State aid — United Kingdom — Aid C 7/2002 (ex N 577/01) — Ford Bridgend — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-04-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, State aid, United Kingdom, control of State aid, engine, exchange of information, motor vehicle industry

3.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 79/5

STATE AID — UNITED KINGDOM

Aid C 7/2002 (ex N 577/01) — Ford Bridgend

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

(2002/C 79/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By means of the letter dated 13 February 2002, reproduced in the authentic language on the pages
following this summary, the Commission notified the United Kingdom of its decision to initiate the
procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the abovementioned aid.

Interested parties may submit their comments on the aid in respect of which the Commission is initiating
the procedure within one month of the date of publication of this summary and the following letter, to:

European Commission
Directorate-General for Competition
State Aid Registry
B-1049 Brussels
Fax (32-2) 296 12 42.

These comments will be communicated to the United Kingdom. Confidential treatment of the identity of
the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the
request.

SUMMARY

By letter dated 26 July 2001 the UK authorities notified a plan
to grant regional aid to Ford Motor Company Ltd (‘Ford’ in the
the Ford Motor
following), a wholly owned subsidiary of
Company, USA (‘the Ford group’ in the following).

The notified project concerns the installation of a flexible
engine manufacturing line at Bridgend (South Wales), an
Article 87(3)(a) area, whose regional ceiling is 35 % for the
2000-2006 period. The project, which started in August
2001 and will be completed by mid 2004, involves the instal-
lation of completely new lines for the production of V6 and V8
engines mainly destined to cars produced under the Ford
group's Ford, Jaguar, and Land Rover brands. At the end of
the project production capacity for the engines will be of
to invest a
around 325 000 engines/year. Ford intends
nominal
amount GBP 243 million, of which GBP 213
million were considered eligible by the UK authorities.

According to the UK authorities, the project is mobile. Indeed,
the Ford group considered the alternative option of continuing
the current practice of producing in Cleveland (USA) the V6
engines for the car manufactured in Europe (Jaguar and Ford
Mondeo). As for the V8 engines, the production for Jaguar
models could be accommodate by an existing Bridgend line,
while additional volumes for Land Rover models could be
sourced from another manufacturer (at the moment, BMW
engines are used to power Land Rover vehicles).

Two distinct measures, relating to training aid and regional aid,
are planned in favour of Ford. No other Community aid or
financing has been allocated to the project.

The training aid is granted under
the approved schemes
provided for by section 25 of the 1988 employment act, and
sections 11(1) and 12(1) of the 1982 Industrial Development
Act and the 1998 Government of Wales act. The planned
training aid in nominal values amounts to GBP 1,4 million
gross grant equivalent, with an actual value of GBP 1,17
(base year 2000, discount rate 7,64 %). The proposed aid
takes the form of a direct grant, and would be paid over the
2002-2003 period.

the approved schemes
The regional aid is granted under
provided for by: section 7 of Industrial Development Act of
1982, and section 40 of the Government of Wales Act 1998.
The planned regional aid in nominal values amounts to
GBP 16 million gross grant equivalent, with an actual value
of GBP 12,38. The aid intensity notified by the UK authorities
is 5,37 % gross grant equivalent. The proposed aid takes the
form of a direct grant, and would be paid over the 2002-2006
period. The aid in question falls within the scope of Article
87(1) of the EC Treaty, and the aid granted to it shall be
assessed according to the Community framework for State
aid to the motor vehicle industry (1)
‘the car
framework’).

(hereinafter

(1) OJ C 279, 15.9.1997, p. 1.

C 79/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.4.2002

Both the training aid measure and the regional aid measure
must be notified in compliance with the requirements of
Article 88(3) of the Treaty.

aid

The training aid element of the project must be assessed under
Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001
on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to
training aid (2) (hereinafter, ‘the Regulation’). Since the amount
of
EUR 1 million (approximately
GBP 0,62 million); since it is to be paid to one enterprise;
and since the training project is a single project, the notifi-
cation requirement laid out in the Regulation applies to the
proposed aid and the aid falls to be assessed under the
provisions of the Regulation.

exceeds

granted

The Commission notes that the necessary information to assess
the measure has not been provided. As a consequence, the
Commission is not able at this stage to establish whether the
training aid measure is compatible with the common market.

Turning to the regional aid measure, the Commission shall
ensure that the aid granted is both necessary for the realisation
of the project and proportional to the gravity of the problems
it intended to solve. Both tests, necessity and proportionality,
must be satisfied if the Commission is to authorise State aid in
the motor vehicle industry.

Regarding necessity, the UK authorities have notified that the
alternative location for part of the project (production of V6
engines) would be the existing engine plant in Cleveland (USA),
outside the European Economic Area (EEA) and central and
east European countries (CEECs). The production of the V8
engines would continue to be sourced from another engine
manufacturer. The Commission needs more information that
will allow it to establish that Cleveland was considered an
alternative location under point 3(2)(a) of the car framework.

Regarding proportionality, according to point 3(2)(c) of the car,
a cost-benefit analysis method (hereinafter referred to as CBA)
is used. A CBA compares, with regard to the mobile elements,
the costs which an investor would bear in order to carry out
the project in the region in question with those it would bear
for an identical project in a different location. The UK auth-
orities have submitted a CBA that compares the cost of
Bridgend with those of executing the project in Cleveland.
However, the Commission has doubts that the Cleveland site
qualifies as a comparator site under the car framework.

the Commission considers that the relevant production refers
to the goods that will be produced as a result of the investment
in the new line Bridgend, that is, the V6 and V8 engines. From
the information received, it appears that more than half of the
engine production will be sold within Europe. As a conse-
quence, the Cleveland site cannot be used as a comparator
site for the CBA.

Secondly, the CBA presented between Bridgend and Cleveland,
identical projects in a different location, as requested in section
2(3)(c) of the car framework. According to the information
submitted in the CBA, investment in the Cleveland alternative
would be limited to adaptation of the lines for the production
of the V6 engine, amounting to GBP 72,2 million, while no
investment related to the production of the V8 engine would
be undertaken. Conversely,
in Bridgend would
amount to GBP 271,6 million and involve new production
lines for both the V6 and V8 engine specifications.

investment

The Commission considers that in the present case, the cost
benefit analysis should be carried out comparing the chosen
site of Bridgend with an hypothetical alternative site within the
EEA of CEECs. According to Article 3(2)(c) of
the car
framework, such cost benefit analysis is not required by the
Commission if the intensity of the planned regional aid is 10 %
or less of the regional ceiling.

TEXT OF THE LETTER

‘The Commission wishes to inform the United Kingdom that,
having examined the information supplied by your authorities
on the aid/measure referred to above, it has decided to initiate
the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty.

1. PROCEDURE

1. By letter dated 26 July 2001 the UK authorities notified a
plan to grant regional aid to Ford Motor Company Ltd
(‘Ford’
in the following). The Commission requested
further information on 18 September, and carried out an
on site visit to the Bridgend premises on 26 October. The
UK authorities replied to the request of information by
letter dated 4 December 2001.

First and foremost, in accordance with of section 3(2) of Annex
I to the car framework, if the alternative site is outside Europe,
the CBA has to be performed with a hypothetical alternative
site, unless the company can demonstrate that more than half
of the production is to be sold outside Europe. At this stage,

(2) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 20.

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE AND ITS RECIPIENT

2. The planned aid would be granted to Ford, a wholly
owned subsidiary of the Ford Motor Company, USA (‘the
Ford group’ in the following). The Ford group has manu-
facturing facilities in more than 30 countries, employing
around 360 000 people. In the UK the Ford group owned
businesses (‘blue oval’ Ford, Jaguar, Aston Martin, and Land
Rover) employ around 40 000 people.

3.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 79/7

The project

3. The notified project concerns the installation of a flexible
engine manufacturing line at Bridgend, South Wales, for
the production of an upgraded version of the existing
AJ-V6 engine, currently manufactured in Cleveland (USA)
for Jaguar car lines. The new line will also produce a V8
version of the engine on a flexible basis. AJ-V8 engines are
already being produced at Bridgend, on an older manu-
facturing line that will remain in use after the end of
project. Additionally, smaller engines of the Zetec family
are manufactured at the Bridgend plant.

4. The project started in August 2001, and will be completed
by mid 2004. According to the UK authorities the project
involves the installation of completely new lines for the
production of the engines. Capacity for the production of
the V6/V8 engines at the end of the project will be of
325 000 engines/year, while total production capacity at
the Bridgend plant will be of 1 079 000 engines/year.

5. According to the UK authorities, the project is mobile.
Indeed, the Ford group considered the alternative option
of continuing production of the V6 engines in Cleveland,
also for the car manufactured in Europe (Jaguar and Ford
Mondeo). As for the V8 engines, the production for Jaguar
models could be accommodated by the existing Bridgend
line, while additional volumes for Land Rover products
could be sourced from another manufacturer
the
moment, BMW engines are used to power Land Rover
vehicles).

(at

6. According to the notification, the choice of building a new
line at Bridgend for the production of the V6/V8 engines is
more costly than the alternative described above. However,
following the decision by the Board of
the National
Assembly of Wales
to grant assistance in December
2000,
the Ford group have expressed a preference to
proceed with the project in Bridgend.

7. Ford intends

to invest a nominal amount GBP 243
million, of which GBP 213 million were considered
eligible by the UK authorities.

8. The UK authorities underline the importance of the project
for the South Wales region, that still lags behind the UK
average in terms of GDP per head. The Ford plant is one
of the largest employers in the area. As a direct conse-
quence of the projects, 640 new jobs will be created, and
further 450 will be safeguarded. The indirect impact of the
project on the Welsh economy will also be considerable.

Legal basis and aid amounts

9. The project

takes place at

in
Bridgend, in South Wales. Bridgend is an Article 87(3)(a)
area, whose regional ceiling is 35 % for the 2000-2006
period.

the existing Ford plant

10. Two distinct measures, relating to training aid and regional
aid, are planned in favour of Ford. The training aid
measure
schemes
provided for by section 25 of the 1988 employment act,
and sections 11(1) and 12(1) of the 1982 Industrial Devel-
opment Act and the 1998 Government of Wales act.

approved

granted

under

the

is

11. The planned training aid in nominal values amounts to
GBP 1,4 million gross grant equivalent, with an actual
value of GBP 1,17 (base year 2000, discount
rate
7,64 %). The proposed aid takes the form of a direct
grant, and would be paid over the 2002-2003 period.

12. The regional aid measure is granted under the approved
schemes provided for by: section 7 of Industrial Devel-
opment Act of 1982, and section 40 of the Government
of Wales Act 1998.

13. The planned regional aid in nominal values amounts to
GBP 16 million gross grant equivalent, with an actual
value of GBP 12,38. The aid intensity notified by the
UK authorities
is 5,37 % gross grant equivalent. The
proposed aid takes the form of a direct grant, and would
be paid over the 2002-2006 period.

14. According to the notification, no other Community aid or

financing has been allocated to the project.

3. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID

15. In accordance with Article 6(1) of Council Regulation No
659/1999 of 22 March 1999,
the decision to initiate
proceedings shall summarise the relevant issues of fact
and law, shall include a preliminary assessment from the
Commission as to the aid character of
the proposed
measure, and shall set out the doubts as to its compati-
bility with the common market.

represents a significant proportion of

16. The Commission considers, at this stage of the procedure,
that the measure constitutes State aid within the meaning
of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. It would be financed by
the State or through State resources; moreover, given that
it
the project
funding,
is likely to distort competition within the
Community, giving an advantage to Ford over other
for
receiving aid. Finally,
companies not
motor
trade
characterised by
is
vehicles
between Member States.

the market
extensive

it

17. Article 87(2) of the EC Treaty lists certain types of aid that
are compatible with the EC Treaty. In view of the nature
and purpose of the aid, and the geographical location of
the firm, subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c) are not applicable
to the plan in question. Article 87(3) specifies other forms
of aid, which may be regarded as compatible with the
common market. The Commission notes than the project
is located in the area of Bridgend, which qualifies for
assistance under Article 87(3)(a), with a maximum
regional ceiling of 35 %.

C 79/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.4.2002

18. The aid in question is intended for Ford, which manu-
factures and assembles engines and cars. The firm is
therefore part of the motor vehicle industry within the
meaning of the Community framework on State aid to
car
industry
the motor
framework’) (3).

(hereinafter

vehicle

‘the

19. The car framework specifies that all aid which the public
authorities plan to grant to an individual project under
authorised aid schemes
for a firm operating in the
motor vehicle industry must, in accordance with Article
88(3) of the Treaty, be notified before being granted if
either of
total
the following thresholds is reached:
EUR 50 million
of
cost
(approximately GBP 31 million),
total gross aid for
the project, whether State aid or aid from Community
instruments
EUR 5 million (approximately
GBP 3,1 million).

equalling
(ii)

equalling

project

the

(i)

20. Both the total cost of the project and the amount of aid
exceed the notification thresholds. Thus, both the training
aid and the regional aid that the UK authorities plan to
grant to Ford must be notified in compliance with the
requirements of Article 88(3) of the Treaty.

21. According to point 3(6) of the car framework, training aid
to companies in the motor vehicle sector must be assessed
under Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12
January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88
of the EC Treaty to training aid (4) (hereinafter, ‘the Regu-
lation’). According to Article 5 of the Regulation, training
aid fulfilling the conditions of this Regulation is not auto-
matically exempted if the amount of aid granted to one
enterprise for a single training project exceeds EUR 1
million (approximately GBP 0,62 million). As a conse-
quence, such aid must be notified and assessed under the
provisions of the Regulation. The Commission notes that
the proposed aid in this case amounts to GBP 1,4 million;
that it is to be paid to one enterprise; and that the training
project
is a single project. The Commission therefore
considers that the notification requirement applies to the
proposed aid. The aid falls to be assessed under the
provisions of the Regulation.

22. Regarding

the

the

training aid,

assessment of

the
Commission notes that
the total
amount of the training costs will be. From the notification
of 26 July 2001 it appears that training costs will amount
to GBP 2,8 million in nominal terms, while the letter of 4
December 2001 mentions total costs of GBP 4 million.

is not clear what

it

23. Furthermore,

in its

letter 18 September 2001,

the
to notify the
Commission asked the UK authorities
training aid measure according to the provisions laid
down in the Regulation, in order to allow the assessment
the measure to be made according to the relevant
of
provisions. The Commission notes that
the necessary
information has not been provided. As a consequence,
this stage to establish
the Commission is not able at

(3) OJ C 279, 15.9.1997.
(4) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 20.

whether the training aid measure is compatible with the
common market.

the Commission shall ensure that

24. Turning to the regional aid measure, according to the car
the aid
framework,
granted is both necessary for
the
project and proportional to the gravity of the problems
intended to solve. Both tests, necessity and propor-
it
to
tionality, must be satisfied if
authorise State aid in the motor vehicle industry.

the Commission is

the realisation of

25. According to point 3(2)(a) of the car framework, in order
the aid
to demonstrate the necessity for regional aid,
recipient must clearly prove that it has an economically
viable alternative location for its project. If there were no
other industrial site, whether new or in existence, capable
of receiving the investment in question within the group,
its
the undertaking would be compelled to carry out
project in the sole plant available, even in the absence of
aid. As a consequence, no regional aid may be authorised
for a project which is not geographically mobile.

26. The UK authorities have notified that

the alternative
location for part of
(production of V6
the project
engines) would be the existing engine plant in Cleveland
(USA), outside the European Economic Area (EEA) and
(CEECs). The
central
production of
the V8 engines would continue to be
sourced from another engine manufacturer.

European countries

and east

the car framework,

27. The Commission needs more information that will allow it
to establish that Cleveland was considered an alternative
location under point 3(2)(a) of
in
particular for what regards the production of the engines
that are currently purchased from a different manufacturer.
While it is true that outsourcing constitutes a commercial
alternative for the Ford group (this is the option currently
adopted for the engines destined to Land Rover models), it
is doubtful at this stage that it can be considered as an
investment alternative as required by the car framework.

28. When the alternative location of a project is not in the
EEA or CEECs, point 3(2)(a) of the car framework requires
as a further element that the investor prove, notably by
means of a location study, that a viable alternative to the
location chosen has been considered in the EEA or CEECs.
Otherwise, the location chosen will be considered the best
one, and only regional aid may be authorised whose
intensity does not exceed the threshold below which it is
not necessary to carry out a cost benefit analysis.

29. The UK authorities have submitted evidence documenting
that the investment in question could have been carried
out in the Cologne (Germany) plant, owned by the Ford
group. The scaling down of production of
the Zetec
the Cologne plant has freed the necessary
engine at
to accom-
space (approximately 32 000 square meters)
modate the V6/V8 engine production line. Therefore, no
incremental building work would be required at the site.
The Commission needs to verify the elements provided by
the UK authorities regarding the possibility of location the
project at the Cologne plant.

3.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 79/9

30. Regional aid intended for modernisation and rational-
isation, which is generally not mobile, is not authorised
in the motor vehicle sector. However, an expansion or
transformation, involving a radical change in production
structures on the existing site could be eligible for regional
aid. During the on-site visit to the Bridgend plant carried
out by the Commission could verify that old lines had
been dismantled, and that new lines were going to be
set up in an overall production structure that is clearly
different from the previous one. As a consequence, the
Commission considers that the project in question can
be regarded as a transformation.

31. According to point 3(2)(c) of

the car framework the
Commission needs to ensure that the planned aid is in
proportion to the regional problems it
is intended to
resolve. For that, a cost-benefit analysis method (here-
inafter referred to as CBA)
is used. A CBA compares,
with regard to the mobile elements, the costs which an
investor would bear in order to carry out the project in the
region in question with those it would bear for an identical
project in a different location, which makes it possible to
determine the specific handicaps of the assisted region
aid
concerned. The Commission authorises
within the limit of the regional handicaps resulting from
the investment in the comparator plant.

regional

32. The UK authorities have submitted a CBA that compares
the cost of Bridgend with those of executing the project in
Cleveland. However, the Commission has doubts that the
Cleveland site qualifies as a comparator site under the car
framework.

33. First and foremost, in accordance with of section 3(2) of
Annex I to the car framework, if a company is comparing
one European (in the EEA or CEECs) site with a site
outside Europe from which it would import the vehicles,
the CBA may have to be performed with a hypothetical
alternative site, unless the company can demonstrate that
more than half of the production is to be sold outside
Europe.

34. The UK authorities have submitted information indicating
that more than half of the cars powered by the engines
that will be produced by the new line will be exported
outside Europe. The UK authorities noted that, according
to section 2(3) of Annex I to the car framework, dealing
with the market
the Commission has
considered that the relevant market for engine production
by a vehicle manufacturer is the vehicle market for which
the engines are built. For these reasons, the UK authorities
consider Cleveland the appropriate comparator site for the
CBA.

impact analysis,

these arguments. The
35. The Commission cannot accept
Commission maintains that
the relevant provisions in
order to determine the comparator site in the context of
the CBA are to be found in the chapter of
the car
framework that specifically deals with the CBA (section
3(2) of Annex I to the car framework), and not in the
chapter that deals with the market impact analysis (to
section 2.3 of Annex I to the car framework).
Indeed,
the latter chapter does not deal with the CBA, but with
the adjustment to the ‘regional handicap ratio’ that results

from the CBA, in the light of the impact that the aid may
have on the competitors of the beneficiary.

36. The Commission doubts that

the relevant production
according to section 3(2) of Annex I the car framework
is given by the cars that will be fitted with the engines
produced at
the
Commission considers that the relevant production refers
to the goods that will be produced as a result of the
investment in the new line Bridgend, that is, the V6 and
V8 engines.

the Bridgend plant. At

stage,

this

37. The fact that the relevant production is constituted by the
engines is supported by the fact that, from the information
available, a market
In
particular:

for engines exists

in Europe.

— it is not uncommon for car manufacturers to purchase

engines from other producers,

— the engines produces at Bridgend will substitute for
engines currently outsourced by the Ford group,

for

intergroup transactions. This

— the Ford group uses an internal pricing system to
account
internal
pricing system will be employed to establish the
price of the engines produced at the Bridgend plant
the Ford group
and sold to the various brands of
(mainly Jaguar and Land Rover).

These elements indicate that the engines are the relevant
product, that such product has a market, and that the
destination of the engine product has to be considered
in determining the location of the comparator site for
the CBA.

38. From the information received, it appears that more than
half of the engine production will be sold within Europe.
As a consequence, the Cleveland site cannot be used as a
comparator site for the CBA.

the CBA presented

39. Secondly, and without prejudice to the considerations
and
above,
Cleveland, does not
costs which the
compare
investor would bear in order to carry out its project in
the region in question with those it would bear for an
identical project in a different location, as requested in
section 2(3)(c) of the car framework.

between Bridgend

the

40. According to the information submitted in the CBA,
investment in the Cleveland alternative would be limited
to adaptation of the lines for the production of the V6
engine,
amounting to GBP 72,2 million, while no
investment related to the production of the V8 engine
would be undertaken. Conversely, investment in Bridgend
would amount to GBP 271,6 million, and involve new
production lines for both the V6 and V8 engine specifi-
cations.

41. The CBA presented,

therefore, does not

allow the
Commission to compare the costs for identical projects
in different locations. The Commission cannot therefore
determine the specific handicaps of the assisted region
concerned.

C 79/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.4.2002

42. The Commission considers

the car framework,

that, according to Article
3(2)(c) of
the cost benefit analysis
should in the present case be carried out comparing the
chosen site of Bridgend with a hypothetical alternative site
within the EEA of CEECs. Such cost benefit analysis is
required by the Commission if
the
planned regional aid is higher than 10 % of the regional
ceiling.

the intensity of

43. The Commission also notes that the amount considered as
eligible investment differs in the notification letter, where
GBP 213 million eligible investment is reported, and in
the CBA, where reported eligible investment amounts to
GBP 271,6 million. The Commission doubts that only
eligible costs were included in the CBA and for the calcu-
lation of the aid intensity, and therefore that the reported
aid intensity of 5,37 % is correct. In order to clarify this
point, the Commission needs further clarification on the
costs. The
exact
Commission would also ask the UK authorities to use
the year 2000 for the calculation of
the net present
value of the investment and aid streams.

amount

eligible

timing

and

of

4. DECISION

44. In the

light of

the
Commission, acting under the procedure laid down in
the United
Article 88(2) of

the EC Treaty,

considerations,

foregoing

requests

the

its comments and to provide all
Kingdom to submit
such information as may help to assess the aid, within
one month of the date of receipt of this letter. Among
other information, the Commission requests:

— the necessary information in order

the
training aid measure under the training aid Regulation,

to assess

— a CBA analysis comparing the costs of carrying out the
project in the chosen site of Bridgend with the costs of
carrying out an identical project in a hypothetical site
in the EEA of CEECs,

— a

of

detailed

account

amount
considered as eligible by the UK authorities, and of
the calculation of
the
regional aid measure.

the net grant equivalent of

investment

the

45. The Commission requests your authorities to forward a
copy of this letter to the potential recipient of the aid
immediately.

46. The Commission wishes to remind the United Kingdom
that Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty has suspensory effect,
and would draw your attention to Article 14 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, which provides that all
unlawful aid may be recovered from the recipient.’

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2544 — Masterfoods/Royal Canin)

(2002/C 79/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 15 February 2002 the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to
declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(2) of Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 4064/89. The full text of the decision is only available in English and will be made public
after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

— as a paper version through the sales offices of the Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities (see list on the last page),

— in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document No 302M2544. CELEX

is the computerised documentation system of European Community law.

For more information concerning subscriptions please contact:

EUR-OP,
Information, Marketing and Public Relations,
2, rue Mercier,
L-2985 Luxembourg.
Tel. (352) 29 29 427 18, fax (352) 29 29 427 09.