2003/519/EC: Commission Decision of 5 March 2003 on the aid scheme which Italy (the Region of Sicily) is planning to implement for the internationalisation of enterprises (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2003) 650)
Date: 2003-03-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Sicily, State aid, consortium, control of State aid, globalisation, small and medium-sized enterprises

L 181/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2003

COMMISSION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 5 March 2003

on the aid scheme which Italy (the Region of Sicily) is planning to implement for the inter-
nationalisation of enterprises

(notified under document number C(2003) 650)

(Only the Italian text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2003/519/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Com-
munity, 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 regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22
March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of
Article 88 of the Treaty (1),

(5)

Having called on interested parties to submit their comments
pursuant to the provisions cited above,

Whereas:

2003 and related exclusively to one aspect of the deci-
sion to initiate the procedure (point 38, concerning the
de minimis rule).

2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID

2.1. Title and legal basis

The aid would be granted by the Region of Sicily under
the scheme set up by Article 26 of Regional Law No 32
of 23 December 2000 laying down provisions for imple-
menting the Regional Operational Programme (POR)
2000-2006 for Sicily (3) (Regional Law 32/2000) and the
Decree of 22 June 2001 (4). Articles 13 and 15 of
Regional Law 32/2000 contain general provisions
applicable to the scheme, while Article 198 suspends its
implementation pending the adoption of a decision by
the Commission on completion of
the notification
procedure.

1. PROCEDURE

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

By letter from the Italian Permanent Representation to
the European Union dated 10 May 2001, registered by
the Commission on 14 May 2001 under A/33813, the
Italian authorities notified the aid scheme in question
pursuant to Article 88(3) of the Treaty.

By letter SG (2002) D/228170 of 15 January 2002, the
Commission informed Italy that it had decided to initiate
the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty in
respect of the scheme.

The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was
published in the Official Journal of the European Commu-
nities (2). The Commission invited interested parties to
submit their comments.

The Commission received no comments on the scheme
either from Italy or from interested parties. The only
letter from the Italian authorities was dated 10 January

2.2. Objective of the scheme

(6)

The scheme is intended to promote the internationalisa-
tion of the regional economy by granting aid to indepen-
dent or affiliated SMEs, consortia of SMEs and compa-
nies set up by consortia of SMEs operating in the Region
of Sicily.

2.3. Scope

(7)

In order to attain the objectives pursued, the scheme
makes provision for the following forms of aid:

— contributions

to investment

costs of projects
designed to secure a permanent presence on one or
more foreign markets
show-
rooms, agents' offices);

(exhibition centres,

(1) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 132, 4.6.2002, p. 11.

(3) Gazzetta ufficiale della Regione siciliana, No 61, 23.12.2000.
(4) Gazzetta ufficiale della Regione siciliana, Part I, No 37, 27.7.2001.

19.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 181/47

— contributions to the establishment and start-up of
consortia of SMEs to carry out cooperation projects
as part of promotional activities on an international
scale.

— rent

for premises assigned to the activities of

consortia or associations,

— purchase, including by means of leasing agreements,

of movables (equipment and furniture),

The Decree of 22 June 2001 provides for other aid to be
granted in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC)
No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of
Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (5).

— promotion and advertising of the products of the
member firms and the services provided by the
consortium.

(8)

(9)

As regards the aid referred to in the first indent of recital
7 above, the Decree of 22 June 2001 stipulates that
expenditure falling within the definition of investment
(including intangible investments) given in the relevant
Community legislation is eligible for assistance: expendi-
ture on the purchase or rental of premises, on the
purchase of equipment and on intangible investments.
On the form submitted with the notification (prior to
the amendments made in the course of the investiga-
tion), the Italian authorities quoted quality certification,
environmental protection, technical innovation and the
purchase of management software as examples of intan-
gible investments. Tangible investment
is defined in
Article 13 of Regional Law 32/2000, which also
provides that:

— expenditure on intangible investments and studies
and consultancy work may not exceed 25 % of
eligible expenditure,

— replacement investments are excluded,

— the recipient must undertake to maintain the invest-

ment for a period of five years,

— aid to intangible investment is granted on condition
that the recipient undertakes to use it exclusively in
its own establishment for a period of five years,

(11)

In the absence of clarifications from the Italian authori-
ties, the Commission is unable to identify in more detail
the assistance and eligible expenditure referred to in reci-
tals 8 to 10 above.

2.4. Budget and duration of the scheme

(12)

the Italian authorities

The scheme is to enter into force on completion of the
notification procedure and operate until 31 December
2006. The annual budget has not been clearly specified.
On the notification form submitted by letter of 26
September 2001,
indicated a
budget of ‘… lire approximately 98 billion euros for the
aid scheme referred to in Articles 26-36 and 39 of
Regional Law 32/2000 …’. The Commission assumes
that the amount is given in Italian lire. Furthermore, the
notification in question relates only to the aid scheme
set up by Article 26 of that law. Article 26(2) provides
for a budget of not more than ITL 120 billion.

— requests for aid must be submitted before implemen-

tation of the project begins.

(13)

(10) As far as the aid referred to in the second indent of
recital 7 above is concerned, the Decree of 22 June
2001 stipulates that all expenditure involved in the
establishment, start-up and operation of the consortium
for a period of five years is eligible for assistance: the
legal costs of setting up the consortium and the over-
heads and staff costs incurred during start-up and opera-
tion and on which the success of the initiative directly
depends. The
are
following items of
specified:

expenditure

2.5. Recipients

The scheme is open to individual and affiliated SMEs.
Consortia of SMEs and companies set up by consortia of
including those in cooperative form, are also
SMEs,
eligible. Aid recipients must be registered in the register
of businesses kept by chambers of commerce and, in the
in the register of craft busi-
case of craft businesses,
nesses. For
the provisions
governing the scheme refer to the Community rules.
However, the Italian authorities have not made it clear
whether this means the definition of SMEs given in
Commission Recommendation 96/280/EC (6). There are
also doubts as to the definition of SMEs applied to
consortia and companies set up by consortia.

the definition of SMEs,

— staff costs and tax liabilities,

(5) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 30.

(6) OJ L 107, 30.4.1996, p. 4. The same definition is reproduced in
Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January
2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to
(OJ L 10,
State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises
13.1.2001, p. 33).

L 181/48

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2003

(14)

In the original notification, the notification form stated
that the scheme excluded activities related to the produc-
tion, processing or marketing of the products listed in
Annex I to the EC Treaty and to the transport, steel,
shipbuilding, synthetic fibres and motor-vehicle sectors.
Article 15 of Regional Law 32/2000 nevertheless
provides that the provisions on aid laid down in the Law
apply to those sectors. The most recent documents
submitted and the notification form for the amended
provisions do not state any more clearly whether the
above sectors are excluded. There are also doubts as to
whether aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in diffi-
culty (7) and aid for the financial restructuring of firms in
difficulty is excluded. There is likewise doubt regarding
the exclusion of investments in fixed capital involving
the takeover of an establishment which has closed or
which would have closed had it not been taken over.
These contradictory indications do not make it possible
to determine whether or not the scheme applies to the
above sectors, firms and establishments.

2.6. Form and intensity of the aid

(15)

The scheme awards aid in the form of grants.

(16)

(17)

For the contributions to investment costs of projects
designed to secure a permanent presence on one or
more foreign markets (exhibition centres, showrooms,
agents' offices), the maximum intensities are 35 % net
grant equivalent plus 15 percentage points gross grant
equivalent.

For the contributions to the establishment and start-up
of consortia of SMEs to carry out cooperation projects
as part of promotional activities on an international
scale,
for aid intensity that
decreases over the first five years, with ceilings of 70 %,
60 %, 50 %, 40 % and 30 %.

scheme provides

the

3. DOUBTS RAISED BY THE COMMISSION WHEN IT
DECIDED TO INITIATE THE PROCEDURE LAID
DOWN IN ARTICLE 88(2) OF THE TREATY

(19) As regards the aid for internationalisation, in its preli-
minary assessment and on the basis of the information
at its disposal, the Commission drew attention to the
following points in particular (8):

— this aid appeared to be linked to the creation and
operation of a distribution network or to other
export-related current expenditure and as such was
not compatible with the common market (see in
particular Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 on the appli-
cation of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to
State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (9));

— even if this aid could be regarded as investment aid,
it did not qualify for
the regional exemptions
provided for in Article 87(3)(a) and (c). The regional
exemptions could be granted only in respect of
investments made within the areas eligible for
regional aid. The Italian authorities considered that
they could apply the intensities allowed for Sicily, as
a region eligible for
the exemption in Article
87(3)(a), by the Italian regional aid map (10), but the
measure in question related to the creation of struc-
tures outside that region.

(20) As far as the operating aid is concerned,

in its preli-
minary assessment and on the basis of the information
at its disposal, the Commission drew attention to the
following points in particular (11):

— the measure was limited in time, since it was to
apply until 2006, and provided for decreasing
maximum aid intensities;

— however, the Italian authorities had failed to demon-
strate that the operating aid was proportional to the
handicaps it sought to alleviate. Neither had they
provided information clarifying the nature of
the
regional handicaps to be overcome. They had not
even described or quantified those handicaps or
its
shown that
contribution to regional development;

the aid was justified in terms of

— operating aid intended to promote exports between

Member States was not allowed (12).

(18)

The doubts raised by the Commission when it decided
to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of
the Treaty focused on two specific aspects: aid for inter-
nationalisation and operating aid.

(7) As defined by the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing
and restructuring firms in difficulty (OJ C 288, 9.10.1999, p. 2).

(8) For further details, see points 28 to 30 of the decision to initiate the

procedure (see footnote 2).
(9) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 33.
(10) OJ L 105, 20.4.2002, p. 1.
(11) For further details, see points 31 to 36 of the decision to initiate

the procedure (see footnote 2).

(12) Point 4.17 of the Guidelines on national regional aid (OJ C 74,
10.3.1998, p. 9, as amended by the Commission communication
published in OJ C 258, 9.9.2000, p. 5).

19.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 181/49

(21)

In the decision initiating the procedure the Commission
furthermore expressed doubts as to the compatibility
with the common market of two more specific aspects
of the scheme (13):

5. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID

— the scheme required recipients to be registered in the
register of businesses kept by chambers of commerce
and, in the case of craft businesses, in the register of
requirement possibly
craft businesses.
infringed the Community rules on the right of estab-
lishment and the principle of non-discrimination on
grounds of nationality (Article 12 of the Treaty);

Such a

— on the aid to be granted under the Decree of 22 June
2001 in accordance with the de minimis rule, the
Commission noted that the provision at the end of
Article 15(3) of Regional Law 32/2000, which
formed an integral part of the notification, did not
appear to take account of
the three-year period
referred to in Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 69/
2001 (14). Under that provision of the Regional Law,
recipients had to declare any de minimis aid received
after 1 January 2000. However, the reference period
in Article 2(2) of Regulation No 69/2001 was
mobile, as is indicated in recital 5 to the Regulation.

4. COMMENTS FROM THE ITALIAN AUTHORITIES

(22)

The Italian authorities did not submit any comments on
the planned aid scheme.

(23)

(24)

They did, however, transmit clarifications concerning the
provision on aid to be granted under the de minimis rule,
i.e. the provision about which the Commission raised
doubts in recital 38 of the Decision initiating the proce-
dure.

for aid,

In that letter the Italian authorities stated that no aid had
been granted and that, on completion of the administra-
tive procedure for examining requests
the
regional authorities would pay out the aid in accordance
with the indications given in recital 38 of the decision
initiating the procedure and in compliance with Regula-
tion (EC) No 69/2001 (15). The Italian authorities also
stressed that the provision at the end of Article 15(3) of
Regional Law 32/2000 did not provide for the grant of
aid under the de minimis rule and was confined to orga-
nising the creation of a regional database.

(13) For further details, see points 37 to 38 of the Decision to initiate

the procedure (see footnote 2).

(14) See footnote 5.
(15) Ibid.

(25)

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

5.1. Existence of aid within the meaning of Article

87(1) of the Treaty

In order to assess whether the measures provided for in
the scheme constitute State aid within the meaning of
Article 87(1) of the Treaty,
it has to be determined
whether they confer an advantage on the recipients,
whether that advantage derives from State resources,
whether they distort competition and whether they are
liable to affect trade between Member States.

resources, and whether

The first requirement
for the applicability of Article
87(1) of the Treaty is that the measure must confer an
advantage on certain specific undertakings. It has to be
determined whether the recipients receive an economic
advantage they would not have obtained under normal
market conditions, or whether they avoid costs which
they would normally have had to bear out of their own
financial
this advantage is
conferred on a specific category of undertaking. The
award of grants and contributions towards the operating
costs of firms located in the Region of Sicily confers
economic advantages on the recipients since it reduces
the costs of carrying out eligible projects and relieves
them of some of the current expenditure which they
would normally have incurred. The scheme is available
only to SMEs operating in the Region of Sicily, which
are favoured since the aid is not granted to firms outside
that area or to firms in Sicily which are not SMEs,
consortia of SMEs or companies set up by consortia of
SMEs.

The second requirement for the applicability of Article
87 is that the aid must be granted by the State or out of
State resources.
In the present case the use of State
resources is shown by the fact that the cost of the
measure is borne by the public budget of a region.

The third condition for the applicability of Article 87(1)
of the Treaty is that the aid must distort or threaten to
distort competition. The measures at
issue here do
threaten to distort competition, because they strengthen
the financial position and freedom of action of the reci-
pient firms as compared with competitors who do not
qualify.

The fourth condition for the applicability of Article
87(1) of the Treaty is that the aid must affect or be liable
to affect intra-Community trade. It should be pointed
out here that the scheme concerns the internationalisa-
tion of the regional economy and comprises measures
intended precisely to assist undertakings in achieving
that objective. The aid scheme under examination

L 181/50

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2003

therefore concerns undertakings carrying on their busi-
ness in sectors exposed to international competition and
can by definition be regarded as relating to economic
operators involved in international trade.

5.4. Compatibility of the aid and doubts raised by

the Commission

(30)

For the above reasons, the Commission finds that the
scheme under examination constitutes State aid within
the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty which can
therefore be considered to be compatible with the
common market only if
the
exemptions laid down in the Treaty.

it qualifies for one of

5.2. Lawfulness of the scheme

(31)

the suspensive clause (Article 198 of
Since under
Regional Law 32/2000) the scheme has not yet entered
into force, the Commission finds that the Italian authori-
ties have complied with the obligation to notify laid
down in Article 88(3) of the Treaty.

5.3. Applicability of the exemptions

(32) After determining that the measures under examination
constitute State aid caught by Article 87(1) of the Treaty,
the Commission has to consider whether they can be
declared compatible with the common market in accor-
dance with Article 87(2) and (3).

(33)

The Commission takes the view that the aid does not
qualify for the exemptions in Article 87(2): it is not aid
having a social character of
the kind referred to in
Article 87(2)(a), nor is it aid intended to make good the
damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional occur-
rences of the kind referred to in Article 87(2)(b), nor
does it satisfy the tests of Article 87(2)(c). For obvious
reasons the exemptions in Article 87(3)(b) and (d) are
not applicable either. The Commission therefore has to
consider whether it qualifies for exemption under Article
87(3)(a) and (c).

(34)

In the decision to initiate the formal investigation proce-
dure, the Commission took the view that the aid in the
form of contributions to investment costs of projects
designed to secure a permanent presence on one or
more foreign markets (exhibition centres, showrooms,
agents' offices) (16) applied particularly to export-related
activities. This aid appeared to be linked to the creation
and operation of a distribution network or to other
export-related current expenditure. Export aid is not
compatible with Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 (17). The
Commission has long been opposed to export aid (18). In
point 242 of the Seventh Report on Competition Policy
(1977), the Commission stated that export aids applied
to intra-Community trade ‘cannot qualify for derogation
whatever their intensity, form, grounds or purpose’. The
investigation procedure has not dispelled the
formal
Commission's doubts, and the possibility that
the
scheme under examination may constitute export aid
incompatible with the common market cannot be ruled
out. Clearly, aid towards the costs of studies and consul-
tancy services could be compatible if it complies with
the conditions laid down in Article 5 of Regulation (EC)
specific
No 70/2001. However,
commitments from Italy and clarifications and more
precise definitions,
the Commission cannot authorise
such aid. In this particular respect, Italy is nevertheless
free to implement the measure under the Exemption
Regulation in accordance with the conditions laid down
therein.

in the absence of

(35) During the preliminary examination phase, the Italian
authorities disputed the classification of the measures as
export aid on the grounds that they were not directly
linked to the export of goods or to the creation or
operation of distribution and marketing networks. But
they did not adduce any evidence in support of these
claims. They confined themselves to pointing out that
the aid would have beneficial effects on regional devel-
opment in Sicily and arguing that the scheme should be
classed as regional aid. The Italian authorities also stated
that they were prepared to exclude from the scheme any
structure comprising a warehouse, store or distribution
centre for goods and anything connected with marketing
and distribution. Nevertheless, in the decision initiating
the formal investigation procedure, the Commission also
expressed doubts as to whether the scheme could be
classed as investment aid for the purposes of Article 2 of
Regulation (EC) No 70/2001. Its doubts have not been
dispelled, and the question whether the measures can be
classed as export aid or investment aid remains unre-
solved.

(16) See the first indent of recital 7.
(17) See footnote 9. See in particular Article 1(2)(b) of the Regulation

and recital 16 thereto.

(18) See Commission Decision 73/263/EEC of 25 July 1973 on the tax
concessions granted, pursuant to Article 34 of French law No 65-
566 of 12 July 1965 and to the circular of 24 March 1967, to
French undertakings setting up businesses abroad (OJ L 253,
10.9.1973, p. 10).

19.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 181/51

(36)

[…]

‘aid for

investment

the regional exemptions

In the Decision to initiate the formal investigation proce-
dure, the Commission furthermore took the view that,
even if the aid could be classed as investment aid, it did
not qualify for
in Article
87(3)(a) and (c). Those exemptions may be applied only
to investments made within eligible areas. However,
Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 provides
that
inside or outside the
Community shall be compatible with the common
market within the meaning of Article 87(3) of the Treaty
[…]’, and the Regulation therefore applies to investments
outside eligible areas. Nevertheless, all the established
conditions must be met.
In particular, Article 4(2)
provides that the gross aid intensity may not exceed
15 % in the case of small enterprises and 7,5 % in the
case of medium-sized enterprises. Only where the invest-
ment is carried out in an assisted area does Article 4(3)
allow the average intensity to reach the ceiling for
regional investment aid. It follows that the aid ceilings
envisaged by the Region of Sicily may be applied only
where the investment is carried out inside that region.
The Italian authorities took the view, however, that the
intensities envisaged by the Region of Sicily could be
applied since the region was recognised as eligible for
the derogation in Article 87(3)(a) by the Italian regional
aid map. But the scheme under examination relates to
the creation of structures outside that region. During the
formal
investigation procedure the Italian authorities
confined themselves to advancing questionable interpre-
tations of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 in
support of their argument that the maximum intensities
allowed for the Region of Sicily could be applied. The
formal investigation has not dispelled the Commission's
doubts, and the possibility that the scheme under exami-
nation may constitute investment aid incompatible with
the common market cannot be ruled out.

(37)

In the decision to initiate the formal investigation proce-
dure, the Commission took the view that the aid in the
form of contributions to the establishment and start-up
of consortia of SMEs to carry out cooperation projects
as part of promotional activities on an international
scale (19) did not fulfil the conditions laid down in Regu-
lation (EC) No 70/2001 and that the aid constituted
operating aid. The acquisition of movables is an eligible
cost for the purposes of aid for productive investments,
even where it
takes place outside the Community,
provided that all the other conditions laid down in Regu-
lation (EC) No 70/2001 are fulfilled. In the absence of
specific commitments from Italy and clarifications and
more precise definitions,
the Commission cannot
authorise aid for the acquisition of immovable property
for productive investments.
In this particular respect,
Italy is nevertheless free to implement the measure under
the Exemption Regulation in accordance with the condi-
tions laid down therein. All the conditions laid down in
that Regulation will nevertheless have to be met. This is

(19) See the second indent of recital 7.

the case, for example, of the aid intensities (20), on which
the Commission has already stated its position (21).

(38)

The Region of Sicily qualifies for exemption under
Article 87(3)(a) of the Treaty in accordance with the
abovementioned Italian regional aid map.

(39)

In accordance with the guidelines on national regional
aid, aid aimed at reducing a firm's current expenses
(operating aid)
is normally prohibited. Exceptionally,
however, such aid may be granted in regions eligible
under the derogation in Article 87(3)(a), provided that it
is justified in terms of its contribution to regional devel-
opment and its nature, and provided its level is propor-
tional to the handicaps it seeks to alleviate. It is for the
Member State to demonstrate the existence of any handi-
caps and gauge their importance. Operating aid must be
limited in time and progressively reduced (22).

(40)

The Commission noted that the measure was limited in
time, since it was to apply until 2006, and provided for
decreasing maximum aid intensities.

(41)

The Commission nevertheless pointed out that the provi-
sions governing the scheme did not make it clear
whether the aid intensity was expressed in terms of gross
or net grant equivalent and that the initial ceiling of
70 % appeared to be rather high. The Italian authorities
had failed to explain how the nature and duration of the
aid were such as to compensate for the handicaps it
sought to alleviate, and they had not demonstrated that
the operating aid was proportional to those handicaps.
Neither had they provided information clarifying the
nature of the regional handicaps to be overcome; they
had not described or quantified those handicaps or
shown that the aid was justified in terms of its contribu-
tion to regional development.

(42)

The Commission also stressed that operating aid
intended to promote exports between Member States
was not allowed (23).

(20) See recital 36.
(21) See Commission Decision 97/257/EC of 5 June 1996 concerning
guarantees of
for investment
the Land Brandenburg (Germany)
projects in Poland (OJ L 102, 19.4.1997, p. 36); Commission Deci-
sion 97/240/EC of 5 June 1996 concerning aid that the Republic
of Austria intends to grant under the ERP internationalisation
scheme (OJ L 96, 11.4.1997, p. 15); and Commission Decision 97/
241/EC of 5 June 1996 concerning aid that the Republic of Austria
intends to grant pursuant to the ERP Eastern Europe programme
(OJ L 96, 11.4.1997, p. 23).

(22) Points 4.15 to 4.17 of the Guidelines on national regional aid (see

footnote 12).

(23) Point 4.17 of the Guidelines on national regional aid (see footnote

12).

L 181/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.7.2003

(43)

(44)

The formal investigation has not dispelled the Commis-
sion's doubts, and the possibility that the scheme under
examination may constitute operating aid incompatible
with the common market cannot be ruled out.

In the Decision to initiate the formal investigation proce-
dure, the Commission pointed out that the provision
requiring recipients to be registered in the register of
businesses kept by chambers of commerce and, in the
case of craft businesses, in the register of craft businesses
possibly infringed the Community rules on the right of
establishment and the principle of non-discrimination
on grounds of nationality (Article 12 of the Treaty).
Those doubts have not been dispelled. In the absence of
reactions and clarifications from Italy, the Commission is
unable to reach a decision on this question. There is no
need for it to do so, however, since the formal investiga-
tion procedure has led it to conclude that the aid scheme
under examination is incompatible with the common
market. It should also be stressed that, as indicated in
the preceding points,
Italy were to decide to put
certain measures into effect pursuant to Regulation (EC)
No 70/2001, it would have to do so in compliance with
the provisions of the Treaty.

if

(45) On the aid to be granted in accordance with the de
minimis rule, the Commission takes note of the Italian
authorities' statement that no aid has been granted and
that they will comply with the provisions of Regulation
(EC) No 69/2001 (24). Since the Italian authorities have
made it clear that the provision at the end of Article
15(3) of Regional Law 32/2000 does not provide for the
grant of aid under the de minimis rule and is confined to
organising the creation of a regional database, no
amendment of that provision is necessary.

6. CONCLUSIONS

(46)

In the light of the assessment set out in section IV of this
Decision, the Commission finds that the aid scheme to
promote the internationalisation of enterprises in the
Region of Sicily is incompatible with the common
market,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The State aid which Italy is planning to implement for the
internationalisation of enterprises
in the Region of Sicily
pursuant to Article 26 of Sicilian Regional Law No 32 of 23
December 2000 and the Decree of 22 June 2001 (25) is incom-
patible with the common market.

The aid may accordingly not be implemented.

Article 2

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

This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.

Article 3

Done at Brussels, 5 March 2003.

For the Commission

Mario MONTI

Member of the Commission

(24) See footnote 5.

(25) See footnote 4.