reminding the Commission of its two earlier decisions
on the system in which it concluded that there was no
State aid. The principles of the system had not changed
in the meantime. ARN doubts whether the Commission
could adopt a decision that went against its two earlier
decisions and asserts that the Commission should at any
event have followed the procedural rules applicable to
existing aid rather than the rules applicable to new aid.

the
(34) ARN's comment also contains a description of
system. Among other issues, ARN stresses that
the
system is based on an agreement between private parties
and that it is necessary to enter into a contract with as
many dismantling companies as possible in order to
achieve the objectives.

(30)

that drew up this set of comments
The consultant
submitted a copy of the notice of objection submitted
by several waste disposal companies to the Netherlands
competition authority (NMa). This notice concerns,
amongst other things,
the distortion of competition
between participating and non-participating car disman-
tling companies, with respect to matters such as the
commercially profitable parts contained in car wrecks.
Another important issue is the concern at distortion of
competition resulting from the dominant position of
ARN in the markets for dismantled materials. In partic-

5.2. The definition of State aid and State resources

(35)

Referring to several Court cases, in particular Preussen-
Elektra and the opinion of Mr Advocate General Jacobs
in that case (13), ARN and the Netherlands argue that the
system does not involve State aid, as the levies that are
resources. State
constitute State
collected do not

(13) Case C-379/98, PreussenElektra AG v Schleswag AG,

judgment of
the Court of 13 March 2001, and opinion of Mr Advocate General
Jacobs delivered on 26 October 2001 [2001] ECR I-2099.

12.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 68/23

resources would be funds over which the State exercises
control
in one way or another. Contrary to taxes,
payments here are made on the basis of a voluntarily
adopted agreement. The Minister declares such an agree-
ment generally binding only if it has a market coverage
of at least 75 %. In the case of ARN, some 93 % of the
market has voluntarily adopted the agreement. The other
7 % are mainly non-professional importers. The private
parties are not obliged to submit a request for a declara-
tion that the agreement is generally binding.

(36) Moreover, the funds are paid by private undertakings to
a private legal entity, SAR, founded by private parties. At
no time do the funds acquired through the charge
become the property of the State. Nor does the State, at
any point, exercise any form of control over how the
funds are used. ARN is neither a public body nor an
organisation designated or established by the State. In
fact, when considering a request for an order declaring
an agreement generally binding, the Minister conducts
only a limited review of the agreement and the disposal
system financed by the charge agreed upon. The Minister
assesses whether the organisation entrusted with the task
of operating the system is sufficiently independent,
whether the targets for recycling set in governmental
regulations can be met and whether everything has been
done to involve as many parties as possible. This means
that there is no State influence on the actual setting-up
or operation of the system.

(37)

(38)

Finally, the collection of the charges is the responsibility
of the private parties. If one of the parties refuses to
abide by its obligations under the system, any other
interested party will have to apply to the courts under
law.
law. The whole system is governed by civil
civil

The Netherlands authorities and ARN also maintain that
the contributions do not affect trade between Member
States. There is no competition between Netherlands and
foreign dismantling companies on the market
for
dismantling services, mainly because European legisla-
tion makes it almost impossible and in any event unat-
tractive to export untreated car wrecks. For that reason
too, there is no aid within the meaning of Article 87(1)
of the Treaty.

5.3. Overcompensation of

the
companies

car dismantling

(39)

The Netherlands authorities' and ARN's opinion is that
the contributions to car dismantling companies consti-
tute a reasonable payment for materials that are actually
dismantled on the basis of realistically estimated disman-
tling costs. The activities for which these companies
receive the remuneration would not be carried out

(40)

(41)

(42)

such remuneration, because they are not
without
economically profitable. Car dismantling companies are
free to join the system or remain outside it. The system
does not change anything in the competitive position of
these companies. The market remains open and compet-
itive also with respect to non-participating companies.

The contributions to car dismantling companies are
based on independent research on the market and cost
price. Car producers and importers, represented in the
SAR, which determines
the contributions, have an
interest in keeping the contributions as low as possible.
Where possible ARN will reduce the contributions, and
as soon as ARN-activities become commercially feasible,
the contribution, for these activities will be cancelled. At
the same time, it is important to set the contributions at
such a level that car dismantling companies are prepared
and able to do the work.

5.3.1. Actual payments

Contributions are paid only for materials
that are
actually dismantled. Theoretically, the total dismantling
contribution, in the event that all materials/car parts are
dismantled according to the norm quantities, would be
EUR 71,05. The average contribution per car is in prac-
tice only 88,5 % of this amount, as the companies are
not always able to dismantle all the materials according
to the norms established by ARN. This can be due to
dismantling of commercially profitable parts, or due to
the fact that the car wreck is not ‘complete’.

The actual amounts that are being paid are only small.
Almost half of the participating car dismantling compa-
nies received contributions below EUR 100 000 over a
three-year period, see the table below. For 122 compa-
nies the payments remained below EUR 100 000 over
the 1998-2000 period. For 260 companies,
they
remained below EUR 500 000. Only in 17 cases was a
higher
the maximum being below
EUR 1 400 000. Even for those companies that received
more than EUR 100 000 the difference between the
contributions and their costs is too small to result in aid
above this threshold.

figure reached,

Received contributions over the
period 1998-2000 (EUR)

Number of car dismantling compa-
nies

0—100 000

100 000—200 000

200 000—300 000

300 000—400 000

122

80

42

17

L 68/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.3.2002

Received contributions over the
period 1998-2000 (EUR)

Number of car dismantling compa-
nies

400 000—500 000

500 000—600 000

600 000—700 000

700 000—800 000

800 000—900 000

900 000—1 400 000

9

5

4

2

5

1

Total

287

(45)

(46)

(43)

5.3.2. Cost prices of car dismantling companies

The Commission based its decision to initiate the proce-
dure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty on the
investigation by an independent expert that was carried
out between April and November 1998 and finalised in
May 1999. ARN notes that this report was drafted with
a view of determining the lowest possible contribution
rather than assessing any overcompensation.
In this
report, there was only one company with a cost figure
of EUR 29, and the figure in this case is particularly
doubtful, whereas there is a large group of smaller
companies with a cost higher than EUR 71 (up to
EUR 136). The report should therefore not be inter-
preted as meaning that the cheapest dismantling compa-
nies could dismantle the ARN materials at a cost of
EUR 29. In practice this not possible for any company:
1. the report itself already indicates that it is incomplete
and unreliable, as it is, for example, based on only one
year, on incomplete administrative information obtained
from often very small companies with limited experi-
ence in accounting matters and on estimates by these
companies themselves; 2. new materials are added to the
list of ARN materials and other materials have become
more complicated to dismantle; 3. general cost inflation
and the shortage of qualified labour in particular; 4.
certain costs and cost elements were deliberately not
taken into account (e.g. cost of equipment, the allocation
of general costs, the cost of transporting car wrecks to
the dismantling company and the cost of maintenance).
In particular the larger, more efficient companies indi-
cated that in practice they had higher costs than the
report calculated.

(44)

For these reasons ARN submitted an updating of the
report, drafted by the same consultant. The new report
focuses on companies that dismantle more than 1 000
wrecks a year. These companies accounted for 71,7 % of
all car wrecks dismantled in 2000. On average these

companies dismantle 2 000 car wrecks a year. The focus
on larger companies is justified by the fact that smaller
companies are expected to have a higher cost price as
fixed costs weigh more heavily on them.

For the average company that dismantled 2 000 wrecks
in 1999, a reference cost price of NLG 151 (EUR 68,5)
per
transport
costs (14)). This figure is well above the premium that is
paid out on average (15).

calculated (excluding

car wreck is

varies

obtained

The report calculates the 1999 cost price, on the basis of
all relevant cost items, for six companies that were also
analysed in the earlier report. The range of cost prices
from
costs)
transport
(including
NLG 144 (EUR 65)
to NLG 196 (EUR 89). These
figures are much higher than indicated in the 1997
report and variations are only limited. For three of these
companies, the report calculates a cost price lower than
the reference cost price (only two if transport costs are
included). In only one case does the report calculate a
cost price (including transport costs) that is below the
average premium paid to the relevant company. The
difference amounts to NLG 5 (EUR 2,27), which means
that the company's profit margin on this activity was
below 5 %.

(47) As the cost figures are higher, there is no spillover effect
on the commercial spare parts market. Moreover, the
smaller companies
in particular are active on this
market. For these companies, the contributions by ARN
are relatively low in comparison to their costs. The
contributions would not have a significant impact on
trade between Member States or on competition.

5.3.3. Economic appraisal of the sector and tender procedures

(48) ARN submitted yet another study from another consul-
tant concerning an economic appraisal of
the car
dismantling sector and an analysis of the outcome of
tender procedures if they were to be used by ARN. The
main argument is that under the current system ARN
concludes contracts with dismantling companies on
market terms and that these companies are, therefore,
not overcompensated. There is no reason to expect that
the use of
tender procedures to select dismantling
companies would lead to better results, especially if one
were to take into account the effects of using such
method on ARNs ability to achieve its own and the
Community's
contrary,
payments to dismantling companies would probably be
higher if tender procedures were used. The study notes
that, in normal markets too, more efficient companies
can make higher profits.

targets. On the

recycling

(14) ARN does not

into account

take these costs

for establishing
premiums. However, if a tender procedure were used, these compa-
nies would certainly take these costs into consideration, because
they are necessary in order to have a constant flow of car wrecks,
which allows them to avoid idle capacity. For the six companies,
transport costs vary between NLG 12 (EUR 5,4) and NLG 29
(EUR 13,2)

(15) This reference cost price is based on the assumption of optimal
management and does not take into account the heaviness of the
work and the increasing complexity of dismantling the more recent
car wrecks. It is also based on the assumption that a large part of
the costs is borne by other activities. This has become more diffi-
cult, however, as metal shredder prices have decreased significantly
since 1998.

12.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 68/25

(49)

(50)

(51)

The Netherlands authorities also hold that a tender
procedure for the selection of car dismantling companies
would not allow the Netherlands and European objec-
tives for car wrecks to be achieved. A large number of
is desirable. A
participating dismantling companies
tender procedure would, by definition, lead to a limited
number of selected companies. Also, ARN will never be
the owner of the car wrecks and is therefore not in a
position to determine which dismantling company
receives the car wrecks. Furthermore, a tender procedure
would not
If some
companies were to offer dismantling services at a lower
price,
sufficient
capacity to dismantle all wrecks. It would also be likely
that these companies would mainly concentrate on rela-
tively new wrecks (resulting from accidents), which are
commercially attractive for the spare parts. They prob-
ably would refuse to dismantle the older, economically
unattractive car wrecks.

lead to lower dismantling costs.

companies would not have

these

The Netherlands authorities do not see how specific
criteria in tender procedures (such as minimum number
of dismantling companies per region) would effectively
solve these problems. Such an approach would lead to
the selection of a large number of very different car
dismantling companies with very different costs. This
would be contrary to the low cost objective which was
the Commissions main reason for favouring tender
procedures. Moreover, ARN would perform much more
of a guiding role on the market than at present.

In fact, the way of selecting and concluding contracts
with car dismantling companies has the same effects as a
tender procedure would have. If real tender procedures
were used for establishing market prices, it is unlikely
that these would be lower than the current contribu-
tions. If they were lower, there would be few disman-
tling companies willing to dismantle car wrecks for this
lower amount.

(52)

From the above, the Netherlands authorities and ARN
there is no overcompensation of car
conclude that
dismantling companies.

5.4. ARN's research and development activities

(53) ARN's budget for research and development covers 1.
ARN's internal costs, 2. feasibility studies carried out by
universities or research institutes on recycling of new
materials or on new recycling methods, 3. research
studies on the efficiency of the ARN system, 4. pilot
projects carried out by companies that recycle/process
dismantled materials. ARN provided a detailed break-
down of these expenditures for the period 1998-2001
(first quarter).

(54) None of these activities would involve State aid. They
are all performed for the benefit of
the companies
paying the disposal fee. Assignments to third parties are
always given on market conditions. In most cases the
amounts of payments are so low that any aid would in
any event be below the de minimis threshold.

(55)

The last category, pilot projects, concerns the ‘recyclabi-
lity’ of materials. The resources are not used for the
development of new technology, but existing separation
technologies, e.g. from the mining industry or the recy-
cling of other materials, are investigated with a view to
potential application to car materials. The application of
these technologies is necessary to reach the objectives
set in the car wrecks Directive. ARN does not always
bear the full cost of these projects itself.

(56) Normally the results are publicly available. The only
reason for ARN not to publish information is when it
contains details that may harm ARN's or the other
companies' competitive interests.

(57)

(58)

5.5. The obligations resulting from the car wrecks

Directive

The Netherlands authorities maintain that until
they
implement the car wrecks Directive there is no legal
obligation for producers or importers to bear (financial)
responsibility for the collection and processing of car
wrecks. By their agreement on the waste disposal levy,
they voluntarily take an additional financial responsi-
bility. Once the Directive is implemented,
it can be
maintained that the collection and processing of car
wrecks constitutes a cost that is normally included in the
budget of these companies. The agreement, however,
does not lead to an exemption of this cost, but consti-
tutes the elaboration of the underlying principle.

5.6. Participation

of

foreign
companies

car

dismantling

The Netherlands authorities and ARN do not perceive
any infringement of Article 29 of the Treaty. Firstly,
Article 29 does not target measures taken by private
parties. The requirement of being recognised by ORAD
(recognition to be provided by the RDW)
is not the
consequence of any government measure. It is imposed
by ARN, which is not a public body. Secondly, all car
dismantling companies can set up an establishment in
the Netherlands in order to obtain ORAD recognition.
Thirdly, measures that do not make a distinction on the
basis of nationality do not fall under the application of
Article 29. The requirement of being recognised by

L 68/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.3.2002

ORAD is applicable without distinction to companies of
domestic and foreign origin and to cars irrespective of
where they have been produced. Fourthly, the exporta-
tion of car wrecks to car dismantling companies abroad
is not impossible and is not restricted by the ORAD
recognition system. Fifthly, the free movement of goods,
as regards the imports and exports of car wrecks, has
been harmonised by Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/
93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control
of shipments of waste within, into and out of the EC (16).

exporting and the importing country, the payment of a
deposit and enabling third parties to object against the
intended export. This makes such exportation a time-
consuming, expensive and risky activity. Secondly, car
wrecks without liquids can be exported in conformity
with the ‘green list procedure’ of Regulation (EEC) No
259/93. The removal of the liquids before exportation,
however, makes it financially and organisationally unat-
tractive to export Netherlands car wrecks to car disman-
tling companies abroad.

(59) Alternatively, the Dutch authorities hold the opinion
that there is an objective justification for ARN to require
ORAD recognition. The link with the registration system
is the only way of ensuring that the contributions are
paid only for cars produced in or imported into the
Netherlands.

(63)

If a number of car dismantling companies abroad were
it might become
to participate in the ARN system,
necessary to introduce separate collection and recycling
measures for the materials dismantled by these compa-
nies. This might again lead to problems in the context of
Regulation (EEC) No 259/93. Many of the ARN mate-
rials are not on the green list. Therefore, participation by
foreign car dismantling companies would make the
system more expensive.

(60)

The Dutch authorities distinguish between the situation
before and after the implementation of the car wrecks
Directive. As concerns the situation before the imple-
mentation of the car wrecks Directive: RDW does not
provide ORAD recognition to companies without an
establishment because it cannot then control or monitor
these companies. The same policy is followed in the
context of the annual car tests (APK). The Netherlands
authorities do not see any reason why the judgment in
Van Schaik (17) would not be applicable. If RDW were to
provide ORAD recognition to companies abroad, ARN
would in theory allow these companies to participate in
the system.

(61) As concerns the situation after the implementation of
the car wrecks Directive: on the basis of Article 5(5),
Member States have to mutually recognise and accept
certificates of destruction issued by competent authori-
ties
in other Member States. Once this has been
achieved, RDW will accept such certificates and dereg-
ister the car wreck concerned itself. This is different
from giving foreign companies the power to deregister
cars on-line themselves. Moreover, the fifth sentence of
Article 5(3) specifies that
issuing the certificate of
destruction does not entitle the company to claim any
financial reimbursement.

(62)

Car dismantling is basically a locally operated activity.
For several reasons that are not related to the ARN
system, export of car wrecks is limited and the Nether-
lands authorities do not see any reason to expect this to
be different in the future. Firstly, car wrecks containing
liquids can only be exported in conformity with the ‘red
list procedure’ of Regulation (EEC) No 259/93. Part of
this procedure is the request of permission of both the

(16) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993, p. 1.
(17) Case C-55/93 Van Schaik [1994] ECR I-4837.

5.7. Potential aid for packaging, collection and

recycling companies

(64)

The Netherlands authorities and ARN consider
the
contracts between ARN and the packaging, collecting
and recycling companies to be normal contracts and do
not see any reason to doubt that they are transparent
and non-discriminating. Guarantees of a minimum
supply of materials to recycling companies would never
constitute a monetary transfer and are always provided
under normal market conditions.

5.8. Comments on third party comments

(65)

(66)

The Netherlands authorities note that the third parties,
except ARN, have provided hardly any evidence in
support of the various remarks. They also note that
various comments supported the system and that on
various points the parties contradict one another.

The Netherlands authorities stress that no resources are
used for the recycling of PUR foam and that the contri-
bution concerns only the dismantling of the foam from
the car wrecks. This contribution takes into account the
proceeds that dismantling companies obtain for the
material. Furthermore, a distortion of competition is
unlikely. The ARN system leads to the dismantling of
about 1 700 tonnes of PUR foam a year. This compares
with a total annual production of 2 million tonnes of
new PUR foam. Production waste amounts to about
is being
120 000 tonnes, 70 000 tonnes of
exported, mainly to the United States. The quality of

this

12.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 68/27

foam from car wrecks is much lower than the foam
from production waste and an extensive quality report is
required. The Netherlands authorities believe that the
lower proceeds from PUR foam other than the foam
from car wrecks is probably due to other factors,
notably the poor market situation in the United States
with increasing supply of production waste foam and
diminishing demand for its main use (underlay carpet).
Already between 1993 and 1995, before ARN started
the recycling of PUR foam, the price of production
waste foam exported to the United States fell from DM
1,6 to DM 0,8 per kg. Finally, the Netherlands authori-
ties note that other ways of using waste PUR foam may
be in cement ovens or gasification installations and that
PUR foam may be obtained from shredder waste.
However, the car wrecks Directive explicitly expresses a
preference for material reuse over recovery.

(67) With respect to the comments by car manufacturers, the
Netherlands authorities are in principle in favour of
having differentiated premiums. ARN has investigated
this, but concluded that it was not possible. With respect
to the cost level, it is doubtful whether the car manufac-
turers take account of the ambitious objectives and the
high quality requirements when they state that ARN's
calculation of recycling and dismantling costs is too
high. It seems very unlikely that ‘excess amounts’ would
enable car dismantling companies to buy car wrecks in
Germany. In any case, no contributions are paid for
dismantling non-Netherlands cars.

(68) With respect to the comments submitted on behalf of
waste disposal companies, the Netherlands authorities
hold that these comments should not be accepted as the
consultant has not proven to have any interest in the
case. They mention as well
the Netherlands
competition authority (NMa) has not revised its positive
decision following receipt of the documents submitted.
According to the Netherlands authorities the back-
ground of the comments must be that since 1999 new
regulations have introduced competition into the oil
collecting sector, which has enabled ARN to conclude a

that

contract with a company on significantly more advanta-
geous terms than before.

6. ASSESSMENT

(69)

6.1. State resources and on effects on trade

In PreussenElektra (18), the Court of Justice ruled that an
obligation imposed on private electricity supply under-
takings to purchase electricity produced from renewable
energy sources at
fixed minimum prices does not
involve any direct or indirect transfer of State resources
to undertakings which produce that type of electricity.
However, the ARN system differs from such a system.
There is an intermediary organisation responsible for the
management of the resources and a fund to which the
charges are paid. The proceeds of the charge are to be
used only for the collection and recycling of the mate-
rials; distribution of profits to the participating compa-
nies is prohibited. Because of these characteristics, the
charge is comparable to a parafiscal charge. On various
occasions the Court of Justice has ruled that the use of
parafiscal charges in favour of certain undertakings
constituted State aid (19).

(70) However, in the present case manufacturers and impor-
ters may obtain exemption if they ensure disposal of the
car wrecks in at least an equivalent way to disposal
under the system that is financed from the proceeds of
the charge (see recital 10). Manufacturers and importers
are free to process car wrecks through their own
resources, to set up their own systems or to affiliate
themselves to other systems. These options are real, at
any rate for car manufacturers and large importers. The
Commission therefore regards the Netherlands authori-
ties' decision to declare the charge generally binding as
imposing an obligation to produce results rather than as
an obligation to contribute to the ARN system. The
Commission considers that the charge is voluntary or at
the
in character, and the proceeds of
least optional
charge do not therefore constitute state resources.

(71)

The absence of State resources means that there is no
State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the
Treaty. However, in the following paragraphs, it is made
clear that, even if the proceeds of the charge did consti-
tute State resources, the Commission would conclude
that the system does not involve State aid, since it does
not favour certain undertakings or the production of
certain goods.

(18) See footnote 13, paragraphs 59 to 61 of the Judgment.
(19) For example, in Case 78/76 Steinike & Weinlig v Germany [1977]

ECR 595. In that Judgment, the Court held:
‘(21)
The prohibition contained in Article 92(1) covers all aid
granted by a Member State or through State resources without it
being necessary to make a distinction whether the aid is granted
directly by the State or by public or private bodies established or
appointed by it to administer the aid. In applying Article 92 regard
must primarily be had to the effects of the aid on the undertakings
or producers favoured and not the status of the institutions entru-
sted with the distribution and administration of the aid.
(22)
A measure adopted by the public authority and favouring
certain undertakings or products does not lose the character of a
gratuitous advantage by the fact
is wholly or partially
financed by contributions imposed by the public authority and
levied on the undertakings concerned.’

that

it

L 68/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.3.2002

(72) As far as the effect on trade between Member States is
concerned, the Commission cannot accept the Nether-
lands authorities' and ARN's arguments. Trade in car
wrecks may be very limited, but it exists. Moreover, a
substantial number of companies that participate in the
system are also active in the spare parts market. Spare
parts are internationally traded, and indeed increasingly
so. Therefore, any aid for dismantling activities must be
expected to affect trade between Member States. Further-
more, the existence of the system possibly has an effect
on trade in cars.

facturers that do not invest similar amounts in ‘design
for recycling’. In the notification, ARN explained that it
did not choose to determine different levies for different
types of cars as the calculations would be difficult and
based on poor information. Moreover, the consequences
of ‘design for recycling’ will have an impact on the car
wrecks system only after some years.

(75)

The Commission therefore expects that via the system
each car manufacturer or importer will pay at least a
significant part of the costs referred to in Article 5(4) of
the car wrecks Directive and concludes that there is no
State aid for car manufacturers and importers, even if
State resources were involved.

6.2. Car manufacturers and importers

(73) Article 5(4) of the car wrecks Directive stipulates that
Member States shall
take the necessary measures to
ensure that producers and professional importers meet
all, or a significant part of, the costs of the implementa-
tion of this measure […] (20). This is in line with the
principle of producer responsibility and the ‘polluter
pays’ principle. In fact, the Netherlands system is based
on these principles. However, in the Netherlands system
the cost of dismantling and recycling car wrecks is
financed from the proceeds of a charge that is declared
generally binding by the Government. Viewed in isola-
tion,
this favours car manufacturers and importers.
However, the Commission can make allowance for the
contribution arrangements under which it is primarily
the car manufacturers and importers themselves who
finance the recycling system. They are thus not relieved
of a normal company cost. In the area of recycling, the
charge has a very specific and unique purpose, there
being a direct and compelling link between the charge
and the payment, both of which relate to precisely the
same good, at different moments of its economic life-
time. In these circumstances, the effect of the arrange-
ments is merely to oblige undertakings selling cars to
internalise all of the true environmental costs associated
with their activities, without any other financial inter-
vention from the Member State being necessary.

(74) One car manufacturer commented that it would like to
see a return on its investments in ‘design for recycling’ in
the form of differentiation of the treatment cost of its
products. However, it cannot be deduced from this that
the system contains an aid element for those car manu-

(76)

(77)

(20) ‘This measure’

refers

to the first

subparagraph of Article 5(4)
concerning the delivery of the vehicle to an authorised treatment
facility without any cost
for the last holder and/or owner as a
result of the vehicle's having no or a negative market failure. This
implies that any commercial deficit resulting from dismantling and
recycling cannot be passed on to the last owner or holder of the
car. The second subparagraph of Article 5(4) relates to the costs of
these commercial deficits.

6.3. Undertakings involved in packaging, collecting

and recycling

Following the initiation of the Article 88(2) procedure,
no comments were received concerning the openness of
the tender procedures used by ARN. The Commission
therefore assumes that these procedures ensure that the
remuneration is reduced to the necessary minimum. The
Netherlands authorities do not intervene in any way to
inflate the payments or overcompensate the undertak-
ings concerned. The terms of the tenders seem trans-
parent and non-discriminatory, the conditions imposed
seem objectively justifiable and do not seem to give rise
to any de facto discrimination.

the recycled materials

Even if the public tenders are sufficiently transparent and
non-discriminatory, they are insufficient, in themselves,
to allow the conclusion to be drawn that no State aid is
involved, because the premiums are effectively filling the
gap between the cost of dismantling and the price to be
in the market.
obtained for
However, it is the responsibility of the car manufacturers
and importers,
in accordance with the ‘polluter pays’
principle, as agreed among themselves and as confirmed
by the order declaring the agreement generally binding
and by the car wrecks Directive, to ensure that the
activities for which the remuneration is paid are carried
out. Therefore, the effect of the arrangements is that the
undertakings involved in packaging, collecting and recy-
cling are effectively performing a service primarily for
the car manufacturers and importers, as opposed to the

12.3.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 68/29

Member State or consumers. The Commission therefore
concludes that there is no State aid for these undertak-
ings, even if the proceeds of the charge were deemed to
be State resources.

(78)

The comments by the three associations involved in PUR
foam recycling point to the effects of the contribution
for dismantling PUR (EUR 2,86 per kg). The facts
presented by the Netherlands
indicate,
however, that the effect of the relatively small additional
supply of inferior waste PUR foam must be limited.
Moreover, any such general effect of the system remains
a typical result of regulations requiring all environmental
costs related to selling cars to be internalised by the car
industry as a whole.

authorities

6.4. Dismantling companies

(79)

the gap is

relatively small. Furthermore,

The Commission has assessed the new report submitted
by ARN presenting new calculations on the cost of car
dismantling companies and agrees with the general
picture. It is shown in particular that: 1. the actual cost
prices of dismantling car wrecks are significantly higher
than indicated in the 1999 report; 2. the ‘reference cost
price’ of dismantling an average car wreck is well above
the average contribution that is paid out; and 3. cost
differences are much smaller than was concluded in the
1999 report. Only in one case is the cost price below
the average contribution paid to the relevant company,
but
the
Commission makes allowance for the need to have a
sufficient number of participating dismantling compa-
nies. Finally, ARN and the Netherlands authorities have
the differences among car wrecks and
shown that
among dismantling companies present difficulties for
tendering procedures. The Commission does not rule it
out that it may still be possible to apply such proced-
ures, but agrees that it is unlikely that they would result
in lower dismantling contributions, even in the case of
the more efficient dismantling companies. Under these
circumstances, the Commission can regard the disman-
tling contributions as reflecting market prices for the
services of the car dismantling companies. Consequently,
there is no overcompensation to these companies.

(80)

The absence of overcompensation, viewed in isolation, is
not sufficient to allow the conclusion to be drawn that
no State aid is involved, because the premiums are effec-
tively filling the gap between the cost of dismantling and
the price to be obtained for the recycled materials in the
it is the
market. As described in recital 77, however,
responsibility of the car manufacturers and importers, in
accordance with the ‘polluter pays’ principle, as agreed
among themselves and as confirmed by the order
declaring the agreement generally binding and by the car
wrecks Directive, to ensure that the activities for which

is

that

the arrangements

the remuneration is paid are carried out. Therefore, the
effect of
the dismantling
companies are effectively performing a service primarily
for the car manufacturers and importers, as opposed to
the Member States or consumers. The Commission
therefore concludes that there is no State aid for these
undertakings, even if the proceeds of the charge were
deemed to be State resources.

and the Netherlands

(81) Any waste disposal system for car wrecks necessarily
involves choices for one or another technology with a
view to reusing, recovering or recycle a specific material.
ARN's
authorities objectives,
favouring selective dismantling over combined shredder/
separation technologies, may involve a relatively large
workload for dismantling companies. This fact, however,
does not alter the nature of the contributions, which are
a market reward for services rendered and which, for the
reasons stated above, do not constitute State aid.

6.5. The expenses for professionalisation and pilot

projects relating to recycling

(82)

(83)

or

car manufacturers. Therefore,

Research studies on the efficiency of the ARN system
and on the efficiency of dismantling are primarily of
importance for ARN and the functioning of the system.
They do not directly benefit dismantling or recycling
the
companies
Commission agrees with the Netherlands authorities
that, even if the budgetary resources were deemed to be
State resources, these studies do not constitute State aid,
as they do not favour specific companies or specific
activities within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the
Treaty. The same conclusion also holds for ARN's
internal costs under this budget line in as far as they
relate to activities that are also connected with the effi-
ciency of the system.

From their description it becomes clear that the feasi-
bility studies and pilot projects on dismantling and recy-
cling of new materials/car parts also primarily serve the
interests of the system and do not confer specific bene-
fits on the participants in the system or on the compa-
nies carrying out the research. No new technologies are
being tested; the work solely concerns investigation of
potential application of existing technologies for specific
materials/car parts. The dissemination of
is
restricted only when the interests of ARN or of third
parties that participate in the research so require. ARN
awards research contracts to firms according to market
conditions, with specific advantages for the participating
firms being ruled out. Therefore, these expenses do not
constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87(1)
the budgetary resources were
of
deemed to be State resources.

the Treaty, even if

results

L 68/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.3.2002

6.6. Infringements of other Treaty provisions

(84) As the Commission takes the view that the system does
not result in State aid, it is not entitled to decide, under
the Article 88(2) procedure, whether other provisions of
Community law are infringed.

7. CONCLUSIONS

without conferring specific advantages on the companies
involved in the research. As the Commission concludes
that the system does not involve State aid,
it is not
entitled, within the framework of
the Article 88(2)
procedure, to decide on possible infringements of other
Treaty provisions,

(85)

since

resources are

The Commission concludes that
the waste disposal
system for car wrecks does not involve State aid. No
the obligation
involved,
State
imposed under the Law on Environmental Management
and the declaration that the system is generally binding
must be regarded as an obligation to produce results.
The decision to pay the charge is voluntary, or at least
optional. Furthermore, the measure does not constitute
State aid even if the proceeds of the charge were deemed
to be State resources, since it does not favour specific
companies. Car manufacturers actually pay at least a
significant part of the cost of the system, while the
contributions for car dismantling companies must be
viewed as a market remuneration for the services they
provide, despite some divergence observed in cost prices.
There is no evidence that the management of the system
by ARN has provided specific advantages for other
participants in the system. Finally, the Commission has
found that the budget for professionalisation and pilot
projects is used entirely in the interests of the system,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The waste disposal system for car wrecks declared generally
binding by the Netherlands authorities, as notified to the
Commission, does not constitute aid within the meaning of
Article 87(1) of the Treaty.

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Article 2

Done at Brussels, 30 October 2001.

For the Commission

Mario MONTI

Member of the Commission