2005/164/EC: Commission Decision of 8 September 2004 concerning investment aid in favour of Stora Enso Langerbrugge notified by Belgium (notified under document number C(2004) 3351) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2004-09-08
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, application of EU law, control of State aid, investment aid, pulp and paper industry, tax exemption

L 53/66

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.2.2005

COMMISSION DECISION

of 8 September 2004

concerning investment aid in favour of Stora Enso Langerbrugge notified by Belgium

(notified under document number C(2004) 3351)

(Only the Dutch and French versions are authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2005/164/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty
establishing the European
Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article
88(2) thereof,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic
Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,

Having called on interested parties to submit their comments
pursuant to the provision(s) cited above (1) and having regard to
their comments,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

1. PROCEDURE

By letter dated 4 April 2003, pursuant to Article 88(3) of
the Treaty and the point 76 of the guidelines for aid for
the protection of the environment (2) (hereinafter ‘envir-
onmental aid guidelines’), Belgium notified aid in favour
of Stora Enso Langerbrugge (hereinafter ‘SEL’). The case
was registered under number N167/03. The Commission
asked Belgium further information by letters of 20 May
2003, 17 July 2003 and 20 October 2003. Belgium
provided further
information by letters of 19 June
2003, 15 September 2003. On 9 July 2003 and 8
October 2003 meetings between representatives of the
Commission, the Belgian authorities and the company
took place.

By letter of 27 November 2003 the Commission
informed Belgium of
the
procedure of Article 88(2) of the Treaty with respect to
the notified aid. The decision was published in the
Official Journal of 21 January 2004 (3).

its decision to initiate

The Commission received two comments,
including
those of SEL. These were forwarded to Belgium by
letter of 1 October 2003; the letter contained as well
further questions from the Commission. By letter of 18
December 2003, Belgium asked to keep certain infor-
mation in the decision confidential, commenting at the
same time on parts of the content. Having asked for a
deferral of the deadline by letter of 19 December 2003,

(1) OJ C 15 of 21.1.2004, p. 10.
(2) OJ C 37 of 3.2.2001, p. 3.
(3) See footnote 1.

which was granted by letter of 12 January 2004, Belgium
commented on the Commission’s decision by letter of 29
January 2004. The Commission asked further questions
by letters of 5 February 2004 and 5 April 2004. Belgium
answered to these questions and commented on the
comments received from third parties by letters of 8
March 2004, 2 April 2004, 10 June 2004 and 4
August 2004. Meetings took place on 28 April 2004
and 18 May 2004, and on 7 July 2004 a Commission
representative visited the plant.

2. DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID

2.1. The beneficiary

(4)

The beneficiary
is N.V. Stora Enso Langerbrugge,
subsidiary of Stora Enso Oyj, a large producer of
fine papers, packaging
magazine papers, newsprint,
turnover
In 2001 its
boards and wood products.
amounted to EUR 13.5 billion and its capacity was
approximately 15 million tonnes of paper and board.
The company employs some 43 000 persons. The aid
concerns the establishment in Langerbrugge, near Gent.
Turnover in Belgium amounted to EUR 55 million in
2000 (4).

2.2. The project

(5)

The project consists of five parts:

(a) a new paper mill (PM4) and a de-inking plant (DIP2)
for the production of newsprint with 100 % recycled
fibre (100 % RCF newsprint);

(b) adjustments to a paper mill (PM3) that in the past
produced newsprint of 80 % recycled fibre, and is now
to produce magazine paper with 80 % recycled fibre
(80 % RCF magazine paper);

(c) a combined heat and power

sludge combustor

(sludge CHP installation);

(4) http://www.storaenso.com

26.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/67

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(d) water treatment installations;

(e) rail

infrastructure to realise a connection to the
public rail network and related additional investments
in waste paper storage.

Presently, the investments have largely been realised. The
increases employment by 40 and guarantees
project
for 410 persons. The indirect
existing employment
employment would be some 1 350 jobs.
In order to
avoid an overall capacity increase ahead of market
growth, an old paper mill
in Langerbrugge (PM2 with
an annual capacity of 120 000 tonnes) was closed and
production in establishments in Finland and Sweden was
rearranged.

2.3. Paper mill 4 and de-inking plant 2: 100 % RCF
newsprint production

cost of

investment

PM4 amounts

the moment of

PM4 has an annual capacity of 400 000 tonnes. The
total
to EUR
259 622 000. Since the European average RCF content
at
the aid request was only 49,8 %,
Belgium held that 50,2 % of PM4’s investment cost can
be considered as an ‘extra cost’. The total investment in
DIP2 is EUR 90 111 000 and this would fully be eligible.
Taking into account the savings for the first five years,
total eligible cost would amount to EUR 127 388 000.

explained that various parts of

the
Belgium later
investments in PM4 and DIP2 would go beyond the
norms that are applicable to SEL. A non-exhaustive list
includes investments in re-circulation of cooling water,
maximum closure of the white-water circuit, heat recu-
peration systems, special presses for achieving a dryer
paper web after
section, advanced paper
sustainance technology in the drying section, innovative
techniques for rolling and handling finished paper, and
additional cleaning equipment. According to Belgium,
these investments would account for at least an eligible
extra environmental cost of EUR 19 106 000.

the press

of

an

has

additives,

chemicals

the machine,

design which

innovative
energy,

reduces
PM4
and
consumption
process water. A crucial
feature is a higher machine
width compared to conventional newsprint machines.
in
This requires adaptations throughout
particular a closed instead of open passage from the
pressing-part to the drying-part and a somewhat lower
production speed. Based on two detailed cost studies, it is
conventional
estimated that
investment with the same capacity would be EUR 14,1
million lower. The new design will lead to cost savings,
but due to higher costs to start and optimise the
machine, there is no net operational benefit over the
first five years.

a more

cost of

the

(10)

(11)

(12)

2.4. Paper mill 3: switching from newsprint to 80 %
RCF magazine paper

PM3 has been constructed in 1957 for the production of
newsprint. It was renovated in 1989 and its speed was
increased in 2000 and 2001. Now it has been refur-
bished in order to produce 80 % RCF magazine paper
(SC-quality, […] (*) g/m2, uncoated).
Its capacity is to
be 165 000 tonnes per year. The investments concern
adaptations to the raw materials treatment and supply (in
particular the existing DIP1), to the mill itself and to its
gas, heating and quality control systems, etc. The total
investment cost amounts to EUR 39 555 000.

In the alternative, SEL could have continued production
of its magazine paper mill PM2, which was constructed
in 1937 and modernised in 1985 and which has a
capacity of 115 000 tonnes per year. Compared to this
mill, the transformed PM3 has lower electricity cost, but
higher costs for steam, condensate losses and treatment
of ashes. The net
to EUR
4 342 000 over the first five years. This would leave
an eligible cost of EUR 35 213 000.

saving would amount

2.5. Sludge CHP installation

SEL constructed a CHP installation that combusts the
biomass available from the two de-inking plants and
from the water treatment plant co-fired with natural
gas. The installation has a fluidised bed system. The
is (1) electricity,
installed maximum energetic output
Pe = 10,4 MWe gross and 8 MWe net,
(2) high
pressure overheated steam at 480 °C, 80 bar, Pth = 53
MWth, and (3) warm water, recovered in the flue gas
cleaning, at around 60 °C, Pth = 5,6 MWth. A back-
pressure boiler transforms the high pressure steam in
low pressure steam at around 4 bar that is fed into the
paper production process. The energy conversion effi-
ciency of
the boiler will be about 87,5 % at partial
loading and about 90 % in full loading conditions. The
designed capacity of the installation is about 250 000
tonnes of
in practice maximum
capacity is lower. With maximum capacity use of the
paper machines,
is
expected of about 200 000 tonnes.

an annual quantity of

sludge per year,

sludge

(13)

The total investment cost amounts to EUR 55 147 000.
As the sludge CHP installation requires more main-
tenance and is less reliable than a conventional CHP
installation, the investment includes two back-up steam
generators. Cost of engineering and technical project
management are put on the balance and subsequently
depreciated, and are therefore also included.

(*) Confidential information.

L 53/68

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.2.2005

2.6. Water treatment installations

— a grant of EUR 25 892 425,

(14)

SEL will use surface water from the local ‘Kalebeek’. This
water has to be treated and disinfected before it can be
used in the production process. Belgium held that the
eligible investment cost amounts to EUR 7 429 000.

(15)

SEL foresees substantial water discharges in the Zeekanaal
Gent-Terneuzen. Discharge takes place after a two-step
biological process. Belgium held that the eligible cost
amounts to EUR 4 431 000.

— five-year

real

estate

exemption of

tax. Belgium
calculated a theoretical maximum benefit of EUR
2 035 162 per year,
i.e. some EUR 9 million net
present value over five years. The Flemish authorities,
however, have frozen the value of property on the
basis of which the tax is calculated at the 1998 level
and therefore, the investments would not lead to any
higher real estate tax and consequently the exemption
would not have a real benefit. It may, however, regain
to the calculation
relevance in case of changes
method of the scheme,

the effluent

The environmental permit states as a particular condition
that a techno-economical study should be executed in
order to evaluate the chemical oxygen demand (COD)-
load and concentration of
that will be
discharged in the Zeekanaal. The analysis could result
in an extra investment of about EUR 1 million in a
tertiary water purification plant. This eventual investment
is included in the notification, although eventual aid
would be granted only following a separate application
for ecological support. A decision on this investment is
still pending as the Flemish authorities have not yet
decided on the request for derogation from the COD-
norm that is generally applicable.

(19)

Both measures are based on the decree of 15 December
1993 on the economic expansion in the Flemish Region,
which was approved by the Commission in 1993. Modi-
fications to the environmental aid scheme based on this
law were approved by the Commission in 2000 (5). The
scheme foresees aid intensities of 8 to 12 % for different
types of measures. The scheme has been put in line with
the environmental aid guidelines according to point 77
thereof.

2.9. Reasons to initiate the procedure of
Article 88(2)

2.7. Waste paper storage and rail infrastructure

(20)

(16)

(17)

The investment project comprises a large depot for waste
paper and a rail connection to the existing rail network
for transport of waste paper and the finished product. All
streams of incoming and outgoing products could be
dealt with by road transport. Belgium considers only
the additional investments due to rail transport eligible
for aid, i.e. the rail infrastructure, the additional cost of
the waste paper depot and the additional cost of the
loading quay and finished paper warehouse. Unlike
is
road transport, waste paper
packed in bales. Therefore also investment costs for
conveying,
is
included. The investment
in containers and special
vehicles for combined transport is not included due to
their multi-purpose character, nor is the cost of offices
and social rooms, sprinkler installations and indirect cost.
This leaves an expected eligible cost of EUR 8 864 000.
If afterwards it would appear that the actual investment
cost is lower, the Belgian authorities will re-calculate the
investment cost. The
the actual
aid on the basis of
investments in rail infrastructure do not lead to savings
on operational costs compared to road transport.

transported by rail

and de-wiring

the bales

equalising

2.8. The aid

for

investment

In its decision to initiate the procedure of Article 88(2) of
the Treaty,
the Commission expressed its doubt as
regards the eligibility of the investment cost under the
It appeared in particular
environmental aid guidelines.
that the investment in 100 % recycled fibre newsprint
capacity was to be considered as a normal state-of-the-
art
the industry. 80 % recycled fibre
magazine paper might be less common, but it was not
clear whether such an investment would not be necessary
for any (large) paper producer that wishes to keep up
with increasingly stringent environmental standards and
that wishes to remain competitive in the long run
other
through
investments it was not clear to what extent the eligible
cost was restricted to what was strictly necessary to meet
the environmental objectives.

innovation.

continuous

For

the

3. COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES

(21) One competitor sent comments. It argued that the aid
distorts competition in the markets for newsprint, for
magazine paper and for recovered paper. On the latter
market a net shortage exists in the region from where
in
SEL plans to source its fibres. As other producers,
competition with SEL, would absorb recovered fibres,
there is no net environmental benefit of the investments
in PM3 and PM4.

(18)

The aid consists in:

(5) N223/93 and N40/99, OJ C 284 of 7.10.2000, p. 4.

26.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/69

(22)

(23)

the

The upgrade at Langerbrugge is no more than a market
and competition driven update to state-of-the art tech-
nology and an investment
taken to maintain and/or
increase
long-term competitiveness. Both the
investments in PM4 as in PM3 represent an update to
current state-of-the-art in the paper industry. This is illu-
strated by an overview of
latest upgrades made by
various paper producers in the past years. As regards
magazine paper, a distinction is made between super-
calandered (SC) magazine paper and coated (LWC)
paper. Only if SEL would be able to produce LWC-
magazine paper out of high contents of recycled fibres,
the upgrade would be considered to go beyond common
and current industry standards.

The investment is one that any producer of publication
paper grades would need to take. It was announced as
early as 2001 and the aid does not seem to have been
relevant for the investment decision. It is in line with
SEL’s goal for return on capital employed of 13 %, the
goal of capital expenditure at or below the level of depre-
ciation and the whole project was financed from SEL’s
cash flow. A number of SEL’s press releases confirm this.
Investing in PM4, refurbishing PM3 and closing down
PM2 had the additional advantages that it was cheaper
than building new greenfield mill both for newsprint and
magazine paper and it allowed SEL to introduce new
capacity while phasing out old capacity, which is
necessary in order not
from introducing
capacity without corresponding demand. Demand for
high quality papers is increasing and the customers and
authorities require an increasing content of recycled fibre
in paper.

to suffer

(24)

The building of a new sludge combustion capacity and
the investments in water and effluence treatment could
potentially be approved under
the environmental aid
guidelines, although the latter is directly linked to the
production capacity and are not strictly necessary in
order
to meet environmental objectives and should
therefore not be eligible for any aid. The building of
rail infrastructure seems excessive in the sense that trans-
portation by lorry would be an obvious alternative which
would not require any additional investments. The envi-
ronmental effects would be minimal.

(26)

(27)

(28)

(29)

4.2. PM4 and DIP2, production capacity for 100 %
RCF newsprint

Recycling percentages are indeed norms imposed on
Member States, but in the factual situation in Belgium,
there is a direct link between these norms and SEL’s
activities.

installations

100 % RCF newsprint is not at all ‘state of the art’. Only
5 to 6 newsprint
installations in the same order of
magnitude exist in western Europe. The large majority
of
in RCF percentages between
40 % and 80 %. The installations are not serial products
and each of
them was innovative. Reaching optimal
productivity takes normally about two years, which is
much longer than usual for ‘state of the art’ installations.
PM4 and DIP2 belong to the absolute world top.

results

4.3. PM3, 80 % RCF magazine paper

In addition to the arguments already raised in the
opening decision, Belgium and SEL stresses the inno-
vative and unique elements of PM3 and point to the
important
run-up cost and the learning curve. This
further proves that the investment cannot be considered
as ‘state-of-the-art’. It is acknowledged that the market
evolves
towards higher RCF percentages and lower
energy consumption for magazine paper, but SEL’s
investment would not be ‘state of the art’.

economically necessary.

The rebuild of PM3 has been done before it was tech-
PM3 must be
nically or
considered as a prototype for the Stora Enso group.
The investment
long
to improve continuously the
term strategy that
resources and the personnel’s
processes,
capabilities with a view to sustainable paper production.

fits completely in the group’s

is
the use of

(30)

Belgium nor SEL have commented on the investments by
LEIPA, where also magazine paper is produced from
predominantly RCF (6).

4. COMMENTS FROM BELGIUM AND SEL

(31)

4.1. General remarks

(25)

Belgium and SEL hold that
the aid would not affect
negatively trade between Member States and there
would not be an advantage to SEL capable of distorting
competition. For all parts of the project, sufficient cost
would be eligible to justify the aid. Detailed information
and justifications on the eligible costs was provided. In as
far as this is already presented in sections 2 and 6, it is
not repeated in this section.

4.4. Sludge combined heat and power installation

Taking total cost of the sludge CHP installation, including
depreciation, there would be no net benefits over the first
five years of the life of the installation. Had SEL not
invested in the sludge CHP installation,
it could have
sourced its steam and electricity from a nearby energy
producer. In that case, SEL would have had to invest in
an additional steam boiler with a cost of EUR 1 189 000.
Hence, the full
investment cost minus EUR 1 189 000
would be eligible for aid.

(6) Footnote 10 of the decision to initiate the procedure of Article

88(2), see footnote 1.

L 53/70

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.2.2005

(32)

In any event, as an alternative investment producing the
same quantities of steam and electricity, a conventional
CHP installation would be more
than
separate steam and electricity production units.

appropriate

(38)

4.5. Fresh water treatment

(33)

for

limited groundwater
If SEL had had a permit
extraction,
the continuation of such extraction would
be realistic. The total cost per m3 would be largely
similar in both cases, but no investments would be
required. However, in practice it would not be realistic
to extract such quantities of groundwater.

4.6. Effluent treatment

(39)

(34)

(35)

Belgium explained that there was no need to increase the
capacity of the existing water treatment facilities in view
of the optimisation of the effluent treatment and the
production process. The investment consists basically of
a buffer tank that is to ensure a stable functioning of the
treatment and the necessary technical equipment to make
a connection to the existing treatment installations. The
effluent
innovative
installation has
features.

treatment

some

(for almost

in the permit

The treatment goes beyond the VLAREM norms, but also
beyond the norms
all
substances). The latter are strict and in the negotiations
with the authorities, they have been adjusted to the best
possible results of the treatment facilities. They would go
beyond the levels based on the ‘best available technique’.
An expert report holds that the imposed COD limit of
260 mg/l must be considered as extremely ambitious.
The environmental permit imposes a further reduction
to 180 mg/l, which has no precedent
in the paper
industry.

(36)

Except
for COD, all concentrations of substances are
lower in the effluent than they are in the water taken
from the Kalebeek.

4.7. Tertiary water treatment

(37)

Belgium holds
tertiary water
that aid for eventual
treatment would be compatible for the same reasons as
for effluent treatment. In the light of the expert report
and awaiting the decision of the Flemish authorities on
the request for a derogation from the 180 mg/l COD
norm, SEL has not yet decided on this investment. No
subsidy has yet been requested either.

4.8. Waste paper storage and rail infrastructure

Belgium and SEL underline that the switch from road to
rail transport is completely in line with the Commission’s
white book on ‘European transport policy for 2010 —
time to decide’ (7). The investments in rail infrastructure
are not necessary for the operations of the paper plant,
as the road infrastructure could be adapted to the new
situation by means of a diversion of the main road.
effects
less
alternative
some
this
Under
remain, but
these should be considered as minimal.
This analysis is confirmed by a study made in the
Impact Assessment.
framework of
The
increased
cost of
without the rail infrastructure investments.

the Environmental
transport would not have

favourable

under

eligible

The aid would also be in compliance with the State aid
rules in the transport sector. The investments could have
been
Polo
programme, but no aid application has been foreseen.
The aid is necessary to compensate for a part of the
extra cost. Moreover, road transport
is subsidised as
well, as not all the cost of traffic jams and contamination
is imposed.

European Marco

the

5. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID

5.1. State aid in the meaning of Article 87(1) of
the Treaty

(40) Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty lays down that, except
where otherwise provided,
aid which distorts or
threatens to distort competition by favouring certain
undertakings or
the production of certain goods is,
insofar as it affects trade among Member States, incom-
patible with the common market. The proposed grant
and tax exemption, in as far as the latter reduces actual
tax payments, constitute aid within the meaning of
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty as it allows SEL to be
relieved, by means of State resources, of part of the
investment costs which it would normally have to bear
itself. The aid strengthens SEL’s position in relation to its
competitors in the Community, and therefore it must be
regarded as affecting competition. As there is intense
trade between Member States in newsprint, magazine
paper,
the
Commission considers that the aid to SEL affects trade
between Member States.

in waste paper

as well as

and pulp,

(41)

Belgium has complied with its obligation to notify the
aid pursuant to Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty and point
76 of the environmental aid guidelines.

(7) COM(2001) 370 final of 12.9.2001.

26.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/71

(42)

(43)

5.2. General remarks on compatibility

The Commission has assessed whether the exemptions
set out in Article 87(2) and (3) of the Treaty apply.
the Treaty could
The exemptions in Article 87(2) of
serve as a basis to consider aid compatible with the
common market. However, the aid (a) does not have a
and is not granted to individual
social
consumers,
(b) does not make good the damages
caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences
and (c) is not required in order to compensate for the
economic disadvantages
caused by the division of
Germany.

character

The exemptions in Article 87(3)(a), (b) and (d) of the
Treaty, which refer to promotion of the economic deve-
lopment of areas where the standard of
living is
abnormally low or where there is serious underem-
ployment, to projects of common European interest or
to remedy a serious disturbance of the economy of a
Member State and to the promotion of culture and
conservation, do not apply. Belgium has not attempted
to justify the aid on any of these grounds.

(44) As far as the first part of

the exemption in Article
87(3)(c) of
the Treaty is concerned, namely aid to
facilitate the development of certain economic activities,
the Commission notes
the aid does not have
that
purposes such as research and development, investment
by small and medium-sized enterprises or rescuing or
restructuring SEL. The
to
encourage investment on the chosen location. Langer-
brugge, however, is not located in an area where initial
investments are eligible for regional aid. Therefore the aid
cannot be found compatible with the common market as
it would facilitate the development of certain regions.

aid may be

important

(45)

The Commission examined whether the aid qualifies for
an exemption under Article 87(3) (c) of the Treaty on
any other grounds, and in particular, whether the envi-
ronmental aid guidelines apply to this case. The aid has
been granted on the basis of an aid scheme that has been
approved by the Commission in 2000. This approval,
however, has been given before the entry into force of
the new guidelines. When the Commission adopted the
new guidelines,
it proposed to the Member States, as
appropriate measures, to adapt the earlier approved aid
schemes to bring them in conformity with the new
guidelines before 1 January 2002. Belgium has uncondi-
tionally accepted this proposal of appropriate measures
and was therefore held to modify the scheme that was
approved in 2000 (8). The Commission has therefore

(46)

(47)

(48)

(49)

assessed the aid's compatibility under the new guidelines.
The part of the project concerning the rail infrastructure,
however,
is assessed in the light of Article 73 of the
Treaty which concerns State aid to meet the needs of
coordination of transport.

5.3. Compatibility under the environmental aid
guidelines

In accordance with point 29 of the environmental aid
guidelines, investment aid enabling firms to improve on
the Community standards applicable may be authorised
the eligible
up to not more than 30 % gross of
investment costs. These conditions also apply to aid
where firms undertake investment
in the absence of
mandatory Community standards or where they have
to undertake investment
to comply with
than the
national standards that are more stringent
applicable Community standards. As explained in point
6 of the guidelines, Community standards also refer to
the standards set by national bodies in application of
Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 September 1996
concerning
and
control (9). Following this Directive Member States have
to base the required standards in environmental permits
on the results that can be obtained by applying best
available techniques (hereinafter BATs).

prevention

integrated

in order

pollution

cost as

the
Point 36 and 37 define the eligible
in land which are strictly necessary in
investments
order to meet environmental objectives,
investments in
buildings, plant and equipment intended to reduce or
eliminate pollution and nuisances, and investments to
adapt production methods with a view to protecting
the environment. Eligible cost must be confined strictly
to the extra investment costs necessary to meet the envi-
ronmental objectives.

5.3.1. DIP2, PM4 and PM3: increasing the recycling rate

from recycling waste paper.

The Commission does not question the environmental
benefit
considers,
It
the guidelines does not
however,
justify the aid for DIP2, PM4 and PM3 in as far as
they increase the recycling rate.

that point 29 of

First of all, the Commission recalls that according to the
general principles of law, an exception should be inter-
preted in a restrictive manner. The guidelines define the
conditions under which the Commission may consider
in
that aid is compatible with the common market
accordance with Article 87(3)(c) of
the Treaty, and
therefore form an exception to the general prohibition
laid down in Article 87(1) of the Treaty. It should also be
recalled that the environmental aid guidelines are based
on the general principle of ‘the polluter pays’, and that
every interpretation of
should strictly
comply with this underlying principle.

the guidelines

(8) See footnote 5.

(9) OJ L 257 of 10.10.1996, p. 26.

L 53/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.2.2005

(50)

(51)

The investment in PM3, PM4 and DIP2 will be used to
produce newsprint and magazine paper, which will even-
tually end up as waste paper. The increased production
therefore lead to increased quantities of
capacity will
In
waste paper, which will only be partially recycled.
this respect, the closure of PM2 and the reduction of
production in Finland and Sweden that (partially) coun-
terbalance the increased capacity of PM3 and PM4,
cannot be taken into account. The closed capacity is
older than the newly installed capacity, has different
technical characteristics and is positioned in the market
in a different way. Therefore, a direct comparison is not
appropriate.

it

is not ensured that

The investments are likely to increase the demand for
waste paper. However,
the
investments will actually lead to an increase of waste
in general, and not as regards
paper collection, not
waste paper deriving from SEL’s sales. Consequently,
the investments will not reduce SEL’s own pollution.
The environmental benefits may derive from indirect
effects on supply and demand for waste paper that
affect all users and providers of waste paper concerned,
not only SEL.

(52) A fortiori,

recycling percentages

the Commission notes that
are not

the norms as
regards
legal norms
directly applicable to the individual companies, even
though in the Belgian situation they have an important
impact on SEL’s activities. They are rather norms for the
Member States that have been imposed by EU law,
notably the Landfill directive (10). and the Packaging
directive (11). The aid is not granted to improve on the
standards applicable to the firm directly. The first
situation referred to in point 29 of the environmental
aid guidelines, which allows aid to be granted in order to
enable
standards
applicable therefore does not apply in this case.

to improve on Community

firms

(53)

absence of Community

Belgium held, instead, that the second situation referred
to in point 29 of
the environmental aid guidelines,
concerning aid for firms to undertake investments in
the
standards, would be
applicable. The Commission, however, concludes that
this is not the case. The aid in favour of the investments
in PM3, PM4 and DIP2 as a whole intend to promote
recycling and relieve the actual polluters from charges
they should normally bear. The aid is not intended to
reduce the quantity of waste paper that results from SEL’s
sales. It rather encourages SEL to take up waste paper
that may originate from products sold by any paper
producer. The Commission considers that point 29 of
the environmental aid guidelines concerns cases where

(10) Council Directive 99/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of
waste (OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1). Directive modified by Regulation
(EC) No 1882/2003 of the European Parliament and the Council
(OJ L 284, 31.10.2003, p. 1).

(11) European Parliament and Council Directive 94/62/EC of 20
December 1994 on packaging and packaging waste (OJ L 365,
31.12.1994, p. 10). Directive modified most recently by Directive
2004/12/EC (OJ L 47, 18.2.2004, p. 26).

an undertaking invests to improve its own environmental
record, and to reduce its own pollution. In such cases,
aid can be allowed as an incentive to improve the envi-
ronmental situation of the company. Otherwise, the rules
could be easily circumvented by granting aid not to the
polluters, but
the
pollution.

to the companies

taking care of

(54)

This interpretation is confirmed by point 18(b) of the
environmental aid guidelines, which states that aid ‘may
act as an incentive to firms to improve on standards or
to undertake further
investment designed to reduce
pollution from their plants.’

(55)

Furthermore,
the interpretation suggested by Belgium
might result in Member States subsidising investments
those sectors where the use of secondary raw
in all
materials is possible. Such aid could be granted without
having to comply with State aid rules such as those for
regional aid or for SME-investment aid. Such aid might
entail serious distortions on the relevant markets.

(56)

The Commission therefore considers that point 29 of the
environmental aid guidelines does not apply to the
investments in PM3, PM4 and DIP2 as a whole. The
Commission, however, has also assessed whether points
29 or 30 of the guidelines could be applicable to parts of
the investments.

5.3.2. Separate environmental investments within PM3, PM4

and DIP2, energy reduction by PM4

investment

in cooling-towers,

(57) As explained in point 9, Belgium held that within the
investment in PM4 and DIP2, various elements with an
extra cost of at least EUR 19.1 million would be eligible
for aid under point 29. The description of
these
elements, however, points to various cost savings. The
for example,
additional
would lead to a decrease of energy consumption in the
winter period of 10 MW. The closure of the white-water
circuit is intended to reduce the water consumption. The
use of ‘shoe presses’ instead of conventional presses in
the press-section of the paper mill allows SEL to reach a
higher degree of dryness, it optimises the drying process
for energy saving. Despite the repeated
and allows
request
from the Commission, Belgium has neither
demonstrated whether these costs can be fully accepted
as additional cost, nor indicated which operating benefits
SEL derives from these specific parts of the investment,
as required in point 36 and 37 of the guidelines. Conse-
quently, on this basis it is not possible to calculate which
amount of aid could be allowed.

26.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/73

(58) As described in point 10, Belgium argued that PM4
would be eligible for aid under point 30 of the guidelines
as it reduces energy consumption. Instead of investing in
a paper machine with a conventional width, SEL chose
for an innovative machine that uses less energy. The
investment,
falls within the definition of
energy-saving.

therefore,

(64)

(59)

In accordance with point 36 and 37 of the guidelines
only the investments that are strictly necessary in order
to meet environmental objectives are eligible for aid. It is
not just one part of PM4 that allows reducing energy
consumption. The crucial factor is the higher width of
all rotating elements. This, however, affects the whole
design and construction of the machine, and requires
as well a lower speed and the adaptations in the press-
section. An independent expert had made a detailed
estimate of
a conventional newsprint
machine. Later a detailed estimate of the cost of the
actual investment was made. Differences result not only
from the technical specifications, but also from more
price
estimates
precise
reductions, etc. The estimated eligible cost of EUR 14.1
million, however, concerns only the differences in cost as
regards the investments in machinery (12). This estimate
has been made on the basis of conservative assumptions
avoiding overestimation.

knowledge,

potential

cost of

the

of

consideration the type of primary energy used in the
production process. Such investment may be eligible
for aid at
the basic rate of 40 % of eligible cost as
defined in point 36 and 37 of the guidelines.

The installation will use bio-mass (13) available directly at
the plant and natural gas and it will have an energy
conversion efficiency of 87,5 to 90 %. Taking into
account as well the dispositions of Directive 2004/8/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11
cogeneration
February 2004 on the promotion of
based on a useful heat demand in the internal energy
the
market
Commission deems
falls within
that
point 31 of the guidelines.

and amending Directive 92/42/EEC (14),

the investment

(65) All costs indicated in table 1 above concern buildings,
plant and equipment
that are necessary in order to
produce and use the electricity and steam generated by
the biomass CHP installation. They are therefore eligible
pursuant to point 36 of the guidelines.

(60)

In accordance with point 37, second sub-paragraph of
the guidelines, the eligible costs must be calculated net of
benefits accruing from any increase of capacity expansion
and cost savings engendered during the first five years of
the life of the investment. The benefits from savings on
energy, raw materials and productivity, however, are
outweighed by the higher start-up costs in the initial
years of the investment.

(66)

In accordance with point 37, second subparagraph, of
the guidelines, only the extra costs can be eligible. In
this case, the most economical alternative investment is
a conventional combined heat and power installation.
This would consist in a high pressure steam generator
of 55 000 kW and a back pressure steam turbine of
9 400 kW with a total
cost of EUR
5 180 000.

investment

(61)

In conclusion, the Commission can find aid for PM4
compatible up to the amount of 40 % x EUR 14,1
million = EUR 5,64 million.

(67)

(62)

There is no parallel on the basis of which aid for PM3
and DIP2 can be found compatible.

In accordance with point 37, third subparagraph, of the
guidelines, eligible cost must be calculated net of the cost
savings engendered during the first five years of the life
the investment and additional ancillary production
of
during that
the
following:

five-year period. The

savings

are

5.3.3. Sludge combined heat and power installation

(63)

Point 31 of the environmental aid guidelines foresee that
investments
in the combined production of electric
power and heat may be eligible for aid when the
conversion efficiency
In this
take into particular
connection the Commission will

is particularly high.

(12) A small part actually concerns exchange parts necessary in order to

safeguard continuity of the paroduction process.

— cost forgone of operating a conventional CHP plant:
this includes costs of fuelling the conventional CHP
plant for producing the same quantities of steam and
heat, operating personnel, maintenance, demineralised
water of the conventional CHP plant,

(13) Within the meaning of Article 2(b) of Directive 2001/77/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on
the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy
sources in the internal electricity market (OJ L 283, 27.10.2001,
p. 33). Directive modified by the Act of Accession of 2003.

(14) OJ L 52, 21.2.2004, p. 50.

L 53/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.2.2005

— cost forgone of sludge treatment. If not combusted in
the CHP-installation, SEL would have had the
following options:
in particular
as regards the sludge from the water cleaning, not
(2) use in the brick
as regards de-inking sludge,
industry, (3) use as fuel in electricity production, in
particular as the sludge qualifies as biomass, (4) use in
the cement industry,

land-spreading,

(1)

— operating aid: SEL will be entitled to green energy
certificates
it produces. The
electricity
Belgian authorities guarantee a minimum price of
EUR 80 per certificate. The actual price obtained in
2003 was slightly higher.

the

for

(68)

The additional cost, on the other hand, is the following
operating cost of the sludge CHP installations: gas for co-
fuelling,
transport and disposal of ashes, demi-water
consumption, a much higher personnel cost, cost of
environmental certification and control and cost of flue
gas cleaning. The cost of de-watering sludge before
combustion is not to be subtracted, as de-watering is
necessary in any case.

(69) Over the five-year period, from May 2003 until April
EUR

2008,
16 343 000, net present value on 1 January 2003.

amount

savings

total

net

the

to

(70)

Based on the above, the allowable aid amounts to 40 % ×
(EUR 55 147 000 – EUR 5 180 000 – EUR 16 343 000)
= EUR 13 449 600.

(73)

(71)

In some situations, sludge combustion in a CHP instal-
lation may fall within point 29 of the environmental aid
guidelines. This could be the case where the company
opts for a disposal technology for the sludge that is more
environmentally friendly than another option that would
be less environmentally friendly, but still allowed under
the Community rules. SEL, however, does not have such
alternative option. In all situations, the sludge would be
the calorific
incinerated, with or without recovery of
value. The environmental benefit of the actual option
chosen rests, therefore,
in the energy recovery through
combined power and heat production, and therefore, aid
could eventually be allowed only under point 31 of the
guidelines.

5.3.4. Fresh water treatment

(72)

The investments are necessary in order to make use of
the surface water from the Kalecreek. Belgium, however,
has not confirmed that SEL would have had a cheaper
alternative that would be in compliance with EU legis-

for

lation. Belgium acknowledges that ‘in practice it is not
realistic to get such quantities of groundwater.
If SEL
(limited) groundwater
would have had a permit
extraction,
be
reasonably
continuation would
its
considered as realistic’. However, SEL currently does
not dispose of a permit for groundwater extraction and
no details were provided. Given the
existing and
increasing groundwater problems in Flanders, it appears
that the authorities are restrictive in giving new permits.
Moreover, as Belgium explains, not using groundwater is
in anticipation to the provisions of sustainable water
management as set out in Directive 2000/60/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October
2000 establishing a framework for
the Community
action in the field of water policy (15)
(hereinafter
‘Water Framework Directive’). As regards groundwater,
Article 4(1)(b)(ii) sets the objective for Member States
to
of
and
groundwater, and ensure a balance between abstraction
and recharge of groundwater, with the aim of achieving
good groundwater status. This objective has to be met by
2015 and various intermediary deadlines are set. The
groundwater layer(s) that Stora Enso otherwise would
use are currently over-drained. The 2015 deadline has
therefore policy implications as from now. Therefore,
the Commission cannot take into account this alternative
for calculating eligible cost and pursuant to point 40 of
the environmental aid guidelines, no aid can be found
compatible for this particular item.

enhance

protect,

restore

bodies

all

5.3.5. Effluent water treatment

Belgium explained that the quality of effluent improves
on most of the norms in the relevant permit and the
VLAREM II norms, which, according to Belgium, are
based on Best Available Techniques as required by the
is the
IPPC-Directive. The critical bottleneck, however,
chemical oxygen demand (COD) content of the water.
In the short term, SEL will not be able to reduce the
COD below 260 mg/l.

(74)

The
relevant Best Available Technologies Reference
document for the paper industry mentions a COD of
1 700 to 2 700 mg/l, but
this is based on a much
higher water consumption per tonne paper, which was
considered BAT at the time of drafting the reference
document. Belgium refers to an expert study stating
that the norm of 260 mg/l is extremely ambitious and
there would be no precedent in the paper industry. The
environmental impact assessment (EIA), however, when
noting that the discharge will be 260 mg/l, refers to the
results of Stora Enso’s plant in Saxony, Germany.

(15) OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1. Directive modified by Decision

2455/2001/EC (OJ L 331, 15.12.2001, p. 1).

26.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/75

(75)

The environmental permit for Stora Enso’s investments is
even stricter and imposes a maximum COD value of 180
mg/l which is derived from the applicable Flemish legis-
lation. SEL has requested a derogation to discharge
effluent water with a COD content of 260 mg/l. The
permit has been granted with a reference to this
request
study on future
improvements, after which the 180 mg/l norm should
be attained.

and with a view to a

beyond the Community standards. In any case, Belgium
has not notified aid in favour of these investments, as it
is still unclear and depends on the outcome of the study
that SEL has to make in order to comply with the envi-
ronmental permit. Consequently, the Commission is not
required to conclude on this point.

5.4. Rail infrastructure and related waste
paper storage

(76) Article 10 of the IPPC-directive holds:

‘Where an envi-
ronmental quality standard requires stricter conditions
than those achievable by the use of the best available
in particular be
techniques, additional measures shall
required in the permit, without prejudice to other
measures which might be taken to comply with environ-
mental quality standards.’ Stora Enso’s mill discharges on
the heavily polluted canal Gent-Terneuzen. According to
the EIA, with 260 mg/l COD SEL’s total discharge would
be 10 to 15 % of all COD discharged on the canal, which
would have a significant impact and would exceed the
quality levels determined for
the canal. The Water
Framework Directive obliges Member States to define
appropriate quality objectives for receiving waters in
the Member States. Although the obligations ensuing
from this Directive may not yet be fully binding,
it
appears
the canal Gent-
Terneuzen do not exceed the requirements resulting
from it.

the objectives

that

for

set

(77)

Consequently, if a COD discharge of 260 mg/l would be
allowed, this norm must be regarded as a Community
standard, set in compliance in particular with Article 10
of the IPPC directive and the more general objectives of
the Water Framework Directive. Belgium has not demon-
strated that the norm of 260 mg/l would go beyond
what is required on the basis of Community legislation.
In conclusion, the investment
is necessary to comply
with Community standards as meant in point 6 of the
Environmental aid guidelines and therefore it
is not
eligible for aid. Although the investment improves on
it
applicable environmental norms other
appears that there is no extra investment cost eligible
for aid and the Commission cannot find any aid for
these investments compatible.

than COD,

5.3.6. Tertiary water treatment

(78)

The additional
investments in tertiary water treatment
will be made in order to meet the norms for COD.
this norm goes
Belgium has not explained whether

(79)

that aids

the Treaty states

transport. Regulation

This part of the project concerns a transport activity, not
the production of paper itself. The investment will affect
competition in the transport market in the first place.
Article 73 of
shall be
compatible with the Treaty if they meet the needs of
(EEC) No
coordination
of
1107/70 of
the Council of 4 June 1970 on the
granting of aids for transport by rail, road and inland
waterway (16) implements Article 73. Article 3, paragraph
1, sub (b) of this Regulation stipulates that until the entry
into force of common rules on the allocation of infra-
structure costs, Member States may grant aid to under-
takings which have to bear expenditure relating to the
infrastructure used by them, while other undertakings are
not subject to a like burden. The Commission considers
that, in line with its earlier practice (17), the costs for rail
way sidings fall within the scope of this article as under-
takings that offer competing modes of transport, notably
road transport do not have similar infrastructure costs.
Shifting transport from one mode to another, as in the
case at hand, is considered to be a coordination activity
in the meaning of Article 73. In line with this practice,
aid up to an intensity of 50 % can be found compatible
grounds.
with
rail
the
Furthermore,
is not necessary for continued operations.
transport
The aid,
therefore, may be considered to have an
incentive effect on the company in order to undertake
the investment. Therefore, aid for this part of the project
can be justified on the basis of Article 73 of the Treaty
up to the amount of EUR 4 432 000.

these
SEL has demonstrated that

the Common market

on

5.5. Compatibility directly on the basis of
Article 87(3)(c)

(80)

Since the environmental aid guidelines are not applicable
to the investments in PM4, DIP2 and the investment in
PM3,
the Commission assessed whether aid for these
investments can be found compatible on the basis of
Article 87(3)(c) directly.

(16) OJ L 130, 15.6.1970, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by (EC) No

543/97 (OJ L 84, 26.3.1997, p. 6).

(17) See the decision of the Commission of 19 June 2002, N643/2001,
Austria, Programme for the support of extension of connecting rail
way stretches (OJ C 178, 26.7.2002, p. 20), decision of 18.9.2002,
N308/2002, Germany, Guidelines on granting investment aid for
railway infrastructure in Saxony-Anhalt (OJ C 277, 14.11.2002, p.
2), and Decision of 9.2.2001, N597/2000, the Netherlands, aid
scheme
(OJ C 102,
31.3.2001, p. 8).

dedicated waterway

connections

for

L 53/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.2.2005

5.5.1. PM4 and DIP2, production capacity for 100 % RCF

newsprint

information submitted by the third party, but also by the
earlier cases the Commission assessed (19).

(81)

SEL’s investment in 100 % RCF newsprint capacity must
be considered as a state-of-the-art technique, to which
many newsprint producers have switched or will switch
at some time in the future. The availability of sufficient
waste paper seems to be a determining factor in this
respect. The examples of 100 % RCF newsprint mills
mentioned by Belgium, one of them in another plant
‘State-of-the-art’ should not
of Stora Enso, confirm this.
be confused with the most commonly used technology.
The fact that production of this type of mills is not (yet)
serial production and that an optimisation period of two
years is required does not change the Commission’s
assessment. Consequently, the Commission cannot find
the aid compatible on this ground. The Commission
recently
investment by
Shotton in the United Kingdom in the same way (18).

assessed aid to a

similar

(84)

5.5.2. PM3, switching to 80 % RCF magazine paper

(82)

Production of SC magazine paper with an 80 % recycled
fibre content may not be common and it may be true
that SEL Langerbrugge is the first to set up 6 meter wide
on line calandering equipment for SC quality paper with
a recycled fibre content higher than 60 %. It may also be
true that a high quality product
like magazine paper
would typically have lower recycled fibre content. For
the
the Commission
following
concludes that
in PM3 is not eligible
for aid directly on the ground of Article 87(3)(c) of the
Treaty.

reasons, however,
the investment

er

op

date

gericht

verbeteringsprogramma

into SEL’s investment
Second, the investment fits well
programme that focuses on asset improvement without
creating new capacity that could distort the markets and
the closure of PM2 fits, in SEL’s own words, ‘fully within
Stora Enso’s continuous improvement programme that
focuses on closure of production units that are not pro-
fitable in the long-run’ (‘dit past volledig in Stora Enso’s
is
continue
productie-eenheden die op lange termijn niet rendabel zijn te
laten uitlopen’). PM4 improves on the old PM3 and the
new PM3 improves on old PM2, the closure of PM2 and
assets in Sweden and Finland avoiding overcapacity. This
investments brings important benefits to
sequence of
investing in a
SEL, as it does not have the cost of
costly greenfield magazine paper mill,
there is no
excessive capacity expansion and it contains a convenient
opportunity to develop its
technology base without
incurring excessive financial or economic risk. There
was no alternative to the investment that would allow
a recycling percentage of 80 % at a lower cost, e.g.,
adaptation of PM2 would allow a recycling percentage
of 55 % at maximum. Any paper producer that wishes to
remain technologically and environmentally competitive
in the long run has to make such investments in inno-
vation from time to time. The incentive effect of the aid,
therefore, remains doubtful, even if the investment would
be considered as going beyond the ‘state-of-the-art’.

(83)

First, increasing rates or recycled fibre is a trend in the
paper industry, not only for newsprint, but also for
magazine paper,
in particular SC quality. Possibly,
purely from a technical point of view, the investment
goes beyond the ‘state-of-the-art’, although it remains
to be seen whether the objective of 80 % RCF content
will be achieved. But in any case, the objectives do not
appear to be fundamentally different from the objectives
other paper producers may set for themselves already
now or in the near future. This is confirmed by the

(18) Commission Decision 2003/814/EC of 23 July 2003 on the State
aid C 61/2002 which the United Kingdom is planning to
implement for newsprint reprocessing capacity support under the
WRAP programme (OJ L 314, 28.11.2003, p. 26).

(85)

Third, there is a commitment at a European level to
obtain 56 % recycled fibre use on average by 2005.
The current average in Belgium would be 49,8 %.
Although magazine paper may typically have a lower
RCF content, it appears difficult to attain these objectives
by only increasing further the RCF content in paper other
than magazine paper. SEL itself stresses that, because of
its position in the Belgium paper industry, the norms
have a direct link to its activities. Newsprint is only a
limited part of all paper produced, not all newsprint
facilities may be located sufficiently near sources of
recovered paper and for several of them it may not be
economically attractive to adapt them to a higher use of
RCF already by 2005. Therefore it is not surprising that
also for magazine paper increasing RCF content
is a
trend.

(19) Notably case N713/02 — Aid in favour of LEIPA Georg Leinfelder
GmbH, Brandenburg (Germany), OJ C 110, 8.5.2003, p. 13.

26.2.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 53/77

(86)

(87)

Fourth, Belgium and SEL have not explained what the
alternative investment cost would have been of a similar
investment for production of magazine paper of a (more)
‘normal’ recycled fibre content, and which cost savings
the actual investment would engender in comparison to
such an alternative investment. In contrast, they consis-
tently explain that the additional cost is necessary not
only for achieving 80 % RCF content, but also for
achieving high quality magazine paper production with
a machine that was originally built for newsprint. E.g.,
the investment cost includes items such as de-watering
capacity (as ‘SC’-paper dewaters more difficultly), a third
(as ‘SC’-paper
drying-compartment
is heavier), online
2×4-nips soft calanders for obtaining a good brilliance
the paper and reels adapted for SC quality, new
of
pulping tools in order to pulp SC quality. At best, only
a part of the investment could be considered as exclu-
sively intended to increase the recycling rate (20).

Fifth, as explained in sub-section 6.3.1.,
there is no
guarantee that the investment will lead to an increased
use of RCF or an increased use of RCF derived form SEL’s
own sales. The aid is, e.g., not made conditional upon
taking up an additional quantity of waste paper from the
municipal waste stream as was the case with the aid in
favour of Shotton. Without a direct environmental
the aid’s objective appears to be in the first
benefit,
place innovation. On the basis of
the Community
aid for Research and Deve-
Framework for State
lopment (21), however,
the Commission may approve
aid only for the phases of fundamental and industrial
research and pre-competitive development. The closer
the R & D is to the market, the more significant may
be the distortive effect of the aid. Therefore, point 2.3
of the Framework excludes aid for activities that could be
regarded as innovative but do not correspond to the
above mentioned R & D phases from its scope. The
third party’s comment confirmed the likely distortive
effect on competition in this case.

amounts to EUR 14 100 000, hence aid to the amount
of EUR 5 640 000 can be found compatible with the
common market. With respect to the investment in the
sludge CHP-installation the Commission finds an aid
amount of EUR 13 449 600 compatible with the
common market. With respect
to the investments in
rail
infrastructure and related waste paper storage, the
Commission finds a maximum aid of EUR 4 432 000
compatible with the common market.
In total, EUR
23 521 600 is found compatible.

(90)

SEL’s investments in PM3, DIP2, fresh water and effluent
water treatment are not eligible for aid.

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The State aid which Belgium is planning to implement for Stora
Enso Langerbrugge, consisting in a subsidy to the amount of
EUR 25 900 000 and an exemption from the property tax with
a potential benefit of EUR 9 million,
is compatible with the
common market to the amount of EUR 23 521 600.

The implementation of this aid up to the amount of EUR
23 521 600 is therefore authorised.

The remainder is incompatible with the common market and
may accordingly not be implemented.

Article 2

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

Article 3

6. CONCLUSION

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Belgium.

(88)

(89)

Belgium has complied with its obligation to notify the
aid pursuant to Article 88(3) of the Treaty and point 76
of the Environmental aid guidelines.

SEL’s investments in PM4 allow reducing consumption of
electricity, additives and water compared to a conven-
cost
tional newsprint mill. The eligible

investment

Done at Brussels, 8 September 2004.

For the Commission

Mario MONTI
Member of the Commission

(20) This shows as well

in PM3 would be
considered as eligible for aid, in analogy to point 36 and 37 of
the guidelines only a part of the cost could be considered as extra
cost.

the investment

that

if

(21) OJ C 45, 17.2.1996, p. 5.