2006/945/EC: Commission Decision of 21 September 2005 on the implementation of aid scheme N192/1997 by Italy — Autonomous Province of Bolzano (notified under document number C(2005) 2723) Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2005-09-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Autonomous Province of Bolzano, Italy, State aid, control of State aid, investment aid, national law, right of establishment, small and medium-sized enterprises

28.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 383/1

II

(Acts whose publication is not obligatory)

COMMISSION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 21 September 2005

on the implementation of aid scheme N192/1997 by Italy — Autonomous Province of Bolzano

(notified under document number C(2005) 2723)

(Only the Italian text is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/945/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Commu-
nity, 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 decision C(2003) 517 final by which the
Commission decided to initiate the procedure provided for in
Article 88(2) of the Treaty in respect of aid C18/2003 (ex NN01/
2003) (1),

Having called on interested parties to submit their comments
pursuant to those provisions,

(3)

(4)

2002 and A/36773 of 18 September 2002. The text of the
new implementing criteria for Law No 4/97, which were
adopted by Resolutions of
the Provincial Executive
Nos 4732 of 11 December 2000 and 4607 of 17 December
2001, was attached to the second letter.

By letter SG(2003)D/228597 of 21 February 2003, the
Commission notified the Italian authorities of its decision
to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the
Treaty in respect of this aid.

The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was
published in the Official Journal of the European Union (2).
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their
comments on this aid.

Whereas:

(5)

The Commission received no comments from interested
parties.

I.

PROCEDURE

(1)

By letter registered as received on 11 February 2002 (CAB
(02)A/410), a complaint was lodged in respect of two
provincial laws of the Autonomous Province of Bolzano,
Law No 4 of 13 February 1997, Chapters II and III, and Law
No 9 of 15 April 1991.

(2) Additional information was requested by letters D/50813 of
25 February 2002 and D/53149 of 18 June 2002. The
Italian authorities replied by letters A/32982 of 22 April

(6)

(7)

Two meetings between the Italian authorities and the
Commission departments took place in Brussels on 9 April
and 5 August 2003.

Several draft replies accompanied by the text of new
implementation criteria for the scheme were sent infor-
mally to the Commission. They were followed by exchanges
of emails. On 22 October 2003 and 27 February 2004 Italy
was invited to submit its own comments formally.

(1) OJ C 120, 22.5.2003, p. 2.

(2) See footnote 1.

L 383/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.12.2006

(8)

Italy sent its comments by letter No 8000 of 22 June 2004,
registered as received on 25 June 2004 under the number
A/34747.

to restrict the application of this scheme to SMEs and
to comply with all
the conditions laid down by
Community law on state aid.

(9) After a meeting held on 3 March 2005, the Commission
requested, by letter D/52114 of 18 March 2005, additional
information and undertakings from the Italian authorities,
which were given in letter A/34426 of 2 June 2005.

II.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID

FOLLOWING THE APPLICATION OF RESOLUTION 4607/
2001

(10) According to the complainant, investment aid in the form
of grants or subsidised loans with a maximum intensity of
40 % were granted under the above laws to enterprises in
the Province of Bolzano, even though the province is not
eligible for the exemptions provided for in Article 87(3)(a)
and (c) of the Treaty.

(11) The two laws of the Province of Bolzano referred to in the
complaint had been approved by the Commission:

(a)

Provincial Law No 4 of 13 February 1997 was
registered as aid N192/97 and authorised by letter SG
(97) D/10781 of 19 December 1997 (3). This law
provides for various forms of aid, in particular aid for
business investment (Chapter II); aid for ecological-
environmental
investment (Chapter III); aid for the
promotion of consultancy and training services
(Chapter V); aid for job creation (Chapter VI); and
aid for internationalisation (Chapter VIII).

On the basis of the above decision approving aid
scheme No 192/97, any aid to large enterprises that
exceeds the de minimis threshold must be notified
individually. The Italian authorities undertook not to
exceed the
thresholds of 15 % and 7,5 % for
investment aid to small and medium-sized enterprises
respectively since the province of Bolzano is not
eligible for the exemption provided for in Article 87
(3)(a) and(c) of the Treaty. However the Commission
approved an aid intensity of 40 % for microenterprises
not engaged in activities where there was intra-
Community trade;

(b)

Law No 9 of 15 April 1991, which was approved
under the reference NN95/95 by letter SG(96) D/
4842 of 22 May 1996 (4), establishes an economic
incentive fund. The measure in question establishes
only the form of the aid (loans on favourable terms)
and otherwise refers to other aid measures to be
introduced by subsequent measures; these were laid
down in Law 4/97. The Italian authorities undertook

(3) Brief notice in OJ C 47, 12.2.1998, p. 4.
(4) Brief notice in OJ C 188/1996, p. 1-2.

(12) However, new criteria for granting the aid provided for by
Provincial Law No 4/97 in the craft, distributive, tourism
and service sectors were adopted by the Provincial
Executive
in Resolution (deliberazione) No 4607 of
17 December 2001. The resolution was not notified in
advance to the Commission.

(13) The basic aid intensities of 13 % and 6 % decided by the
province for investment aid for small and medium-sized
enterprises respectively in the craft, tourism and distributive
sectors (wholesale and retail) are systematically exceeded as
a result of a number of increases.

(14) These increases entail:

(a)

(b)

(c)

an intensity of 40 % for microenterprises (for a
maximum investment of EUR 2 million over three
years);

an intensity of 25 % for small enterprises (maximum
investment of EUR 3,5 million over three years for the
craft sector and EUR 2 million, again over three years,
for the tourism and distributive sectors),

an intensity of 22,5 % (20 % in the distributive sector)
for medium-sized enterprises (the maximum invest-
ment permissible in the craft sector is EUR 4 million
over three years and is EUR 3 million in other sectors).

All these increases in respect of the basic intensity are
granted, according to the Italian authorities, under the de
minimis rule.

(15) Craft microenterprises, of whatever size and regardless of
the activity they exercise, can receive an aid intensity of
40 %. In particular, struggling microenterprises employing
no more than two people and engaged in activities
mentioned in the resolution referred to above may enjoy
this intensity even in absence of the conditions required for
other enterprises.

(16) Even large enterprises in the tourism sector are eligible for
investment aid under the above resolution, at a basic
intensity of 6 %, apparently without any requirement for
prior individual notification.

There are also increases in aid intensity of up to 22,5 % for
large enterprises on the basis of the de minimis criterion.
The maximum investment eligible for aid is EUR 3 million
over three years.

28.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 383/3

(17) The resolution in question also provides for three forms of

aid for the protection of the environment:

Aid of an intensity of 25 % is available for SMEs of any
sector and for large enterprises in the tourism sector to
enable them to adjust to new mandatory standards.

Aid of an intensity of 40 % is available for measures that go
beyond mandatory standards.

this aid; there is also provision in this scheme for an aid
intensity of 35 % for creating web pages. Only aid
intensities of over 35 % for
training and 50 % for
consultancy services are accorded under the de minimis
rule, where appropriate.

(21) There is also provision for aid intensity of 80 % for joint
including LEA-
individual contributions to

projects under Community programmes,
DER and INTERREG (but
specific enterprises are excluded).

Aid, again with an intensity of 40 %,
environmental audit projects.

is available for

III.

GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE

Under the de minimis rule provision is made for increasing
the maximum intensities up to 30 %, 40 % and 75 %
respectively for the three aid headings of the measure. The
maximum eligible investment, in particular in the case of
aid to promote compliance with new mandatory Commu-
nity standards, ranges from EUR 1 million to EUR 4 million,
depending on the size of the enterprise.

(18) Under Resolution 4607/2001 the following became eligible
for employment aid: the costs of legal and tax advisory
services, those incurred in setting up new enterprises or
transferring enterprises, and the cost of
‘tutoring’ new
enterprises in the first two years after their setting-up.

Also admissible are the costs of research on existing
registering
trademarks and patents and the costs of
trademarks. Provision is made for an aid intensity of
50 %. Large tourism enterprises may also,
in principle,
receive such aid.

(19) Aid for

internationalisation includes aid to cover

the
expenses of SMEs participating in fairs and exhibitions
(with an intensity of 25 % in the EU and 40 % outside); aid
for studies, research and consultancy services (up to 50 %
intensity); and aid for other initiatives in and outside the
EU, apparently in the form of business advertising on
websites (50 %).

Also admissible are the costs of guaranteeing export credits
and insuring exchange-rate risks, with a maximum intensity
of 50 % accorded to SMEs. There is also provision for aid to
large enterprises for export credits for trade with any
country outside the EU of up to 50 %, under the de minimis
rule.

(22) The Commission approved aid schemes N192/97 and
NN69/95, which have their legal basis in Provincial Laws
Nos 4/97 and 9/91 respectively (see recital 11(a) and (b)).

(23) Examination of Resolution 4607/2001 showed that the
new criteria adopted for granting aid in the craft,
distributive, tourism and services sectors under Law 4/97
(also in the form of loans on favourable terms under Law 9/
91) did not appear
to comply with the Commission
decisions that approved the schemes, and did not seem
consistent with the relevant new rules guidelines and
regulations for reasons that are set out below.

Investment aid for large enterprises

(24) At the start of this procedure the Italian authorities stated in
letter A/32982 that both medium-sized and large enter-
prises in the distributive and tourism sectors could receive
aid under Resolution 4607/2001 in the form of loans at
for eligible investments of between
preferential
EUR 1 million to EUR 3 million.

rates

(25) The tables in Resolution 4607/2001 show that

large
enterprises in the tourism sector may be granted a basic
intensity of 6 %, possibly rising to 22 % (increase accorded
under the de minimis rule), while large enterprises in the
distributive sector may enjoy aid intensities of between 6 %
and 20 %.

Only in the case of
the distributive sector does the
resolution specify that ‘unless notification is made to the
Commission “in applicable cases”, aid for large enterprises
may be granted only if de minimis’. But no limit seems to be
set for large enterprises in the tourism sector.

(20) There is aid for training and consultancy services at the rate
of 50 % of eligible costs. There is an increase of 30 points,
under the de minimis rule,
four days of
consultancy services provided directly or indirectly by a
chamber of commerce or business innovation centre (BIC).
Large enterprises in the tourism sector are also covered by

for the first

(26) Under Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty large enterprises
outside assisted areas should not receive investment aid.
The province of Bolzano was not eligible for regional aid at
the time schemes N192/97 and NN69/95 were approved,
nor is it now.

L 383/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.12.2006

Here it should be emphasised that the Commission decision
on scheme N192/97 explicitly excluded large enterprises
from aid other than de minimis aid.

(33) Finally, the principle of the necessity of aid is not adhered
to, as aid applications must as a rule be submitted within
six months of the start-up of work or from the date of the
first invoice for the work.

(27) Aid granted in the form of loans on favourable terms under
Law 9/91 is also covered by scheme NN69/95 governing
the form of the aid. The Commission approved this scheme
on condition that only SMEs benefited, and following the
undertaking given by the Italian authorities to comply with
all the rules concerning SMEs in force at the time and to
notify the provincial administration of these rules in a
circular setting out implementation criteria for the scheme
to ensure its correct application.

(28)

In spite of this, Resolution 4607/2001, which lays down the
scheme N192/97 (and of
implementation criteria for
scheme NN69/95 in cases where aid is granted in the
form of
loans under Law 9/91), also accords
investment aid to large enterprises.

soft

(29) Accordingly, the Commission took the view that Resolution
4607/2001 constituted a misuse of aid schemes N192/97
and NN69/95 within the meaning of Article 16 of Council
Regulation (EC) No 659/99 (5) and doubted whether
investment aid granted to large enterprises on the basis of
this resolution other
than de minimis cases could be
exempted from the prohibition laid down in Article 87(1)
of the Treaty.

Investment aid for SMEs

(30) When the Commission appraised the dossier for scheme
NN65/95 the Italian authorities undertook to comply with
all the conditions laid down in Community legislation on
state aid for SMEs. On notifying aid scheme N192/97 they
also undertook not to grant them operating aid.

(31)

It should also be emphasised that the eligible investments
referred to in Resolution 4607/2001 do not correspond to
the definition of
in Regulation (EC)
No 70/2001 (6), in that mere replacement investment does
not appear to be excluded.

investment

initial

(34) The Commission doubted therefore whether the aid in

question was compatible.

Aid to microenterprises deemed exempt from the
prohibition of Article 87(1) of the Treaty

(35) The Italian authorities have argued that the aid intensity of
40 % was confined to struggling craft microenterprises with
no more than two employees engaged in a strictly defined
list of activities (7) — which list was given in the letter A/
36773 of 18 September 2002 — and to some micro-
enterprises in the distributive sector.

(36) Analysis of Resolution 4607/2001 shows that the craft
microenterprises referred to above can enjoy this intensity
even when they do not satisfy the conditions for such an
increase in intensity that apply to other microenterprises; it
also shows that
this intensity is extended to all craft
microenterprises, regardless of their size and economic
situation. Since the level of admissible investment
is
EUR 2 million over three years (EUR 1 million in the case
of microenterprises with up to two employees), it would
seem that
the level of aid could reach EUR 800 000
(EUR 400 000 for microenterprises with up to two
employees).

(37) Moreover, the definition of a microenterprise that is not
considered to be involved in intra-Community trade, and is
consequently eligible for the aid intensity of 40 % given in
Resolution 4607/2001 (8), seems to focus on the activity
being carried out by individual beneficiaries of aid not
involving the establishment of economic relations with
enterprises of other Member States, rather than — as would
be correct — on the lack of intra-Community trade in the
sector of activity of the enterprises concerned.

(32) Moreover, the fact that the aid recipients are only SMEs that
have their registered office on the territory of the province
of Bolzano appears to be an infringement of the principle
of
freedom of establishment of enterprises inside the
European Union.

(38)

In view of this, and considering that microenterprises are
SMEs within the meaning of Recommendation 96/280/
EC (9) and so are not outside the application of Article 87(1)
of the Treaty, the Commission expressed doubts as to
whether all the aid granted to them under the measure in
question could escape the definition of state aid.

(5) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 (now 88) of the
EC Treaty (OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1).

(6) Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on
the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to
small and medium-sized enterprises (OL L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 33).

(7) This list is given in the footnote on page 3 of Table A in Annex 1

‘Craft sector’ to Resolution 4607/2001.

(8) See point 3.1 of Annex 1 ‘Craft sector’ to Resolution 4607/2001.
(9) Commission Recommendation 96/280/EC of 3 April 1996
concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises
(OJ L 107, 30.4.1996, p. 4).

28.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 383/5

Aid for environmental protection

(39) The Commission approved the environmental protection
aid provided for in Provincial Law 4/97 (10) on the base of
the previous state aid rules on environmental protection
that have now been replaced by new guidelines published
on 3 February 2001 (OJ C 37, p. 3).

When the new guidelines came into force, it was proposed
to the Member States that they adopt appropriate measures.
Having agreed to do this, Italy was obliged to implement
them. In assessing the measure in question, therefore, the
Commission has referred to the new rules on state aid for
environmental protection.

(45) However, under Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 aid to
environmental audit projects as provided for
in the
resolution may be granted only to SMEs and must satisfy
the conditions of Article 5(a) of that Regulation.

(46)

in the first

two environmental provisions of

In the case of aid for environmental investments provided
for
the
measure, which are referred to in recitals 41 and 43, the
Commission also expressed doubts in relation to points 36
and 37 of the guidelines concerning investments to be
taken into account and methods of calculating eligible
costs.

(40) On the basis of point 28 of the Community guidelines on
state aid for environmental protection (‘the guidelines’) (11),
investment aid to help SMEs meet new standards may be
authorised up to a maximum of 15 % of gross eligible costs
for a period of three years from the adoption of new
mandatory Community standards.

Employment aid

(47) The Commission had approved employment aid for SMEs
of a maximum intensity of 25 % of the wage bill under
scheme N192/97.

(41) The Commission took the view that the aid intensity of
25 % to help SMEs adjust to the new Community standards
provided for in Law 4/97 and confirmed by Resolu-
tion 4607/2001 was not consistent with the guidelines, and
that the aid to help large enterprises adhere to the new
mandatory
be
exempted.

environmental

could not

standards

(48) However,

the aid provided for under this heading by
Resolution 4607/2001 does not create or maintain jobs,
the Commission considered that it could not be defined as
employment aid, though some of forms of this aid (for
consultancy services) might be exempted if they satisfied
the conditions of Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 70/2001
and the recipients were exclusively SMEs.

(42) According to point 29 of the guidelines, investment aid to
enable firms to improve on Community standards may be
authorised up to a basic 30 % of the investment made in
the absence of mandatory Community standards.

(49) The Commission took the view that the aid for trademark
and patent searches and for registering trademarks and
business products provided for in the specific measure for
employment aid could not enjoy any exemption for large
enterprises, as it did not appear to be linked to any research
and development activity.

(43) The Commission therefore considered that

the 40 %
intensity for investment aid to enable firms to improve
on Community standards, mainly intended for
large
tourism enterprises, was not compliant with point 29 of
the guidelines.

(44) Finally, under point 41 of the guidelines aid may be granted
to advisory/consultancy services
to help SMEs with
environmental protection in accordance with Regulation
(EC) No 70/200138 (12).

(10) OJ C 72, 10.3.1994, p. 3.
(11) OJ C 37, 3.2.2001, p. 3.
(12) Commission Regulation No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the
application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to
small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 33).

Aid for internationalisation

(50)

In opening the procedure the Commission noted that the
aid for participation in fairs and exhibitions may be
considered compatible under Article 5(b) of Regulation 70/
2001 if the expenses to which the maximum aid intensity
of 50 % are applied consist in the hiring, setting-up and
running of the stand. Such an exemption applies only to a
firm's first participation in a given fair or exhibition.

The consultancy services provided by external consultants
should not be permanent or regular nor be linked to the
firm's normal running costs, such as advertising.

L 383/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.12.2006

Finally, aid for export-related activities (13) is not covered by
Regulation 70/2001, Regulation 69/2001 (14) or
the
Commission notice on de minimis aid of 1996 (15).

for checking the threshold or other conditions laid down in
the de minimis Regulation (16) or the old 1996 notice on the
subject (17).

(51) So, in the Commission's view, the aid for internationalisa-
tion provided for in Resolution 4607/2001, other than
participation to fairs and exhibitions
the
conditions of Article 5 of Regulation 70/200, could not
be considered compatible, even if it was granted only to
SMEs.

that meets

(52) Moreover, the Commission found that export credits, in
particular those for large enterprises, which had been
explicitly excluded when Law 4/97 was notified, were not
entitled to any exemption, even under Regulation 69/2001.

Aid provided under Community programmes

(53) Such aid, which was not provided for in scheme N192/97,
was not considered state aid in Resolution 4607/2001.

(58)

In view of the amount of eligible investment (EUR 3,5 mil-
lion and EUR 4 million over three years for small and
medium-sized enterprises respectively) and the maximum
intensity provided for in Resolution 4607/2001 (25 % and
22,5 %, of which 12 and 16,5 percentage points under the
de minimis rule for small and medium-sized enterprises
respectively), the Commission doubted whether the EUR
100 000 threshold over three years laid down in the de
minimis Regulation was adhered to.

(59)

In a broader perspective the Commission had doubts about
Resolution 4607/2001's provision for very extensive use of
the de minimis rule with the aim of systematically exceeding
maximum permissible intensities for SMEs and the granting
of a maximum aid intensity of 22,5 % to large enterprises
outside assisted areas, also given the high level of eligible
investment.

(54) However,

the Commission had doubts as to whether
enterprises do not derive a competitive advantage from
the Community
involvement
programmes Leader and Interreg, which are accorded an
intensity of 80 %.

in joint projects under

Consultancy services

(55) The definition of consultancy service needs to be clarified.
On the basis of the current definition the Commission
thinks that no aid to large enterprises for consultancy
services can be exempted other than in cases where the
consultancy is an eligible cost of a training-aid project
within the meaning of Article 4(7)(e) of Commission
Regulation No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on training
aid.

Application of the de minimis rule

(56) According to the Italian authorities,

in the case of
investment aid, any increase in the basic aid intensity rates
of 13 % and 6 % for small and medium-sized enterprises
respectively was granted under the de minimis rule.

(57) Neither Law 4/1997 nor the text of Resolution 4607/2002
adopted on 17 December 2001, i.e. after the entry into
force of Regulation 69/2001, make reference to procedures

(13) I.e. aid directly related to the quantity of exports, the setting-up and
operation of a distribution network, and other export-related routine
expenditure.

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

(15) OJ C 68, 6.3.1996, p. 9.

IV.

COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED THIRD PARTIES

(60) No comment has been submitted by either interested third
parties or the complainant, who was notified by letter D/
51908 of 24 March 2003 of the opening of the procedure
and the possibility of supplementing the comments made
in the original complaint in response to the letter.

V.

COMMENTS FROM ITALY

(61) Following two meetings between representatives of the
Province of Bolzano and DG COMP, Italy's comments were
set out in letter A/34747 of 25 June 2004.

In this letter the Italian authorities made the following
points.

V.1.

Investment aid for large enterprises

(62) Resolution 4607/2001 did not explicitly exclude large
tourism enterprises, as it did enterprises in the distributive
sector, because of a clerical error.

(63) However, no large enterprise in the tourism sector had
received aid either under scheme N192/1997 (Provincial
Law 4/97) or scheme NN69/1995 (Provincial Law 9/91). In

(16) See footnote 14.
(17) Commission notice on the de minimis rule for State aid (OJ C 68,

6.3.1996, p. 9).

28.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 383/7

the distributive sector
excluded from aid other
Resolution 4607/01.

large enterprises were already
than de minimis aid under

opened this case. Moreover, enterprises that possess only an
operating unit in the Province of Bolzano can now benefit
from the scheme in question.

(64) The Italian authorities undertook to exclude large enter-
prises more explicitly from aid in the form of loans on
favourable terms under scheme NN69/95, even though
none had received any such aid other than de minimis.

(65) Subsequently, in answer to a specific question from the
Commission, it was explained in a letter of 2 June 2005
that no aid had been granted to large enterprises in any
sector, and also that enterprises whose main activity was in
the transport sector were excluded from aid.

V.2.3. The necessity of aid principle

(71) This principle was already applied in accordance with the
second indent of Article 7 of Regulation 70/2001 in that
the conditions for granting aid were so objective that the
Province had no possibility of using discretionary powers.

(72) However, the Italian authorities have undertaken to require
that the request be introduced before the start of work on
the project for which the aid is granted.

(66) Furthermore,

the draft new implementation criteria
explicitly excluded all large enterprises from aid other than
de minimis aid, in accordance with Regulation 69/2001.

V.2.4. Aid for microenterprises

V.2.

Aid for SMEs

V.2.1. Failure to exclude replacement investment from eligible

costs

(67) Although not explicitly excluded from the implementation
criteria, the Italian authorities said no aid had been granted
for replacement investment.

(68) Specifically, what was eligible for aid was investment in
tangible assets complying with the definition in Article 2(c)
of Regulation 70/2001, namely the creation of a new
establishment and investment in diversification or moder-
nisation that involved a fundamental change in the product
or production process of an existing establishment.
Relatively high minimum investment thresholds had been
set
the enterprises
concerned.

in relation to the average size of

(69) The new criteria explicitly excluded both replacement
investment and maintenance costs, and the description of
eligible investments was fully in compliance with Regula-
tion 70/2001.

V.2.2. Freedom of establishment

(70) The condition laid down in the old criteria that in order to
have access to aid firms should have a registered office in
the Province of Bolzano was not rigorously applied even in
the past. In support of this argument a list was supplied of
16 recipients of investment aid under the scheme whose
registered office was outside the Province of Bolzano (and
in one case even outside Italy). In many cases (six of the 16)
the aid dated back to 1998, i.e. well before the Commission

(73) Henceforth, the only provision for any increase of more
aid for

than 15 % in the
microenterprises in general is under the de minimis rule

intensity of

investment

(74) Aid of an intensity of 40 % not falling within the scope of
Article 87(1) of the Treaty and not even classed de minimis,
is now reserved exclusively for some local activities, notably
small-scale traditional trades threatened with extinction and
small distributive businesses, which are listed exhaustively
in the new criteria.

(75)

In any case, a survey carried out by the Italian authorities
revealed that no aid exceeding both the 15 % intensity and
the de minimis threshold had been granted so far.

V.2.5. Aid for environmental protection

(76) The only aid intensities authorised are those of 15 % for
transitional investment aid granted to SMEs to help them
adapt
to new Community rules and 30 % for aid for
improving on Community standards or for investment
carried out
in the absence of mandatory Community
standards.

(77) Aid for environmental audits is currently confined to SMEs,
by Article 5(a) of Regulation 70/2001, while large
enterprises are eligible only for de minimis aid. The provision
of Article 12(4) of Law 4/97 making large enterprises
eligible would be repealed as soon as possible;
in the
meantime the Italian authorities have pledged not to grant
it anymore.

(78) Finally, the Italian authorities undertook to comply with the
conditions set out in points 36 and 37 of the guidelines
concerning investments to be taken into account and
methods of calculating eligible costs.

L 383/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.12.2006

(79) Only one request — in the craft sector — had been received
on the basis of the existing criteria for the scheme in
question; the aid amounted to EUR 14 719,02, which was
over the authorised intensity of EUR 7 359,51. So this
amount was classed as de minimis.

V.2.6. Contributions classed as ‘employment aid’

(80) According to the Italian authorities such aid is linked to the
start-up phase of new enterprises (the first 24 months after
their establishment) and, even though it takes the form of
support for consultancy services and research into and/or
registration of
is
designed to create jobs and is therefore compatible. In
any case it has not been granted to any large enterprise.

trademarks and business products,

V.2.9. Application of the de minimis rule

(86) According to the Italian authorities, the de minimis rule is
adhered to. First, the relevant departments of the Bolzano
provincial authorities are interconnected thanks to an
intranet system. Moreover, before applicants can obtain any
aid under such a scheme they must submit a declaration
concerning any other such aid received over the relevant
three-year period.

(87) Another system for automatically controlling all aid, not
just that granted by the Province, is being set up; this system
in turn will be connected to the national network currently
being established.

(81) However, in compliance with Chapter V of Law 4/97, the
only provision now is in the form of loans on favourable
terms as laid down in Chapter VI of the same law for the
purpose of increasing the availability of funds on the basis,
and within the limits, of the de minimis criterion.

VI.

ASSESSMENT OF THE MEASURES

VI.1.

Assessment of the nature of the aid measures

in question

V.2.7. Aid for internationalisation

(88) A measure may be considered aid within the meaning of
Article 87(1) of the Treaty only if it satisfies all four of the
following conditions:
its being granted through state
resources, selectivity, likelihood of distorting competition,
and effect on trade.

(82) Up to now only negligible amounts of such aid have been
granted. Some SMEs had been accorded an aid intensity of
25 % for participation in fairs and exhibitions, plus an
intensity of up to 50 % without verification whether it was
their first participation in a given event; only two aid grants
in the form of a contribution (50 %) to the insurance cost
of export credits — for EUR 3 500 and LIT 7 million —
have been accorded for countries outside the EU.

(89)

(83) The new implementation criteria provide for aid of an
intensity of 50 % only to SMEs for the cost of consultancy
services supplied by external consultants and the cost of
their first participation in a fair or exhibition inside or
outside the Community.

(84) Aid for the insurance of export credits is authorised only
for the premium to cover risks which are not insurable on
the market and which arise out of dealings with non-
Community countries, excluding a number of OECD
countries where such risks are marketable (‘marketable
countries’ currently being Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan,
New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and the United States).

In this case the first condition is satisfied as the measure is
financed from the budget of the Autonomous Province of
Bolzano — i.e. with public resources; the second because
only enterprises operating in the Province of Bolzano
receive the aid; the third because the financial situation of
the recipients is improved; and the fourth because the firms
concerned may in fact engage in international trade, since
they are in a border region that is also very active in
tourism. Therefore the measures in question are liable to
affect
to the
assessment of the measures resulting from the application
of new criteria in favour of specific microenterprises, which
is dealt with in recital 116.

trade between Member States,

subject

(90) Furthermore, the measures which are the subject of this
procedure were deemed state aid within the meaning of
Article 87(1) of the Treaty when the Commission examined
the dossiers for state aid measures N192/97 and NN69/95.

V.2.8. Aid provided for under Community programmes

(85) Aid intensity of 80 %, previously offered to some joint
projects carried out under the Community programmes
in which enterprises also take
LEADER and INTERREG,
part, is not granted anymore.

(91) Since the measures were not notified to the Commission in
advance in accordance with Article 88(3) of the Treaty they
are illegal on the grounds of lack of notification. Since they
are implementation criteria for scheme N192/97 (and,
indirectly, for NN69/95), they constitute misuse of these
schemes.

VI.2.

Legality of the measures

28.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 383/9

VI.3.

Compatibility of the aid measures taken

under Resolution 4607/2001

VI.3.1. Investment aid for large enterprises

(92) Given that the Province of Bolzano was not eligible for
regional aid throughout all
the period in which the
measures in question were in force, no exemption can be
granted for investment aid to large enterprises in the
province.

(93) The Commission's decision on case N192/97 had already
explicitly excluded large enterprises from any aid under the
scheme other than de minimis.

(94) Aid granted in the form of loans on favourable terms under
scheme NN69/95. The
Law 9/91 also comes under
Commission approved that scheme on condition that only
SMEs were eligible and following the undertaking given by
the Italian authorities to comply with all the rules on SMEs
and to communicate
to the provincial
administration to ensure that the scheme was implemented
correctly.

these

rules

(95) But the implementation criteria set out in Resolution 4607/
2001 for scheme N192/97 (and for NN69/95 where aid is
accorded in the form of soft loans under Law 9/91) are
incompatible with the common market since they provide
for investment aid for large enterprises as well.

(96) The Commission notes that, according to the information
supplied by the Italian authorities, no large enterprise has in
fact received such aid.

VI.3.2. Investment aid for SMEs

(97) First, the Commission confirms that any aid granted for
replacement investment must be considered incompatible,
while noting that the Italian authorities have informed it
that no aid for this type of investment has been granted
under the scheme in question.

(98)

Investment aid that exceeds the threshold of 15 % for small
enterprises and 7,5 % for medium-sized enterprises is also
incompatible.

VI.3.3. Microenterprises

(99) The Commission confirms that, on the basis of both
Recommendation 96/280/EC (18) and the new definition in
force since 1 January 2005 (19), microenterprises as a

(18) Commission Recommendation 96/280/EC of 3 April 1996
concerning the definition of small and medium-sized enterprises
(OJ L 107, 30.4.1996, p. 4).

(19) Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the
definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 124,
20.5.2003, p. 136).

category of SME are not excluded as such from the
application of Article 87(1) of the Treaty. It follows that
investment aid granted for such enterprises, where it
exceeds an intensity of 15 % and cannot be considered de
minimis, must be deemed incompatible with the common
market.

(100) The Commission takes note of the information supplied by
the Italian authorities that no aid granted to microenter-
prises has exceeded both the 15 % intensity and the de
minimis threshold.

VI.3.4. Environmental aid

(101) The Commission finds that the aid intensities of 25 % and
40 % for the first two types of aid under this specific
measure (namely adjustment to new mandatory standards
and improving on Community standards), plus
the
eligibility of large enterprises to receive aid for environ-
mental audit projects, are incompatible with the common
market.

(102) On this point the Commission notes that on the basis of
information supplied by Italy only one grant of aid (of an
amount much lower than the de minimis level) has exceeded
the permissible thresholds, and that application of the legal
basis for the third type of aid (aid for environmental audits)
has been suspended and will be repealed as soon as
possible.

VI.3.5. Contributions described as ‘employment aid’

(103) The Commission confirms that the aid provided for under
this heading in Resolution 4607/2001 does not correspond
in any way to the aid authorised by the Commission
decision on scheme N192/97. Furthermore, since it neither
creates nor saves jobs, but it is accorded for consultancy
services and activities related to trademarks and patents, it
cannot be considered employment aid.

(104) However, since most of the eligible costs under this specific
measure are deemed to be made up of consultancy/advisory
activities for newly-set up SMEs and for the registration of
trademarks and business products that may be eligible
under Articles 5 and 5c of Regulation 70/2001, such aid is
incompatible only where the conditions laid down in
Regulations Nos 70/2001 and 364/2004 are not met (20).

(105) Such aid is incompatible, however, if large enterprises are

also recipients.

(20) Commission Regulation (EC) No 364/2004 of 25 February 2004
amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 as regards the extension of
its scope to include aid for research and development (OJ L 63,
28.2.2004, p. 22).

L 383/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.12.2006

VI.3.6. Aid for internationalisation

VI.3.8. Aid for consultancy services

(106) The Commission takes note of the fact that only a few aid
grants of negligible amounts have been made on the basis
of the implementation criteria that constituted the grounds
for initiating the procedure. Furthermore, the intensity
granted for participation in fairs and exhibitions is 25 %,
instead of 50 % as was authorised, although it is true that
there has been no verification as to whether it was the first
participation in a given event. There have been five cases in
total, with aid grants
ranging from EUR 1 250 to
EUR 8 875. There have been only two cases of aid for
insuring export credits with an aid intensity of 50 %; the
aid grants of EUR 3 500 and LIT 7 million (which is
likewise about EUR 3 500) were restricted to the cost of the
insurance premium and to countries outside the EU. These
grants are compatible only on condition that they satisfy
conditions of the Commission communication on short-
term export-credit insurance (21).

(107) However, any aid for consultancy services

large
enterprises and for export-related activities (even that for
SMEs)
is incompatible with the common market. Also
incompatible is aid to enterprises of whatever size for
consultancy services that constitute a permanent or regular
activity and aid related to an enterprise's normal running
costs, such as advertising.

for

VI.3.7. Aid under Community programmes

(108) The Commission remarks that such aid, of an intensity of
80 % as provided for in Resolution 4607/2001, was not
authorised by the Commission decision on measure N192/
97. Given the very high intensity, plus the fact that there
seems to be no eligible objective, such aid is incompatible
where Article 87(1) is applicable, in particular if persons
engaged in economic activities may also benefit by
participating in joint projects subsidised under the measure
in question.

(109) However, the Commission notes that the sums granted
under this heading to the individual projects in question
are, according to the information supplied by the Italian
authorities, very small, and well below the de minimis
threshold. Hence there was no impact on intra-Community
trade. These measures may therefore be considered as not
constituting state aid within the meaning of Article 87 of
the Treaty, provided that that the Italian authorities supply
the Commission with proof that all the criteria for the
application of Regulation 69/2001 have been adhered to.
Finally, the Commission takes note of the fact that aid to
joint projects under the LEADER and INTERREG pro-
grammes in which enterprises also participate is no longer
provided for in the new criteria for implementation of the
scheme in question.

(110) The Commission reiterates its opinion that no aid may be
granted for consultancy/advisory services to large enter-
prises, except within the framework of a training project
within the meaning of Article 7(7)(a) of Regulation (EC)
No 68/2001 (22). Aid is therefore incompatible outside this
framework.

VI.3.9. Application of the de minimis rule

(111) The Commission takes note of the assurances given by the
Italian authorities that all the conditions set out in the
relevant de minimis provisions, currently those of Regula-
tion (EC) No 69/2001 (23), are rigorously adhered to,
principally thanks to the ASTAT control system.

VI.4.
Compatibility of the measures in the light of
the new criteria notified by letter A/34/747 of 25 June
2004, amended and supplemented by letter A/34426 of
2 June 2005.

(112) The Commission remarks that, regarding investment aid,
the new implementation criteria explicitly exclude large
enterprises, other than in de minimis cases.

(113) In the case of investment aid for SMEs, the definition of
eligible investment
the
conditions laid down in Regulation 70/2001 (24), and
replacement investment and maintenance costs are expli-
citly excluded.

in the new criteria satisfies

(114) The Commission also notes that now there is formal
provision for the principle of the freedom of establishment,
whereas previously it was merely de facto, as is shown by the
list notified in the course of procedure (see recital 70); it is
now sufficient to have an operating unit on the territory of
the Province of Bolzano to have access to the aid in
question.

(115) Finally, the principle of the necessity of aid is complied with
since there is now a requirement to submit an application
before starting to implement the project for which aid is
given

(116) Article 87(1) of

the Treaty does not apply to micro-
enterprises where these are merely enterprises engaged in
local activities and so not in a position to affect intra-
Community trade in view of their characteristics, size and
location, and also because enterprises of other Member
States have no interest in accessing their markets. In this
case such enterprises are quite specific activities employing
no more than two people in the craft sector (typically
traditional trades threatened with extinction such as knife

(21) OJ C 281, 17.9.1997, p. 4, as amended by communication 2001/C

217/02 (OJ C 217, 2.8.2001, p. 2).

(22) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 20.
(23) See footnote 14.
(24) See footnote 14.

28.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 383/11

grinders, coopers, carders and spinners of wool, chandlers
or candle dippers, basket makers, farriers and so on) and in
distributive trades (in particular, the retail sale of products
in daily use, above all food products, in localities with no
more than a thousand inhabitants, not
in commercial
centres, and in any case outside areas more developed for
tourism); both the craft and distributive activities are
exhaustively listed in the new implementation criteria for
the scheme.

(117) Turning to environmental protection aid, the Commission
finds that the transitional aid of an intensity of 15 %,
confined to SMEs to help them adjust to new mandatory
standards over a period of three years from their adoption,
is consistent with point 28 of the Community guidelines on
state aid for environmental protection (‘the guidelines’) (25).

(118) Furthermore, aid of an intensity of up to 30 % to encourage
enterprises of whatever size to improve on mandatory
Community standards or to make investments designed to
protect
the environment in the absence of mandatory
Community standards now satisfy the conditions of point
29 of the guidelines.

(119) Aid for advisory/consultancy activities confined to SMEs are
consistent with Article 5(a) of Regulation (EC) No 70/
2001 (26), and are therefore compatible with the common
market.

(120) However, this Decision does not prejudge the compatibility
of Resolution 4007 of 4 November 2002, thanks to which,
it is claimed, all forms of environmental aid offered by the
Province of Bolzano have been adapted to the new
Commission guidelines, since this resolution is not the
subject of this procedure.

(121) On the issue of

the supposed employment aid,

the
Commission notes that such aid is confined to the grant
of
loans to constitute liquid assets within the limits of
Regulation 69/2001 on de minimis aid (27).

(122) As to the aid for internationalisation, the Commission
notes that the new implementation criteria notified to it
provide only for aid of an intensity up to 50 % for the costs
of consultancy services supplied by external consultants
and for the costs incurred in a first participation in a given
fair or exhibition, and that the aid is confined to SMEs. This
complies with Article 5 of Regulation 70/2001 (28).

(25) OJ C 37, 3.2.2001, p. 3.
(26) Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on
the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to state aid to
small and medium-sized enterprises (OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 33).

(27) See footnote 14.
(28) See footnote 26.

(123) The Commission also notes that the only premiums now
eligible are those for insuring credits for risks which are not
insurable on the market and which arise out of dealings
with non-Community countries, excluding OECD countries
where
‘marketable
are marketable
countries’ are currently Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan,
New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and the United States).
This is in accordance with the communication on short-
term export-credit insurance (29).

such risks

(these

VII.

FINAL COMMENTS

(124) The Commission deplores the fact that the implementation
criteria for Provincial Law No 4/97, adopted by Resolution
4607 of 17 December 2001, were enacted by Italy
(Autonomous Province of Bolzano) without prior notifica-
tion to the Commission, in violation of Article 88(3) of the
Treaty, and so are illegal. This was a misuse of aid scheme
N192/97 (and also, indirectly, of scheme NN69/95) within
the meaning of Article 16 of Regulation 659/99 (30).

(125) For that reason the Commission decided to initiate this
formal procedure to investigate the aid in question.

(126) However, during the procedure the Italian authorities
explained that in most cases the provisions of Resolution
4607/2001 that were liable to be found incompatible and
illegal in the light of the Commission's investigation have
not been applied, or have been applied in only a very small
number of cases and for insignificant amounts well below
the de minimis threshold even in the case of SMEs.

(127) On this subject much information has been supplied, in
particular regarding the number and amount of aid grants
in relation to the more controversial aspects of the specific
aid measures covered by the scheme. According to this
information, no large enterprise has received investment
aid under the scheme in question. This type of aid has in
fact been reserved for SMEs,
stipulated in the
Commission decision approving schemes N192/97 and
NN69/95.

as

(128) The Italian authorities have also actively cooperated by
suspending the application of a number of measures that
will be repealed as soon as possible (in particular, aid for
consultancy services for large enterprises) and proposing to
amend the implementation criteria for the aid which is the
subject of this procedure.

(29) Communication of the Commission to Member States amending the
communication pursuant to Article 93(1) of the EC Treaty applying
Articles 92 and 93 of
the Treaty to short-term export-credit
insurance (OJ C 217, 2.8.2001, p. 2).

(30) See footnote 5.

L 383/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.12.2006

(129) Finally, the Commission takes note of the undertakings and
assurances given by Italy concerning compliance with the
de minimis conditions and threshold,
the Commission
having expressed doubts about the extensive use of de
minimis aid when initiating the procedure.

(130) As long as aid was not granted to excluded sectors or
export-related activities, and no aid was subordinated to the
preferential use of domestic rather than imported products,
the de minimis rule could be applied to the aid in question in
accordance with Regulation 69/2001, provided that the aid
did not exceed the EUR 100 000 threshold for any one
enterprise over the relevant three-year period. Therefore
such aid does not come under article 87(1) of the Treaty.

(131) The Commission also remarks that a decision on an aid
scheme does not exclude the possibility that individual
measures may not constitute state aid (if the aid grant
complies, for example, with the de minimis rule, as explained
in part,
above), or may be considered,
compatible with the common market because of
their
specific
(notably on the basis of an
characteristics
exemption regulation).

in whole or

set out

(132) Even though, in the light of recitals 124 to 131 and the
in Part VI.3 concerning the
considerations
compatibility of
the measures taken under Resolution
4607/2001, no recovery, or only a partial recovery, of aid
may possibly be necessary in this specific case, it is the
established practice of
the Commission to require the
recovery of aid that has been declared illegal and
incompatible under Article 88 of the Treaty. This practice
is confirmed in Article 14 of Regulation No 659/99 (31).

(133) The Commission will therefore require Italy to take all
necessary measures to recover
incompatible aid from
beneficiaries of the scheme, other than in individual cases
that satisfy the conditions for declaring the aid compatible
with the relevant rules. Within two months of notification
of this Decision, Italy must order aid recipients to repay the
aid, with interest.

(135) The Commission requests Italy to send back the attached
form concerning progress in the recovery procedure, to
draw up a list of recipients subject to the recovery order and
to indicate clearly what specific steps have been taken to
ensure an immediate and effective recovery of the aid. An
exhaustive list of all the aid measures cited in this Decision
must be sent within two months of the date of notification
of
for each measure there should be a
breakdown of the amount granted, the amount compatible
as a result of one of the cited exemptions, and the amount
to be recovered.

this Decision;

(136) The Commission also requests Italy to send within two
this Decision
the date of notification of
months of
documents that prove that procedures to recover illegal
and incompatible aid from the recipients have been
initiated (for example, circulars, repayment orders, and
the like),

(137) Lastly, the new implementation criteria, notified by letter A/
34747 of 25 June 2004 and amended and supplemented by
letter A/34426 of 2 June 2005, satisfy the conditions for
compatibility with the common market, as is set out on a
case-by-case basis in Part VI.4 (recitals 112 to 123),

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The implementation criteria for Provincial Law No 4/97, adopted
by Resolution No 4607 of 17 December 2001, are illegal because
of the failure to notify the Commission in accordance with
Article 88(3) of the Treaty. This means that the implementation
of aid scheme N192/1997 was unlawful, as was, indirectly, that of
scheme NN69/1995.

Article 2

The following aid measures provided for in Resolution 4607/
2001 are incompatible with the common market:

a)

all investment aid for large enterprises;

(134) As laid down in Article 14(2) of Regulation 659/99, the aid
to be recovered is
to include interest calculated in
accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation
(EC) No 794/2004 (32). Interest is to be payable from the
date the unlawful aid was at the disposal of the beneficiary
until the date of its recovery.

(31) See footnote 5.
(32) Commission Regulation (EC) of 21 April 2004 implementing
Council Regulation (EC)No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for
the application of Article 93 (now 88) of the EC Treaty (OJ L 140,
30.4.2004, p. 1).

b)

aid for SMEs that was granted for replacement investment
and the portion of any investment aid grant which is over
the 15 % gross aid-intensity threshold in the case of small
enterprises and the 7,5 % threshold in the case of medium-
sized enterprises;

c)

investment aid for microenterprises, other
than that
provided for in Article 3, which is in excess of a gross
aid intensity of 15 %;

28.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 383/13

d)

following the entry into force of the new Community
guidelines on state aid for environmental protection (33)
and the acceptance by the Member State (34) of the proposal
for appropriate measures to adapt the schemes previously
approved in accordance with point 77 of the guidelines
referred to above, namely from 1 January 2002:

trades

threatened with extinction and to local
traditional
activities in the distributive sector, exhaustively listed in the
implementation criteria referred to above, do not constitute aid
within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.

i.

ii.

the portion of environmental protection investment
aid to help adjustment to new mandatory Community
standards that have recently entered into force which
is over the 15 % gross aid-intensity threshold in the
case of SMEs, and without exception where the
recipients are large enterprises.

investment aid for environmental protection for the
purpose of
improving on mandatory Community
standards, or in the absence of such standards, for the
portion in excess of the gross aid intensity of 30 % in
the case of large enterprises (40 % for SMEs);

Article 4

Measures other than those referred to in Article 3 that are
provided for in the new implementation criteria for scheme
N192/97, notified by letter A/34747 of 25 June 2004, amended
and supplemented by letter A/34426 of 2 June 2005, are
compatible with the common market.

Article 5

iii.

all aid for environment-related consultancy/advisory
activities for large enterprises;

Italy shall take all necessary measures to recover from the
1.
recipients any illegal and incompatible aid referred to in Article 2.

e)

f)

aid to enterprises for internationalisation, except aid that is
confined to SMEs for an enterprise's first participation in a
fair or exhibition, and aid that satisfies the criteria set out in
the Commission communication on short-term export-
credit insurance (35);

contributions described as ‘employment aid’ (consisting in
fact of aid for consultancy/advisory services and for the cost
of registering trademarks) received by large enterprises;

g)

all aid for consultancy services received by large enterprises;

Italy shall suspend all payments of incompatible aid from

2.
the date of notification of this Decision.

3. Recovery shall be effected without delay and in accordance
with the procedures of national law provided that they allow the
immediate and effective enforcement of this Decision.

4. The aid to be recovered shall include interest charged from
the date on which it was at the disposal of the recipients until the
date of its recovery.

h)

aid of an intensity of 80 % granted for joint projects under
Community programmes, the recipients of which include
enterprises.

5.
Interest shall be calculated on the basis of Chapter V of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004
implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
Treaty.

Article 3

The measures provided for in the new implementation criteria
for scheme N192/97, notified by letter A/34747 of 25 June 2004,
amended and supplemented by letter A/34426 of 2 June 2005
for microenterprises employing no more than two persons
engaged in specific craft activities corresponding to typical

(33) Community guidelines on state aid for environmental protection (OJ

C 37, 3.2.2001, p. 3).

(34) By letter No 4592 of 5 April 2001, registered as received on 6 April

2001 (A/32899).

(35) OJ C 281, 17.9.1997, p. 4, as amended by communication 2001/C

217/02 (OJ C 217, 2.8.2001, p. 2).

6. Within two months of
this
Decision, Italy shall order all the recipients of the aid referred to
in Article 2 to repay the aid unlawfully granted with interest
calculated as described above.

the date of notification of

Article 6

Within two months of the date of notification of this Decision,
inform the Commission of the measures taken to
Italy shall
comply with it by completing the questionnaire annexed hereto.

L 383/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.12.2006

In particular, Italy shall, by the same deadline, send a complete
list of all the aid measures referred to in this Decision, giving for
each measure a breakdown of the amount granted, the amount
compatible as a result of one of the cited exemptions, and the
amount to be recovered.

This Decision is addressed to the Italian Republic.

Article 7

Done at Brussels, 21 September 2005.

Finally, again by the same deadline,
Italy shall send all the
documents demonstrating that it has initiated the procedures for
recovering the unlawful aid from the recipients.

For the Commission
Neelie KROES
Member of the Commission

28.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 383/15

Information regarding the implementation of Commission Decision C(2005) 2723

ANNEX

1.

Total number of recipients and total amount of aid to be recovered

1.1.

Please explain in detail how the amount of aid to be recovered from individual recipients will be calculated?

— The capital

— The interest

1.2. What is the total amount of unlawful aid granted under this scheme that is to be recovered (gross aid equivalents;

prices of …)?

1.3. What is the total number of recipients from which unlawful aid granted under this scheme is to be recovered?

2. Measures planned and already taken to recover the aid

2.1. Please describe in detail what measures are planned and what measures have already been taken to effect an immediate
and effective recovery of the aid. Please also indicate where relevant the legal basis for the measures taken/planned.

2.2. By what date will the recovery of the aid be completed?

3.

Information by individual recipient

3.1. Please provide details for each recipient from whom unlawful aid granted under the scheme is to be recovered in the

table below:

Identify of recipient

Amount of unlawful aid granted (*)
Currency: ............

Amounts reimbursed (**)
Currency: ..........

(*) Amount of aid put at the disposal of the recipient (in gross aid equivalents).
(**) Gross amounts reimbursed (including interest).