2003/875/EC: Commission decision of 23 December 2002 on the State aid implemented by Germany for Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co. KG, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania (notified under document number C(2002) 5378) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-12-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, State aid, control of State aid, wood industry

23.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/1

II

(Acts whose publication is not obligatory)

COMMISSION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 23 December 2002

on the State aid implemented by Germany for Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co. KG,
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania

(notified under document number C(2002) 5378)

(Only the German text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2003/875/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

(2)

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 the provisions cited above (1) and having regard to
their comments,

Whereas:

(3)

1. PROCEDURE

1.1. Stages of the procedure

(1)

by

asked

‘KNT'), Germany was

Following a series of complaints concerning State aid
granted to Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co. KG
(hereinafter
the
Commission in 1999 and 2000 to provide all relevant
information that would enable it to examine whether
the aid was compatible with the common market. The
measures concerned State aid granted to KNT for the
in Wismar
construction and expansion of a sawmill
(Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania). The
information
provided by Germany was deemed to be incomplete and
did not allay the Commission's concerns as to whether
the measures were compatible with previously approved
aid schemes.

(1) OJ C 219, 4.8.2001, p. 3.

By letter of 17 August 2000, Germany was required by
the Commission in accordance with Article 10(3) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March
1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of
Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2) and with the judgment of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 5
October 1994 in Case 47/91 Italy v Commission (3) to
present all the information necessary to assess whether
the measures in favour of KNT were covered by aid
schemes which had previously been approved by the
Commission.

By letter of 13 November 2000, the annexes to which
were received by separate post on 16 November,
Germany provided some of the information necessary to
assess whether the aid recipient was to be regarded as
an SME within the meaning of
the Community
guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized
enterprises (4)
and
Commission Recommendation 96/280/EC of 3 April
1996
and
small
medium-sized enterprises (5) and,
therefore, as being
eligible for aid in the assisted areas where the two
projects are located, with a maximum gross aid intensity
of 50 %.

(‘Community

concerning

guidelines')

definition

SME

the

of

(4)

The Commission informed Germany by letter of 20
June 2001 of its decision to initiate the procedure under
Article 88(2) of
the EC Treaty and to require the
provision of
information in accordance with Article
10(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

(2) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.
(3) [1994] ECR I-4635.
(4) OJ C 213, 23.7.1996, p. 4.
(5) OJ L 107, 30.4.1996, p. 4.

L 337/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2003

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

Germany replied to the decision initiating the procedure
and the information injunction by letter of 2 August
2001,
the annexes to which were received on 12
November.

The decision initiating the procedure was published in
the Official Journal of the European Communities (6). At the
same time,
interested
the Commission called on all
parties to submit their comments.

(13)

The Commission received comments from a number of
third parties. The
forwarded to
Germany, which replied by letter of 31 October 2001.

comments were

On 15 January 2002, the Commission adopted Decision
2002/468/EC (7)
investigation
procedure. Some of
for KNT was
considered to be incompatible and was required to be
repaid.

terminating the formal

assistance

the

that

On 27 March 2002, KNT lodged a complaint with the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities to
the effect
the Commission had not correctly
interpreted an approved aid scheme. Together with the
to have the
complainant,
the Commission sought
procedure suspended so that
it could withdraw its
decision, which was unsound in law.

(10)

Further details also came to light. On 9 and 11
September 2002, the Commission asked Germany for
its views on the new particulars presented by KNT in a
letter of 26 September 2002 (the annexes were received
on 1 October).

(11)

(12)

1.2. Reasons for withdrawing Decision
2002/468/EC

In Decision 2002/468/EC, the Commission had declared
as incompatible with the common market a measure
that had apparently been authorised by Germany on the
basis of an approved aid programme. According to the
Commission, the measure did not satisfy the conditions
laid down in the Investment Allowance Law.

The Commission took the view that the aid recipient,
since it employed more than 250 workers at the time
the measure was authorised, was not eligible for an aid
intensity of more
than 10 %. The authorised aid
framework provides for an aid ceiling of 10 % for
recipients with more
The
Commission considered that the measure was covered
by the aid programmes only up to 10 % of the eligible
costs since the recipient, which was defined as an
‘economic unit', employed more than 250 workers at
time the aid was granted. According to the
the
Commission, no other justification for the compatibility
of the excess amount of aid with the common market

250 workers.

than

(6) See footnote 1.
(7) OJ L 165, 24.6.2002, p. 15.

could be found. Accordingly, it concluded that part of
the
criteria determining
compatibility with the common market.

aid did not

satisfy

the

the

argued

recipient

Instance,
that,

to the Court of First
of

the
In its appeal
representatives
in
interpreting the German Investment Allowance Law and
the decision authorising it, the Commission had made a
mistake in law, particularly as regards the definition of
‘recipient' within the meaning of the Community SME
guidelines. The Investment Allowance Law provides for
a tax exemption for the acquisition and production of
capital goods and buildings by firms established in the
new Länder. The representatives also claimed that the
Law defined the recipient of the investment allowance as
economically and organisationally separate operating
units and not as a single economic unit. According to
them, the Commission had misinterpreted its Decision
authorising the Investment Allowance Law and its
Decision 2002/468/EC was unsound in law in view of
the measure authorised on the basis of the Law. Neither
the Member State nor the recipient had any interest in
maintaining
a partly negative decision.
Accordingly, the Commission has decided to withdraw
information and
Decision 2002/468/EC. Additional
clarifications were needed in order
to take a new
decision and Germany has provided these. In the light
of this new information, the Commission considers it
appropriate and justified to carry out a new assessment,
not only of
the
Investment Allowance Law but also of the guarantee for
a DEM 29 750 000 loan that had also been declared
in Decision
incompatible with the common market
2002/468/EC. No legitimate expectations or acquired
rights of
a
reassessment.

stand in the way of

authorised under

third parties

the measure

in force

2. THE MEASURE

2.1. The aid recipient

(14)

The legal person to which the aid was granted, KNT,
was formed on 28 May 1997 and constructed a new
sawmill in Wismar, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, in
1998. KNT processes coniferous timber. The business is
conducted by the general partner (8) Klausner Nordic
Timber GmbH (‘KNT-GmbH'). The shares in the limited
partnership KNT are owned by Fritz Klausner, a natural
person, who also owns all the capital of KNT; he is the
sole limited partner (9) of KNT.

(8) The general partner is liable with all its assets for the liabilities of a
limited partnership and, under sections 161 and 164 of the Ö-HGB
(Austrian Commercial Code) and of the HGB (German Commercial
Code), has the right to manage and represent the partnership.

(9) The limited partner is liable only to the extent of his or her
limited-partner contribution. Under section 164 of the HGB, the
limited partner has no authority to manage or
the
partnership. However, the limited partner's approval is required for
transactions going beyond the
the general partner
ordinary course of business.

to conduct

represent

23.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/3

(15)

Fritz Klausner also holds shares in other companies.

(16)

Klausner Holzindustrie GmbH (‘KHI-GmbH')
an
Austrian limited liability company responsible for the
management of Klausner Holzindustrie GmbH & Co. KG
(‘KHI'), which operates a sawmill in St Johann (Tyrol).
KHI-GmbH is the general partner of KHI.

is

(17)

The shareholders of KHI-GmbH are:

(a) Fritz Klausner (25 %);

(b) Margarethe Klausner

(Fritz Klausner's mother)

(50 %);

(c) Anne Klausner (Fritz Klausner's sister) (25 %).

(21)

(18)

The partners of KHI are:

(a) KHI-GmbH (general partner; no capital interest);

(b) Fritz Klausner (limited partner; capital

interest of

75 %; no voting rights since 1 January 1997);

(c) Margarethe Klausner (limited partner; capital interest

of 25 %).

(19)

Klausner Holz Thüringen Geschäftsführung GmbH
is a German limited liability company
(‘KHT-GmbH')
which manages
of Klausner Holz
Thüringen GmbH & Co. KG (‘KHT'). KHT operates a

business

the

(22)

(23)

(24)

sawmill in Friesau (Thuringia). Fritz Klausner owns all
the shares in KHT-GmbH; he managed the company
until 19 June 1997.

(20)

The partners of KHT are:

(a) KHT-GmbH (general partner; no capital

interest;

managing director);

(b) Fritz Klausner (limited partner; capital

interest of

20 %);

(c) KHI (limited partner; capital interest of 80 %).

KHT Hobelwerk Beteiligungs GmbH (‘KHO-GmbH'),
which is wholly owned by Fritz Klausner, was formed
on 15 May 1997.
is the general partner of KHT
Hobelwerk GmbH & Co. KG (‘KHO'), which operates a
planing mill in Thuringia.

It

Klausner Nordic Services GmbH (‘KNS'), which is wholly
owned by Fritz Klausner, is a service company for local
enterprises.

Klausner Nordic Energie GmbH (‘KNE'), which is wholly
owned by Fritz Klausner, operated a power plant.

The companies with which Fritz Klausner was involved
from 1996 to 1999 are the following:

Name

Share of Fritz Klausner

Employees

Turnover
in million EUR

Balance-sheet total
in million EUR

1996

1997

1996

1997

1996

1997

1996

KNT

KNT GmbH

Not
relevant (10)

Not
relevant

100 %

100 %

Not
relevant

Not
relevant

6

1

KHT

20 %

20 %

159

167

KHT GmbH

100 %

100 %

KHO

100 %

100 %

1

0

1

2

Not
relevant

Not
relevant

[…]

0

[…]

[…] (*)

0

[…]

0

[…]

Not
relevant

Not
relevant

[…]

0,028 (11)

[…]

1997

[…]

0,03

[…]

0,03

[…]

KHT Hobelwerk
Beteiligungs GmbH

Not
relevant

Not
relevant

Not
relevant

Not
relevant

Not
relevant

Not
relevant

Not
relevant

Not
relevant

KHI

KHI GmbH

75 %

25 %

75 %

25 %

4,5

1

3

0

[…]

0

[…]

0

[…]

0,131

[…]

0,1

(*) Business secret.
(10) Not relevant. The company was formed at a later date.
(11) The figures in italics were provided by KHT.

L 337/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2003

Name

KNT

KNT GmbH

KHT

KHT GmbH

KHO

KHT Hobelwerk
Beteiligungs GmbH

KHI

KHI GmbH

KNS

KNE

Share of Fritz Klausner

Employees

Turnover
in million EUR

Balance-sheet total
in million EUR

1998

100 %

100 %

20 %

100 %

100 %

100 %

75 %

25 %

Not
relevant

Not
relevant

1999

100 %

100 %

1998

153

1

20 %

171 (173)

100 %

100 %

100 %

75 %

25 %

100 %

100 %

1

19

1

1

0

Not
relevant

Not
relevant

1999

211

0

206

0

26

0

1

0

50

7,66

1998

[…]

0

[…]

0

[…]

0

[…]

0

Not
relevant

Not
relevant

1999

[…]

0

[…]

0

[…]

0

[…]

0

1,4

0,3

1998

[…]

0,02

[…]

0,03

[…]

0,02

[…]

0,1

Not
relevant

Not
relevant

1999

[…]

0,028

[…]

0,029

[…]

0,026

[…]

0,145

0,18

0,03

2.2. The measures

(27)

2.2.1. Measure for the construction of a new production plant

in Wismar (‘first aid package')

(28)

(25)

outline

for
for

plan
scheme

Economics Ministry

The
of Mecklenburg-Western
Pomerania decided on 18 April 1997 (the decision was
modified on 12 March 1998) to grant KNT investment
aid for the construction of a sawmill in Wismar under
Federal
the
27th
the
Government/Länder
improving regional
economic structures (1998 to 2002) (12). The sawmill is
located in an assisted area under Article 87(3)(a) of the
EC Treaty. The grant was equivalent to the ceiling of
DEM 43 818 300 (EUR 22,4 million), corresponding to
a gross intensity of 38,21 % of the eligible investment
costs of DEM 114 669 000 (EUR 58,6 million).
According to Germany, the aid was conditional on the
creation of 115 jobs.

joint

By a decision of 1 September 1999,
further
investment allowance was granted on the basis of the
Investment Allowance
to DEM
2 500 000 (EUR 1,3 million), representing 2,18 % of the
eligible investment costs.

Law amounting

a

had

In 1997 Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania also assumed
a guarantee to secure 80 % of a low-interest loan of
DEM 30 million (EUR 15,3 million) under its guarantee
guidelines which
the
Commission (14). The aid element contained in this
measure amounted to 0,5 %, according to the German
authorities, who assumed that KNT ranked as an
economically sound enterprise. This
represents aid
amounting to EUR 61 355,03, equivalent to an intensity
of 0,1 % of the eligible costs.

approved

been

by

(29) According to Germany, the aid intensity of the measure
mentioned amounted to 43,18 % of the eligible costs.
The actual aid intensity is 42,79 % of the eligible costs.

(26)

By decision of 26 April 1998, which was modified on
25 July 1998, Germany also granted KNT an investment
allowance for 1997 of DEM 2 635 086 (EUR 1,3
million) under the Investment Allowance Law 1996, an
aid scheme approved by the Commission (13). The aid
intensity amounts to 2,3 % of the eligible costs.

(12) Commission letter of 26 January 1999 (SG(99) D/582) N 100/98;

see also OJ C 80, 24.3.1999, p. 3.

(13) Investitionszulagengesetz 1996, N 494/95; Commission letter of 27

December 1995, (SG(95) D/17154).

(30)

for

The enterprise argued that it had actually invested DEM
this
124 401 024 (EUR 63,6 million) and that,
reason, the aid intensity should be lowered to 39,80 %.
This
information was not confirmed by Germany,
however, and the Commission was not presented with
therefore
any further evidence. The Commission is
basing itself on the decisions of the German authorities
that granted the aid in which the eligible costs were
specified and the aid amount determined and approved.

(14) OJ C 184, 21.7.1992, p. 4 (N 627/1991).

23.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/5

2.2.2. Measure for the extension of the Wismar mill and the

construction of a second sawmill

(31)

from the Commission for

In Decision 2002/468/EC, the Commission pointed out
that, even after two requests had been made, Germany
had not provided full information on the aid granted to
KNT in respect of the extension project. After additional
information had been provided by KNT and following a
confirmation,
request
Germany eventually provided all the particulars along
with written documents
extension
project and the aid granted to it. The increase in the
investment for the extension project was justified by the
additional costs of acquiring and assembling a second
saw and the associated investment in appropriate plant
(dry hammer and sorting shed). Evidence for
the
realisation of these additional investments was provided
in documents submitted by Germany.

concerning the

(32) According to the most

recent
the eligible costs for the extension of

figures provided by
Germany,
the
Wismar mill and the installation of a second saw
amount to DEM 61 612 000 (EUR 31 501 715,39). The
following aid measures were granted for this project:

(a) an investment grant of DEM 8 879 000 (EUR 4,45
million) under the 27th outline plan for the joint
Federal Government/Länder scheme (1998 to 2002),
which had been approved by the Commission. The
grant was made by the Land by decision of 8
September 1998 and the aid intensity amounts to
14,41 % of the eligible costs;

(b)

investment allowances
totalling DEM 11 140 587
tranche of DEM
(EUR 5 696 091,68): An initial
7 755 095 (EUR 3 965 117,11) was granted for
investment in 1999 and a second instalment of DEM
3 385 492 (EUR 1 730 974,57)
in
2000. The aid intensity represents 18,08 % of the
eligible costs;

for investment

(c) a low-interest

loan of DEM 8 549 999,60 (EUR
the
4 371 545,38) under the SME programme of
Reconstruction Loan Corporation (KfW), a scheme
approved by the Commission (15):
In accordance
with Decision 2002/468/EC, the aid intensity of this
loan is 1 % of the loan amount. This gives aid of
representing
DEM 85 499,99 (EUR 43 715,45),
0,14 % of the eligible costs;

and

Government

(d) an 80 % guarantee granted jointly in 1999 by the
of
Federal
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania to secure a loan of
DEM 29 750 000 (EUR 15,21 million) on the basis
the Commission-approved Federal guarantee
of
programme (16)
for companies carrying out new
projects in the new Länder and on the basis of the

Land

the

of

the

Land

guarantee

of
guidelines
above
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania: The aid element of
this measure amounts to 0,5 % of the guarantee,
bearing in mind that KNT is to be regarded as an
economically sound enterprise. Only part of
this
credit, i.e. DEM 12 750 000 (EUR 6 518 971,49) (17),
is
The
financing
remainder, i.e. DEM 17 million (EUR 8 691 961,98),
is earmarked for financing operating assets. The aid
amounts to 0,5 % of 80 % of the loan amount of
i.e. DEM
DEM 12 750 000 (EUR 6 518 971,49),
51 000 (EUR 26 075,89), equivalent
to 0,08 % of
the eligible costs.

investment.

earmarked

for

amounting

to DEM 33 041 513,02

(33) According to Germany, the project was also financed by
equity
(EUR
16 893 857,35). This amount comprises the loan of
DEM 6 949 999,99 (EUR 3 553 478,57) under the KfW
environmental programme;
is DEM
186 971,48 (EUR 95 597) and is, according to Germany,
to be classed as de minimis aid.

the aid element

(34)

(35)

These figures were confirmed by the decision of the
Economics Ministry of the Land of Mecklenburg-Western
Pomerania dated 25 September 2002 and amending the
grant decision of 20 August 1998, which had previously
been amended by decisions of 22 October 1999 and 28
March 2002.

the

1999

decision,

potential

In
extraordinary
depreciation was mentioned with an aid intensity of
1,42 %. This aid was ultimately not granted because it
related to investments
for 1999 and 2000. The
for
Law does
Development Areas
depreciation on investments after 31 December 1998. In
the amending decision of 25 September 2002,
the
German authorities assumed an overall aid intensity for
intensity
the extension project of 33,99 %. The actual
amounts to 33,05 % of the eligible costs.

provide

not

2.3. Grounds for initiating the procedure

(36) Despite

the

information provided by Germany in
response to the information injunction, the Commission
still had doubts as to whether the newly established
sawmills could be regarded as SMEs and whether the aid
as a whole was covered by approved aid schemes.

(37)

KNT is eligible for these gross aid intensities for the
in Wismar
construction and extension of the sawmill
only if it is a genuine SME. It must therefore meet the

(15) NN 109/93, SG(94) D/372 of 14 January 1994 (OJ C 373,

29.12.1994, p. 3).

(16) N 287/91, Decision of 3 July 1991.

(17) This amount comprises the KfW loan of DEM 8 549 999,60 (EUR
the KfW

the loan granted under

4 371 545,38) and part of
environmental programme.

L 337/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2003

conditions laid down in the Community SME guidelines.
One of the conditions in the decision approving the aid
schemes under which public funds were granted or are
still to be granted is compliance with the definition of
an SME contained in Recommendation 96/280/EC and
the Community SME guidelines.

(38)

It had to be ascertained in particular whether the legal
entity KNT, which had been granted various aid
measures, could in itself be viewed as the aid recipient.
The particular question was whether it constituted an
‘economic unit' within the meaning of Community
legislation (18) or whether the ‘assisted enterprise' also
encompassed other enterprises of the Klausner group.
The doubts related in particular to the relations between
KNT and KHT as well as to the degree of their economic
integration. In this regard, the size of the enterprise to
which the aid was granted had first to be determined
before the Commission could assess whether the aid
recipient met the definition of an SME.

(43)

(39) With the still incomplete information from Germany on
the enterprises belonging to the Klausner group, the
Commission was unable to make a determination on the
SME status of the aid recipient and thus on the question
of whether the aid granted to KNT is covered by a
regional
approved by the
Commission or is to be viewed as new aid. However,
the Commission also had
the
the measures with the common
compatibility of all
market.

aid scheme previously

regarding

doubts

(40) Accordingly,

the Commission decided to initiate the
procedure under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty and to
issue an information injunction under Article 10(3) of
Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.

3. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES

(41) After initiating the procedure, the Commission received

comments from eight interested parties.

(42)

Two competitors of the Klausner sawmills complained
about not gaining access to the profit-and-loss statement
and balance sheet of the Klausner group, which were
not published. According to these competitors, taking
the figures specified by the enterprise for raw materials
consumption, the turnover and balance-sheet total for
exceeded the SME thresholds.
1996 had to have
Moreover, neither KNT nor KHT made an equity
contribution towards the financing of the two projects.

(18) See judgment of 14 November 1984 in Case 323/82 Intermills v

Commission [1984] ECR 3809.

Given its scale, the project did not comply with the SME
provisions from the outset. The large amount of aid
conferred major advantages on KNT in relation to its
competitors, most of whom had a turnover of less than
EUR 1,5 million and an equity ratio of below 15 %.
Since the start of operations in Wismar, large volumes
of timber were sold at a price which would not be
tenable under normal financial conditions and assuming
the same raw material sources. Finally, both sawmill
enterprises were of the opinion that KNT's argument
that the raw material procurement and product sales by
KNT and KHT occurred on two different markets was
incorrect. They maintained that the raw timber from
Russia and the Baltic region was also used in Austria
and by KHT in Friesau. Moreover, a large part of KNT's
production was sold in central and southern Germany
as well as in Austria and Italy, where the Austrian
timber industry is likewise very active.

the

Swedish Timber Association and

the
Both
Association of
the Swedish Forestry Industry sent in
their comments after the procedure had been initiated.
the investment aid and credit
According to them,
guarantees for KNT signified that,
in addition to the
related particle board and laminated wood plants in
Wismar, one of Europe's largest sawmills had been
constructed. No capacity
such
investments had been recorded in any of these market
segments, however. Sawn timber is to be viewed as a
mature product not in heavy demand and there is a
strong need for consolidation in the industry. Substantial
demand for product development aimed at increasing
the use of timber also exists in various market segments.
According
the
production and consumption of sawn timber were as
follows in Europe between 1991 and 2000:

ECE Timber Committee,

justifying

shortage

the

to

Production

Consumption

Surplus/deficit

(in million m3)

2000

96,1

91,7

+4,4

1991

66,5

72,5

–6,0

As the following figures illustrate, production increased
in northern Europe in the 1990s:

Sweden

Finland

Baltic States

Germany

(in million m3)

2000

14,8

13,3

5,3

17,4

1991

11,2

6,4

?

11,6

23.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/7

(44)

(45)

The Swedish associations emphasised that the subsidised
formation of KNT and other mills has contributed to the
increase in overproduction which the European industry
has been seeking intensively to bring under control for
many years. This overproduction had led, among other
and
things,
increasing raw material costs. According to the KHT
website, the production capacity of the Wismar plant is
1,3 million m³.

to declining prices

sawn timber

for

a

classified as

Regarding the SME status of the enterprise, the Swedish
industry was unable to comment on the question of
whether KNT could be
‘small or
medium-sized enterprise' in the various phases in which
the State aid was granted. According to information in
its possession, however, the plant in Wismar is 50 %
larger than the largest Swedish sawmill built in the last
three years. In conclusion, the associations pointed out
that KNT was one of Europe's largest sawmills and,
together with the corporate group to which it belongs,
exerted a substantial influence on the market in which
it is active.

(46) A German law firm reacted to the decision to initiate
the procedure with the statement that KHT and KNT
were active as individual enterprises on the market. Its
letter stated that the SME criteria had not been met at
the time the aid was granted, but no further details have
been provided. Moreover, the law firm stated that the
aid intensity of the guarantee was over 0,50 % since the
enterprises KNT and KHT were unable to finance the
doubling of the Wismar mill's capacity. The letter stated
in conclusion that the State aid was granted to KNT to
in the new Länder
support economic development
without
the provisions of
consideration for
Community law.

any

(47)

The Austrian Chamber of the Timber Industry expressed
its regret that the balance sheets of KNT and KHT could
not be inspected. In its opinion, the aid was granted
without the necessary equity bases. It confirmed that the
Klausner group procured its raw materials from areas in
which the Austrian industry traditionally made its raw
timber purchases. Klausner production was able to
compete with production from Austrian sawmills only
as a result of
low prices that did not reflect market
conditions.

(49)

(50)

KHT-GmbH, which Fritz Klausner owns, is still though
responsible for the management of KHT.

KNT likewise responded via its legal representatives to
the decision to initiate the procedure. The previously
missing information on the number of employees and
the financial data of various group companies were
supplemented and the aid intensity of the two projects
was recalculated. With regard to the construction of the
sawmill in Wismar, KNT distinguished between the total
aid intensity calculated (as envisaged in the aid notice)
on the basis of the investment expenditure (43,18 %)
and an intensity calculated on the basis of the actual
investments (39,80 %). For the extension project,
the
total aid intensity amounted to 49,82 % and the ‘de
facto aid intensity' to 30,08 %. KNT also provided more
detailed information on the investment allowance for
the
total
investments made in 1999, putting the
investment expenditure for
the extension project at
DEM 37 891 390. The aid intensity was also recalculated
for
the total
investment expenditure, resulting in a figure of 44,67 %.
Finally, an aid intensity of 31,13 % was calculated for the
investment
totalling DEM 62 032 981 in 1999 and
2000.

the extension project on the basis of

KNT also commented on its integration with other
companies of the Klausner group. In its view, KNT must
be considered as being independent of KHT, given that
Fritz Klausner does not exercise joint control over KNT
and KHT. KNT refers to Article 1(3) of the Annex to
Recommendation 96/280/EC, whereby companies that
are to be considered independent are those which are
not owned as to 25 % or more of the capital or the
voting rights by one enterprise, or jointly by several
falling outside the definition of an SME.
enterprises,
According to KNT,
joint
exercise of control, which is why the enterprises with
one or more holdings must pursue a common interest.
Although Fritz Klausner, according to KNT, holds shares
in KNT and KHT, he has no possibility in corporate law
to make decisions regarding the business operations of
KHT.

the word ‘jointly'

implies

(48)

The German Sawmill Association pointed out that KNT
and KHT were described as production facilities on their
websites. Even assuming that the family owners of all
‘Klausner companies' and the overlapping, only partially
non-voting shares of Fritz Klausner in KHT, held via
Klausner Holzindustrie GmbH & Co. KG in St. Johann,
did not enjoy or offer the possibility of exerting control,

(51)

KNT furthermore argued that
there are no joint
economic interests and no economic integration of KNT
and KHT. The concepts of
the two enterprises are
different, being based on different geographical and
logistical features and different raw material and sales
market conditions. For example, the mill in Wismar is
located in an international Baltic Sea port and imports
Nordic timber for the production of high-grade sawn
timber. The production from Wismar is exported solely
by the economically advantageous sea route. In contrast,

L 337/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2003

its

and

timber

distributes

given its geographical location, the mill in Thuringia has
less favourable marketing options. It processes mainly
German
lower-grade
production to a neighbouring area because of high
transport costs. Therefore, there is no close cooperation
between the two enterprises, which also do not pursue
any common economic interest. KNT and KHT do not,
it
joint
departments for administrative tasks. They also have
different
from certain
product groups, the two enterprises did not compete
with each other.

suppliers and buyers. Apart

joint management

argued,

have

or

is

(52)

(53)

the

from the

current websites of

KNT added that the independence of KNT and KHT is
evident
two
enterprises. The link between the websites of KNT and
KHT was made to establish a timber cluster via which
independent timber processors and suppliers were to be
presented. Other companies were to be added, but the
project failed. No other link existed between KNT and
KHT. Finally,
that KHT appears in the aid
applications as a contact person for KNT is because
Fritz Klausner was the manager of KHT until mid-1997.
Today the enterprises have nothing whatsoever
in
common administratively.

the fact

4. COMMENTS FROM GERMANY

the

Federal Government

the
Land
virtue of

By letter of 2 August 2001, Germany commented on
the decision to initiate the procedure. Firstly, it turned
to the credit guarantee of DEM 29,75 million assumed
of
by
and
Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania by
the
decision of 6 April 1999. According to Germany, this
guarantee served to finance the second saw line on
condition that the investment cost increase for the first
saw line be secured through an obligation on the part
the lending banks before the credits could be
of
the
disbursed. The guarantee was a condition for
realisation of the investments and the related positive
effects for the region. By letter of 11 November 1998,
the Commission agreed that an aid intensity of 0,5 %
should be set with respect
to guarantees for sound
the
enterprises. The
guarantee derived from the Commission decision
approving
guarantee
programme.

legality and compatibility of

Government's

Federal

the

capital increase and a resolution of 28 December 2000
on the acceptance of a general partner in KNT GmbH &
the agreements
Co. KG.
It also attached a copy of
between KNT or KHT and three of
their respective
suppliers. These were not always the largest suppliers.
No agreement existed between KNT and KHT, on the
one hand, and the suppliers, on the other, because KNT
and KHT were independent companies. A list of all
persons with management duties was presented for KHT
but not for KNT.

that no legal

it pointed out

(55) Germany likewise discussed the comments of interested
parties. Concerning access to the annual reports of KNT
and KHT,
reporting
requirement exists for limited partnerships with limited
liability companies as general partners (GmbH & Co.
KG) in accordance with Section 264a of the German
Commercial Code. Concerning the equity share in the
it stated that KNT's equity capital
project
amounted to DEM […]. Finally, it pointed out that the
the joint
projects in Wismar met
Federal Government/Länder
regional
economic development, under which it is necessary to
strengthen the infrastructure and competitiveness of the
region via investment. KNT was also having to contend
with
from mounting
difficulties
competition on the timber market.

the conditions of
for
scheme

stemming

financing,

the

(56) With respect

to the annual reports,

the Commission
notes that,
in fact, no reporting requirement existed
under German law until 31 December 1999. Regarding
the equity contribution, the Commission notes that such
an obligation first existed in Germany as of 1 January
2000.

5. ASSESSMENT

(57) On the basis of the information provided by Germany,
the Commission distinguished between two aid packages
for KNT, one for the construction of the sawmill
in
Wismar and the other for its extension.

(58)

(59)

The aid granted to KNT in 1997/98 for the construction
of a sawmill in Wismar with a total gross aid intensity
of 42,79 % was allegedly granted under regional aid
schemes previously approved by the Commission (19).

Regarding the aid granted in the period 1998 to 2000
for the extension of the sawmill in Wismar, it is evident
from the
to the
Commission by Germany that the total amount of aid
corresponded to an aid intensity of 33,99 %.

set of documents

latest

sent

(54) Germany replied as

follows

to the Commission's
questions set out
in the information injunction. The
Commission had requested copies of all the resolutions
adopted at
the general meetings of KHT and KNT
partners since their formation. Germany informed the
Commission that no written documents on the KHT
partner resolutions existed. Regarding KNT, Germany
presented a resolution of 7 April 1999 concerning a

(60)

to Article 87(1) of

Pursuant
the EC Treaty, any aid
granted by a Member State or through State resources
in any form whatsoever which distorts competition or

(19) 27th outline plan for the joint Federal Government/Länder scheme,
the Investment Allowance Law and the guarantee guidelines of the
Land of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.

23.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/9

threatens to distort competition by favouring certain
undertakings or
the production of certain goods is
incompatible with the common market in so far as it
affects trade between Member States. The aid for KNT
was granted through State resources.
It distorts or
threatens to distort competition because it was granted
to an individual undertaking in a branch of production
and thus
its
competitors. Trade between Member States is affected in
so far as KNT is active in a branch characterised by such
the
trade. Germany has not disputed the fact
measures constitute aid.

conferred on it an advantage over

that

(61)

that

that

It also notes

the EC Treaty.

The Commission notes
the measures were
implemented in structurally weak areas under Article
87(3)(a) of
the
maximum admissible gross aid intensity in these regions
was 35 % and 50 % for large enterprises and SMEs
respectively on the basis of the relevant schemes and the
list of development areas applicable at the time the aid
was granted (20). These rates represent ceilings which
apply to the total aid granted if, for example, aid is
granted under various regional schemes or from local,
regional, national or Community resources.

(62)

In light of the total aid intensity of the first aid package,
the aid granted to KNT for the construction of
the
sawmill required that the aid recipient ranked as an SME
within the meaning of the Community SME guidelines
and Recommendation 96/280/EC.

(63) At the time that Decision 2002/468/EC was adopted,
the total aid for the extension of the sawmill in Wismar
fully known to the Commission even after
was not
the formal procedure together with its
institution of
information injunction. At
the total aid
the time,
intensity of the second aid package obviously exceeded
35 %. This means that the aid recipient had to satisfy
the
Recommendation
given
96/280/EC and in the Community SME guidelines
applicable at the time.

definition

SME

in

(65)

(66)

(67)

(68)

turnover not exceeding EUR 40 million or an annual
balance-sheet total not exceeding EUR 27 million and
which conform to the criterion of independence.

‘Independent enterprises' are enterprises which are not
owned as to 25 % or more of the capital or the voting
rights by one
several
enterprises, falling outside the definition of an SME or a
small enterprise.

enterprise, or

jointly by

In this connection, the Commission recalls its position
on SMEs, which consists in providing this category of
enterprises with special incentives and removing certain
handicaps. Point 1.2 of the Community SME guidelines
explains that one of the main such handicaps is the
difficulty in obtaining capital and credit as well as access
to information, particularly information concerning new
technologies and potential markets, and the higher costs
entailed by new regulatory arrangements.

The bonus (i.e. the increase in the admissible amount of
for SMEs is therefore justified not only by the
aid)
contribution which these
enterprises make to the
common good but also, in light of their positive role,
by the necessary compensation for the handicaps they
face. It must be ensured, however, that the bonus is, in
fact, granted only to enterprises which have to contend
with these handicaps. In particular, the definition of an
SME must be so restrictive that only those enterprises
which have the envisaged positive effect on third parties
and are disadvantaged by the abovementioned handicaps
are
therefore, be
extended to many larger companies which do not
necessarily have a positive effect on third parties or
which do not absolutely have to reckon with the
handicaps typically faced by SMEs. Aid granted to such
companies
of
to
competition and intra-Community trade.

covered. The definition cannot,

distortions

further

could

lead

principle

This
Recommendation 96/280/EC, which reads as follows:

recital 22 of

stated

the

in

is

5.1. The SME status of the aid recipient

5.1.1. Definition of an SME

(64) Under

Recommendation

and
medium-sized enterprises' are enterprises which have
than 250 employees and either an annual
fewer

96/280/EC,

‘small

(20) Aid N 613/96, approved by Commission decision of 18 December

1998.

‘Whereas, therefore, fairly strict criteria must be laid
down for defining SMEs if the measures aimed at them
are genuinely to benefit the enterprises for which size
represents a handicap.'

The Commission takes particular care to ensure that the
independence criterion is not circumvented. In order to
guarantee that only genuine SMEs benefit
from a
scheme,
legal constructs of SMEs which constitute
economic groupings with greater market power than
that of an SME must be excluded.

L 337/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2003

5.1.2. Size of the relevant enterprise

(69) Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty relies on the definition of
an undertaking when defining an aid recipient. As the
Court of Justice confirmed (21), an undertaking need not
constitute a separate legal entity but may consist of a
group of companies. For purposes of
implementing
Community law, undertakings must be equated with
‘economic units'. Consequently,
is necessary to
distinguish between various factors, such as companies'
of
shareholding
the
shareholders/partners
economic
integration.

and the degree of

patterns,

persons

the

it

(70)

The legal person benefiting from the two aid packages is
KNT. When initiating the procedure, the Commission
stated that there were indications that KNT was not to
be regarded as the relevant enterprise. Various elements
suggested that the aid recipient was possibly larger than
the legal person KNT and might encompass other
companies related to Fritz Klausner.

(71) Of the enterprises in which Fritz Klausner is present,
three companies operate sawmills, namely KHI, KNT
and KHT. The
sawmill operations of KHI were
discontinued in 1996, however. It must be investigated
whether KNT itself constitutes a ‘single economic unit'
or whether the two other sawmills KNT and KHT can be
regarded as companies which together form a single
economic unit.

— I n t e r m s o f o w n e r s h i p r e l a t i o n s

(72)

(73)

Fritz Klausner possesses the entire capital of KNT and is
also the sole shareholder in KNT-GmbH, the general
partner of KNT. He therefore decides both on the
normal and the extraordinary business transactions of
KNT.

Fritz Klausner owns all the shares in KHT-GmbH, the
the
general partner of KHT. He owns only 20 % of
capital of KHT-KG. The other limited partner of KHT is
KHI. Fritz Klausner owns 75 % of the capital of KHI,
although he has not been entitled to vote at general
meetings of partners since 1 January 1997. According to
Germany, the management authority at KHT-GmbH has
been restricted so that KHT-GmbH must now muster
three quarters of the voting rights of KHT's partners.

(21) See footnote 18.

therefore decide alone on the
Fritz Klausner cannot
normal and extraordinary business transactions of KHT
but requires the approval of his mother, Margarethe
Klausner.

(74)

The Commission notes, however, that all persons with
shares in KHT-GmbH, KHT, KHI-GmbH and KHI belong
to the same family.

(75)

Further elements mentioned by the Commission when it
instituted the procedure point to the fact that KNT and
KHT have coordinated their activity.

— I n t e r m s o f e c o n o m i c i n t e g r a t i o n

(76) When

the

initiating

the Commission
presented the arguments deployed by Germany to prove
that KNT and KHT should be considered as different
economic units.

procedure,

(77) According to Germany, KNT and KHT have different
business concepts based on their geographical and
logistical features. The two companies do not pursue the
same interests and do not work together.

(78)

(79)

(80)

importance.

international

The KNT sawmill is located in Wismar, a Baltic Sea port
It processes high-quality
of
timber from the best regions in northern Europe.
It
obtains this high-quality timber with its small knots
primarily from Scandinavia, Russia and the Baltic States.
It exports its production by sea to the Netherlands,
Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Denmark, North
Africa and Japan.

The KHT sawmill
is located in Friesau in the low
mountain region of eastern Germany. It obtains its raw
material from within a radius of 200 km, processing
low quality
mainly German timber. This timber is of
and, because of high transport costs (rail and road), the
mill's markets are limited to Germany,
Italy and the
USA.

In addition, according to Germany, the two companies
have
personnel
their
departments.

own management

and

(81) When it

instituted the procedure,

specified several elements which suggested that
activities of KNT and KHT-KG are coordinated.

the Commission
the

23.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/11

(82) At the time the procedure was initiated, there was a link
on the KNT website (22) to that of KHT; the names of
both companies appeared under
the heading ‘Plant
locations'. They were described as being located in
central Europe, from where they supplied customers all
the world. Both companies were described as
over
enterprises
high-quality wood whose
customers came from the wood processing industry.

producing

in central Europe,

in the
KNT and KHT are present
Nordic countries and on all markets on which Nordic
and Austrian sawmill enterprises are active. KNT and
KHT obviously do not have any clearly separate
procurement and supplier markets. Even if
such a
division existed, the fact that each location is specialised
in a specific market segment does not rule out
the
possibility that they belong to the same economic unit.

(83)

(84)

For the rest,
in contrast to Germany's statements, the
two companies appeared to share certain management
activities. According to the presentation on the websites,
they had a joint sales manager, Anne Leibold, and a
responsible for purchasing, Matthias
joint manager
Wittkemper. For
as
such major business activities
material procurement and marketing, KNT and KHT
therefore had the same manager and so appeared to the
outside world as a single enterprise.

Finally, KHT represented KNT in certain business tasks.
the Land of Mecklenburg-Western
The decisions of
Pomerania concerning the granting of investment aid to
KNT for
sawmill were
communicated to KNT ‘for the attention of' KHT.

construction of

the

the

(85) Germany did not comment specifically on any of these
points.
It merely presented a list of KNT and KHT
managers which showed that the companies did not
have
the
Commission with the agreements of KNT and KHT with
three of
their suppliers. Germany did not comment,
however, on the specific questions raised.

joint management.

provided

also

It

(86)

(87)

KNT reacted to these specific questions, as summarised
in recitals 48 to 51. It stated that the two companies
pursued different economic interests and did not share
any management tasks.

The Commission is still of the opinion that sufficient
elements indicate some coordination of activities by
KNT and KHT. After the procedure had been initiated,
the websites of the companies were reorganised. KNT
argues that the link which existed at the time was set up
in connection with the formation of a timber cluster via
which various
independent producers and suppliers
from the timber industry would be able to present their
business activities. Following the failure of the project,
the link between KNT and KHT was removed. The
Commission notes, however, that on both KNT's and
KHT's website the two companies were described as the
two plant locations. Both were moreover described as
customers with
companies which
high-quality sawn timber in Europe and worldwide. The
comments by interested parties confirmed that both

supplied

their

(22) http://www.knt.de/, 21 May 2001; http://www.kht.de/, 21 May

2001.

(88)

(89)

(90)

as

Leibold

in the

sales manager

their websites were changed so that

two
Regarding the management positions
companies,
the
names of Anne Leibold and Matthias Wittkemper still
appear only on the KHT management list. They were
removed from the KNT list on the companies' websites.
Anne
and Matthias
Wittkemper as purchasing manager do not appear on
the overview of KNT management personnel which was
presented by Germany for the period from 1 January
1998 to 31 December 1999, but only on that of KHT.
This change was not justified to the Commission, which
doubts that these changes can be sufficiently justified. It
cannot therefore be concluded that KNT and KHT do
not carry out joint management tasks.

It is evident from the comments by interested parties
that KNT and KHT are perceived as one and the same
enterprise
largest
participants.

the market's

one

and

of

as

For the above reasons, the Commission has concluded
that the legal person KNT cannot alone be regarded as
the aid recipient. On the basis of
the information
available to it, it concludes that the relevant enterprise is
larger and also encompasses KHT. KHT and KNT are
their
actually linked to each other
partners. They pursue the same economic activity;
purchasing and marketing are carried out by the same
managers; and the two enterprises appear on their
respective websites under the heading ‘Plant locations'.

through one of

5.2. Compatibility of the total amount of aid for the
construction of the sawmill in Wismar

(91) When the procedure was initiated, the Commission had
there was no
already come to the conclusion that
the
reason to institute proceedings
(EUR
of
grant
investment
22 403 787,65),
allowance of DEM
investment
2 635 086 (EUR 1 347 298) and the guarantee with an
aid intensity of 0,5 % that had been made available for
the construction of the mill in Wismar, which could be
regarded as aid that had been granted previously.

DEM 43 818 000

in respect of

the

L 337/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.12.2003

(92) However,

tax benefit;

the realisation of

the Commission had doubts regarding the
conformity of the investment allowance of DEM 2,5
million. This measure involved aid in the form of a tax
benefit which is granted automatically if
the legal
conditions (i.e.
the investment) are
met. The State does not have any discretion when
granting this
the tax
authorities does not create a subjective right but merely
constitutes an act to determine whether the conditions
for a claim exist. Therefore, the moment an investment
is realised is to be regarded as the date on which the
benefit is granted. In the present case, 1998 is to be
considered the year in which this measure was granted
since it was granted for investments realised in that
year.

the decision of

(93)

for a tax
The Investment Allowance Law provides
exemption for the acquisition and production of capital
goods and buildings by enterprises in the new Länder. It
defines those eligible for an allowance as economically
and organisationally separate operating units.
In the
the aid
present case, KNT is the sole beneficiary of
within the meaning of the Investment Allowance Law.
In 1998 KNT had fewer than 250 employees and was
thus eligible for an investment allowance of 10 %. The
investment allowance amounting to DEM 2,5 million
(EUR 1 278 229,70) was,
therefore, covered by an
approved aid scheme and constitutes existing aid on
condition that the cumulation rules are complied with.

(94)

The Commission must ascertain whether the aggregate
aid intensity is admissible and does not exceed the
ceiling for
In 1998 the aggregate aid
regional aid.
intensity for the project was 42,79 %.

(95)

Recommendation 96/280/EC stipulates:

‘Where, at the final balance-sheet date, an enterprise
exceeds or falls below the employee thresholds or
financial ceilings, this is to result in its acquiring or
losing the status of ‘SME' only if the phenomenon is
repeated over two consecutive financial years.'

(96)

The reference year to be considered is 1997 since this is
the year of the last annual balance-sheet date. Although
the aid recipient had 167 employees in 1997, it achieved
a balance-sheet total of EUR […] and turnover of EUR
[…], exceeding the thresholds for the definition of an
SME. However,
two
consecutive financial years as the SME thresholds were
not exceeded in 1996, when the aid recipient had 159
employees and a balance-sheet total of EUR […].

this was not

repeated over

(97) Accordingly, the recipient did not forgo its SME status
in 1998 and was still an SME in that year, when the aid
was granted. The establishment aid granted is thus
compatible with the ceiling for regional aid. Other aid
was granted under approved schemes and is existing aid.

5.3. Compatibility of the total amount of aid for the
extension of the sawmill

(98) When the procedure was initiated, the Commission had
the investment
already come to the conclusion that
grant of DEM 8 879 000 (EUR 4 539 760)
the
extension of the project was existing aid. The procedure
the other measures
was thus initiated in respect of
involved in the extension project.

for

(99)

The low-interest
loan of DEM 8 549 999,60 (EUR
4 371 545,98) with an aid intensity of 0,14 % was
granted in 1999. Together with the aid already granted
for the same project, the aid intensity of all the aid
granted for the extension project amounts to 14,55 % of
the eligible costs, i.e. below the ceiling of 35 % for large
regional
enterprises on the basis of
development areas.
the
recipient, the low-interest loan is thus covered by an
approved aid scheme and is to be regarded as existing
aid on condition that the rules on aid cumulation are
complied with.

the
Irrespective of

list of
the size of

(100) The loan of DEM 6 949 999,99 (EUR 3 553 478,57)
granted under the KfW environmental programme with
an aid element of DEM 186 971,46 (EUR 95 597) was
also granted in 1999. Its aid intensity amounts to 0,3 %
of the eligible costs. The low-interest loan has to be
regarded as existing aid provided that the rules on aid
cumulation are complied with since the aggregate
intensity at that time was below 35 %.

(101) The investment allowance of DEM 7 775 095 (EUR
3 965 117,11) is regarded as aid granted in 1999 since
the corresponding investment took place in that year. Its
aid intensity amounts to 12,58 % of the eligible costs.
The investment allowance has to be regarded as existing
aid on condition that the rules on aid cumulation are
complied with.

(102) The 80 % guarantee for aid of DEM 51 000 (EUR
26 075,89) was granted in 1999. It has an aid intensity
of 0,08 % of the eligible costs. It has to be regarded as
rules on aid
existing aid on condition that
cumulation are met.

the

23.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/13

(103) The investment allowance of DEM 3 385 492 (EUR
1 730 974,57) was
the
corresponding investment was carried out that year. Its
aid intensity is 5,5 % of the eligible costs. It has to be
regarded as existing aid on condition that the rules on
aid cumulation are complied with.

granted

2000

since

in

least 25 % of

(104) The total aid intensity of the measures granted for the
extension project amounts to 33,05 %. Consequently,
irrespective of the size of the recipient, all the measures
are compatible with the rules on cumulation. Moreover,
the amount contributed by the aid recipient accounts
for at
the finance for the productive
investments, as required by point 4.2 of the guidelines
on national regional aid (23) with effect from 1 January
2000, when Germany implemented the appropriate
measures proposed by the Commission. This was
confirmed by Germany in its letter of 26 September
therefore, come to the
2002. The Commission has,
the extension project
the aid for
conclusion that
constitutes existing aid.

6. CONCLUSION

(105) With

the

Decision

2002/468/EC,

Commission
misinterpreted the Investment Allowance Law.
It has,
therefore, decided to withdraw that Decision, which is
based on a clear mistake in law. Moreover, after the
Decision had been adopted, Germany provided new
information on the aid granted for
the investment
project. On the basis of
information and the
attached documents, the Commission has come to the
conclusion that the aid granted to KNT in respect of the
is covered by
construction and extension projects
existing schemes and thus constitutes existing aid,

that

Article 2

The following aid which Germany has
Klausner Nordic Timber GmbH & Co constitutes existing aid:

implemented for

(a)

investment

the
1 278 229,70) for the construction of the Wismar plant;

allowance of DEM 2 500 000 (EUR

(b) the

low-interest

3 553 478,52) granted under
programme for the extension of the Wismar plant;

loan of DEM 6 949 999,60 (EUR
the KFW environmental

(c)

investment

the
3 975 342,95) for the extension of the Wismar plant;

allowance of DEM 7 775 095 (EUR

(d) the 80 % guarantee to secure a loan of DEM 12 750 000
(EUR 6 518 971,49) for the extension of the Wismar plant;

(e)

investment

the
1 730 974,57) for the extension of the Wismar plant.

allowance of DEM 3 385 492 (EUR

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany.

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Decision 2002/468/EC is herewith withdrawn.

Done at Brussels, 23 December 2002.

For the Commission

Mario MONTI

Member of the Commission

(23) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998, p. 9.