2006/939/EC: Commission Decision of 19 July 2006 on the aid measure notified by the Netherlands for KG Holding NV (notified under document number C(2006) 2954)   (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2006-07-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, aid for restructuring, aid system, control of State aid, employment service

L 366/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.12.2006

COMMISSION DECISION

of 19 July 2006

on the aid measure notified by the Netherlands for KG Holding NV

(notified under document number C(2006) 2954)

(Only the Dutch version is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2006/939/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

The Commission invited interested parties to submit their
comments on the measure.

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

(4)

(5)

Whereas:

1.

PROCEDURE

(1)

in difficulty (hereinafter

By letter dated 26 January 2004, registered as received on
the Dutch authorities notified the
11 February 2004,
Commission that they intended to grant restructuring aid
under the Community guidelines on state aid for rescuing
and restructuring firms
‘the
guidelines’) (2) to KG Holding NV (hereinafter ‘Kliq Holding’
or ‘KH’). Following this notification, the Commission asked
the Netherlands to provide further information in April,
August and November 2004. In December 2004, the Dutch
authorities requested an extension of
the deadline for
providing a reply, explaining that the firm was still not
performing well and that another
firm was possibly
interested in a takeover.

(2)

By letter dated 5 August 2005, the Commission informed
the Netherlands that it had decided to initiate the procedure
laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of the
notified measure.

(3)

The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was
published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3).

(1) OJ C 280, 12.11.2005, p. 2.
(2) OJ C 288, 9.10.1999, p. 2. Given that the aid was notified before
10 October 2004, these guidelines remain applicable by virtue of
point 103 of
the new Community guidelines on state aid for
rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (OJ C 244, 1.10.2004,
p. 2).

(3) See footnote 1.

By letter dated 7 September 2005, the Dutch authorities
requested an extension of the deadline for submitting their
comments on the Commission's decision to initiate
proceedings, which the Commission granted by letter dated
15 September 2005.

The Netherlands submitted its comments and provided
additional information by letters dated 29 September 2005,
registered as received on 30 September 2005; 13 January
2006, registered as received on 18 January 2006; and
17 February 2006, registered as received on 23 February
2006.

(6)

The Commission received no comments from interested
parties.

(7)

(8)

2.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE AID

2.1.

Background

In 2002, KH was created through the transformation of the
reintegration services of the Dutch Ministry of Employment
and Social Affairs into a private limited liability com-
pany (4). By late 2003, KH had significantly reduced its
headcount because of mounting losses due inter alia to
adverse market conditions and poor management.

In November 2003, the Netherlands notified its plan to
grant the company a EUR 45 million loan as rescue aid
under the guidelines to enable the company to stay afloat
whilst preparing a wide-ranging restructuring plan.
In
December 2003, the Commission authorised the rescue aid
for KH (5) pending the notification of a detailed restructur-
ing plan within six months.

(4) Upon incorporation the company's name was N.V. Kliq, and in the

second half of 2003 it was changed to KG Holding NV.

(5) OJ C 33, 6.2.2004, p. 8.

21.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 366/41

2.2.

The relevant undertaking

(9) KH is a holding company whose main activity is to provide
labour reintegration services on the Dutch market. After
having been a part of the Dutch government, with some
3 000 employees, it was incorporated on 1 January 2002.
The Dutch State is the sole shareholder. KH currently
employs about 700 people.

(10) Besides the reintegration activity of the holding company,
which was performed by the subsidiary Kliq Reïntegratie
(hereinafter ‘Old Kliq’ or ‘OK’) with 1 450 employees, there
was one other main subsidiary called Kliq Employability
(hereinafter ‘KE’) with 200 employees.
In addition, KH
owned equity stakes in six very small subsidiaries and joint
ventures which together with KE are collectively referred
below as ‘OS’ (other subsidiaries), ranging in size from 4 to
20 employees, namely: Kliq Experts, Brug and Instroom-
projecten, Flexpay BV, Simnet BV, Kliq Match BV and Kliq
Business School.

(11) The core activities of the two largest subsidiaries were
reintegration and employability services. These are services
provided to people who are facing difficulties finding a job,
including disabled people, but also to companies who are
facing difficulties in finding the right people for certain
jobs.

2.3.

The relevant markets

(12) The main relevant market concerned is the market for
labour integration services. Both public as well as private
operators tender out contracts to undertakings offering
labour integration services. However, for KH the public
sector is the most important market. Local authorities and
the UWV (an organisation responsible for the implementa-
tion of social regulations) offer contracts to undertakings
like KH. KH had a market share of 16 % on the UWV
market; Alexander Calder (12 %), Argonaut (10 %) and
Randstad (9 %) are the other major players. The second
most important market for KH is the market for contracts
tendered by municipalities; there the market share of KH is
about 38 %. Other important players on that market are
Alexander Calder (25 %) and TMP (25 %).

2.4.

The restructuring plan

(13) Under the restructuring plan, KH would wind up its largest
and loss-making subsidiary OK, sell or liquidate all the

companies forming part of OS, and set up a new specially
created subsidiary called Kliq BV (hereinafter ‘New Kliq’ or
‘NK’), which would focus on continuing KH's core
reintegration business (6). Under the restructuring plan,
NK is the vehicle entrusted with the restoration of KH's
long-term viability.

(14) The key features of

the base-case scenario of

the

restructuring programme are:

— Key measures:

— NK would focus on the core reintegration
business of KH, and KH would dispose of all
its subsidiaries, except for OK — the largest and
loss-making subsidiary — which would be shut
down before the end of 2004;

— the operational reorganisation of the company
(staff reductions, reduction of the number of
operation sites, improvement of the company's
internal organisation, business procurement and
execution, as well as the financial operations,
etc).

— The targets:

— NK was to be profitable from 2004 onwards,

and would pay out its profits to KH,

— KH was to be viable from 2005 onwards, and
would use NK's paid-out profit over time to
reimburse the outstanding state loans of EUR
41 million by 2016.

— The restructuring aid:

— Extension by KH of the EUR 45 million state-
granted rescue loan partly to NK (EUR 9,25 mil-
lion) and partly to OK (EUR 35,75 million);

— the transformation of the total rescue loan to
KH, amounting to EUR 45 million, plus the
interest due thereon provisionally estimated to
some EUR 1,2 million, into restructuring aid by
means of conversion into equity capital, possibly
supplemented by additional state measures in the
worst-case scenario (an overview of the mea-
sures is set out in Annex I to the Commission's
decision to initiate the Article 88(2) procedure).

(6)

In order to perform this task, under the restructuring plan NK took
over the assets, liabilities and part of the staff of OK whilst acquiring
the outstanding reintegration contracts.

L 366/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.12.2006

(15) The chart below provides an overview of KH's structure and ownership under the restructuring plan.

3.

STATE OF PLAY OF THE RESTRUCTURING PLAN

PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEDURE

(16) Because of the persistence of severe difficulties, KH and OK
filed for suspension of payments, which was granted to
them on 20 January 2005 by the Rotterdam court and by
the Utrecht court. On 7 February 2005, the receivers of KH
and OK asked the above courts to change the suspension of
payments into bankruptcy. On 8 February 2005, KH and
OK were eventually declared bankrupt by the above Dutch
courts.

(17) NK accumulated losses of some EUR 12 million between
the end of 2003 and the end of 2004 against equity capital
of EUR 5,75 million provided by KH when it was set up.
Moreover, NK's future was highly uncertain as the company
had failed to meet the targets set under the restructuring
plan and faced more unfavourable market conditions as the
market had shrunk in size in the wake of regulatory change,
with municipalities no longer being required to earmark
part of their budget for reintegration services.

4.

GROUNDS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE

(18)

intended to grant

In its decision of August 2005 to initiate the procedure, the
Commission concluded that the restructuring aid which the
to KH, by means of
Netherlands
transforming the EUR 45 million rescue loan and interest
due thereon into equity capital, did not appear to fulfil the
requirements of the Community guidelines on state aid for
rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty. Furthermore,
the Commission doubted whether the aid was actually
limited to the minimum required and in particular whether
the beneficiary would make a significant contribution from
its own resources. Consequently, the Commission expressed
doubts as to whether
the restructuring aid could be
considered compatible with the common market pursuant
to Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty.

the state to convert

(ii) the financial and operating performance of NK; and (iii)
the development of the legal proceedings opposing NK and
the Dutch state. The latter concerns specifically the legal
application filed by NK to the competent Dutch court, in
the wake of the bankruptcy of KH and OK, asking the court
to order
into equity the EUR
9,25 million rescue loan facility extended by KH to NK
following the authorisation of
the rescue aid by the
Commission. Notwithstanding the fact that, pursuant to the
such aid must be liquidity support and
guidelines,
considered
temporary in nature
and may only be
the Commission's
permanent
the
after
restructuring aid,
in the summer of 2005 the Dutch
authorities informed the Commission that the competent
Dutch court had ordered them to convert the above loan
into equity.

approval of

(20) Further, by letter dated January 2006, the Netherlands
informed the Commission of the bankruptcy of NK as of
14 December 2005 and the ensuing proceedings. Finally, by
the Netherlands provided
letter dated February 2006,
updated information concerning the bankruptcy proceed-
ings of KH and OK.

6.

ASSESSMENT

6.1.

Existence of aid

(21) According to Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty ‘any aid granted
by a Member State or through State resources in any form
whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competi-
tion by favouring certain undertakings or the production of
certain goods, shall, in so far as it affects trade between
Member States, be incompatible with the common market’.

5.

COMMENTS FROM THE DUTCH AUTHORITIES

(19) By letter dated September 2005 the Dutch authorities
responded to the Commission's decision to initiate the
procedure, providing further information concerning (i) the
development of the bankruptcy proceedings of KH and OK;

(22) Firstly,

the restructuring aid is granted by means of
the state-granted
transformation into equity capital of
rescue loan to KH plus interest due on the loan by the latter,
and thus clearly constitutes state resources. The rescue loan
granted to KH and its transformation into restructuring aid
confer on it an advantage that an undertaking in such
difficulties, close to bankruptcy, would not have obtained
on the financial market.

21.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 366/43

(23) Although KH is operating only on the Dutch market, it is
not excluded that granting an advantage to KH distorts or
threatens to distort competition and has a potential effect
on trade between Member States. In addition, as indicated
by the Dutch authorities, there are smaller international
players on the Dutch market such as TMP and Creyff's
(subsidiary of Solvus, Belgium). Consequently, the advan-
tage appears to favour a company over its competitors, thus
distorting or threatening to distort competition and affect
trade between Member States.

6.2.1. Eligibility of the company

(30) Pursuant to point 30 of the guidelines, the company must
qualify as a firm in difficulty within the meaning of
section 2.1 (points 4 to 8). According to point 6 of the
guidelines the usual signs of a firm being in difficulty are
increasing losses, diminishing turnover, growing stock
inventories, excess capacity, declining cash flow, mounting
debt, rising interest charges and falling or nil net asset value.

(24) Consequently,

the notified measure for KH must be
considered to constitute state aid within the meaning of
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and has to be assessed
accordingly.

(31) Point 5(a) of the guidelines specifically defines a company
as being in difficulty where more than half of its registered
capital has disappeared and more than one quarter of that
capital has been lost over the preceding 12 months.

6.2.

Compatibility of the aid with the common

market

(25) The aid falls to be assessed by the Commission as ad hoc aid.
Article 87(2) and (3) of
the EC Treaty provides for
exemptions from the general incompatibility of aid stated
in Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty.

(26) The aid measure in question clearly fails to qualify for the
exemptions provided for in Article 87(2) of the EC Treaty.
The notified aid measure does not have a social character,
nor is it granted to individual consumers, nor does it make
good the damage caused by natural disasters or exceptional
occurrences, nor is the aid granted to the economy of
certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected
by its division.

(27) Further exemptions are set out in Article 87(3)(a) to (d) of
the EC Treaty. As the primary objective of the aid is not
regional but concerns the restructuring of an undertaking
in difficulty, only the exemption provided for in Article 87
the
(3)(c) appears
authorisation of state aid granted to promote the develop-
ment of certain economic sectors, where such aid does not
adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to
the common interest.

it provides

in that

relevant

for

(28) For its assessment of rescue and restructuring aid the
Commission has issued the above mentioned guidelines.
The Netherlands has
requested the Commission to
scrutinise the measure under those guidelines.

the registered capital of

(32) According to the notification this is the case with KH. From
the audited accounts of 31 December 2002 it can be
concluded that
the holding
company (consolidated) amounted to approximately EUR
73 million on 1 January 2002. At the end of that year it
amounted to only EUR 22 million. This equates to a
reduction of approximately 70 %. In addition, there was a
further
to
September 2003.

in the nine months

significant decrease

(33) The Dutch authorities plan to grant the restructuring aid to
KH. KH will in turn extend this aid to its two subsidiaries,
NK and OK, in order to complete the restructuring.

(34) The Commission considers that KH qualifies as a company
in difficulties pursuant to the concept defined in points 4 to
8 of
the guidelines and is consequently eligible for
restructuring aid.

6.2.2. Restoration of viability

(35) The grant of aid is conditional on implementation of a
restructuring plan which must be endorsed by the
Commission in the case of individual measures such as
the one under review. In particular, pursuant to points 31 to
34, the guidelines require inter alia that:

— ‘the restructuring plan, the duration of which must be
as short as possible, must restore the long-term
viability of the firm within a reasonable timescale and
on the basis of realistic assumptions as to future
operating conditions. Restructuring aid must therefore
be linked to a viable restructuring plan to which the
Member State concerned commits itself….’.

(29) Section 3.2. (points 28 to 63) of the guidelines, and in
particular points 30 to 47, describe the conditions which
must be met in order for the Commission to authorise
is outlined in the
restructuring aid. The assessment
paragraphs (30) to (55) below.

— ‘The plan should normally provide for a turnaround
that will enable the company, after completing its
restructuring, to cover all its costs including deprecia-
tion and financial charges. The expected return on

L 366/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.12.2006

capital should be enough to enable the restructured
firm to compete in the marketplace on its own merits’.

the minimum necessary and that the beneficiary make a
significant contribution from its own resources.

(36)

It should first of all be noted that the notified restructuring
plan was incomplete: the Dutch authorities did not, for
example, submit up-to-date liquidity planning. The restruc-
turing plan did not provide the Commission with the
information it needed in order to be able to carry out a full
assessment under the guidelines. The Commission had to
ask for KH's liquidity costs and for a sensitivity analysis in
respect of the various business scenarios. Because of the
way KH's business was going, the Dutch authorities did not
appear able at any point in time to provide all the required
information.

(37) The Commission doubted from the outset whether the
restructuring plan could bring about the required turn-
around because of the insufficient internal rate of return
compared with the expected return on capital, because of
NK's underperformance compared with the benchmarks of
the restructuring plan, because of the persistence of the
serious structural problems that had caused KH's difficul-
ties, and finally because of
the Dutch
authorities to give a proper account of the beneficiaries'
significant contribution to the restructuring from their own
resources. The presence of
these substantial problems
impeded the fulfilment of the guidelines' requirements for
the authorisation of the restructuring aid.

the failure of

(38) Furthermore, as stated in paragraph (16), the Commission
notes that KH was declared bankrupt in February 2005.
Since KH failed to achieve the required turnaround
according to plan,
it must therefore be noted that its
long-term viability can no longer be restored by the present
or any modified restructuring plan. Moreover, as pointed
out by the Dutch authorities following the initiation of the
formal investigation procedure, it should be noted that even
NK, the specially created vehicle that was to have brought
about KH's turnaround, has been declared bankrupt, thus
confirming NK's serious difficulties highlighted in the
decision to initiate the procedure and the inappropriateness
of the restructuring plan.

(39) Since the core conditions for the granting of restructuring
aid pursuant to the guidelines are not met, the Commission
cannot approve the restructuring plan, and the restructur-
ing aid cannot therefore be authorised. Nor, by the same
token, can the notified measure be considered to be
compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(c)
of the EC Treaty.

(40)

In light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that it
is not necessary to examine in detail the other conditions
required for authorisation of the restructuring aid under the
guidelines, including the requirement in point 40 of the
guidelines that the aid amount and intensity be limited to

6.2.3. Further considerations

(41)

In line with the requirements set out in point 24 of the
guidelines, the rescue aid for KH was initially granted for no
more than six months. It is also noted that within six
months of the authorisation of the rescue aid for KH, the
Dutch authorities notified the restructuring plan for KH.

(42) According to the terms of the restructuring plan notified by
the Dutch authorities, KH transferred EUR 35,75 million
from the rescue loan to OK and EUR 9,25 million to NK.

6.2.3.1. C o n v e r s i o n i n t o e q u i t y o f

t h e E U R
9 , 2 5 m i l l i o n r e s c u e l o a n t r a n s f e r r e d
t o N K

(43) The Dutch authorities informed the Commission that the
competent Dutch court had ordered them to convert the
EUR 9,25 million loan into equity on the basis of
Articles 53 and 69 of the Dutch Bankruptcy Law. The
conversion took place on 22 August 2005. The conversion
can therefore be regarded as partial implementation of the
notified measure.

(44) The Commission would remind the Dutch authorities that,
in accordance with the principle that Community law takes
precedence over national law, the implementation of the
decision of the national court referred to in paragraph (43)
is in breach of the ban on implementing any state aid
measure before the Commission has approved it under
Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty. The conversion of the rescue
loan into equity for the purposes of restructuring ranks as
unlawful restructuring aid. Since, moreover, the notified aid
the guidelines, a
the requirements of
does not meet
measure which constitutes partial implementation thereof
is also incompatible. The fact
the measure was
implemented by order of a national court is irrelevant in
this context, since national courts, like other state bodies,
are required to comply with the provisions of the Treaty.

that

(45) Consequently, the conversion of the EUR 9,25 million
rescue loan transferred to NK pursuant to the judgment of
the national court is deemed to amount to the granting of
unlawful and incompatible restructuring aid to NK. Since
this restructuring aid cannot be approved, it is incompatible
with the common market.

(46) Pursuant to Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/
1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the
the EC Treaty (7), where
application of Article 93 of
negative decisions are taken in cases of unlawful aid, the
Commission must decide that the Member State concerned
has to take all necessary measures to recover the aid from

(7) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1. Regulation amended by the Act of

Accession of 2003.

21.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 366/45

the beneficiary. However, the Commission may not require
recovery of the aid if this would be contrary to a general
principle of Community law. In the case being examined
here, no such principle can be invoked. Consequently, the
aid granted in the form of conversion into equity of the
rescue loan amounting to EUR 9,25 million must be
recovered in full.

6.2.3.2. C o n c e r n i n g

t h e E U R 3 5 , 7 5 m i l l i o n

r e s c u e l o a n t r a n s f e r r e d t o O K

(47) Pursuant to the notified restructuring plan,

in order to
restore KH's
long-term viability, KH transferred EUR
35,75 million from the total EUR 45 million state rescue
loan to OK for the latter's closure. Contrary to the EUR
9,25 million rescue loan transferred to NK, this loan was
not converted into equity. Therefore, the measure continues
to rank as rescue aid.

(48) According to point 23(d) of the guidelines, the Member
State concerned has to communicate to the Commission,
not later than six months after the rescue aid measure has
been authorised, a restructuring plan or a liquidation plan
or proof that the loan has been reimbursed in full.

(49)

In this case, the companies concerned went into bank-
ruptcy soon after the communication of the restructuring
plan. The Commission was, therefore, not in a position to
authorise such plan.

(50) However, the Dutch authorities informed the Commission
that the formal bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings had
the
commenced. This is in line with point 25(d) of
guidelines, which, as an alternative to the full reimburse-
ment of the loan or the presentation of a restructuring plan,
requires the communication of a liquidation plan. The
Commission authorises such liquidation plan provided that
the following two conditions are met:

— the Netherlands registers its EUR 35,75 million claim
on KH and/or OK as a creditor in the bankruptcy
proceedings with the curator; and

6.2.3.3. C o n c e r n i n g t h e o l d l o a n s g r a n t e d t o

K H u p o n i n c o r p o r a t i o n

(51) Despite the fact that the old state loans granted to KH are
outside the scope of the restructuring aid package and of
the present procedure (8), the Commission wishes to make
its position clear in order to help prevent any further
conflicts arising in the present case between the Commu-
nity rules on state aid and the application of national law by
the competent courts, as happened with regard to the
measure outlined in paragraphs (43) to (46) above. Its
position is being made clear more specifically in relation to
the legal proceedings brought before the Dutch court
outlined in paragraphs (52) to (55) below.

(52) Under the notified restructuring plan, by 2016 KH was to
repay in full old loans amounting to EUR 41 million,
including a conditional EUR 17 million current account
credit facility (hereinafter ‘credit facility’), which had been
granted on market terms by the state in 2002 in the wake
of KH's incorporation and is outside the scope of the
restructuring aid package.

(53) By letter of February 2006, the Netherlands informed the
in the context of KH and OK's
Commission that,
the curators had asked the
bankruptcy proceedings,
competent national courts to order the state to pay in full
the credit facility, which had been frozen by the state in the
wake of the suspension of payments pending the bank-
ruptcy of KH and OK in February 2005.

(54) The Commission notes that the above matter is under the
jurisdiction of the competent national court, which will
have to establish whether the state's decision was in line
with the terms and conditions set forth in the credit facility
termination agreement.

(55) The Commission takes the position that

if
in line with the agreement,

the state's
decision was
then the
competent court must uphold the state's decision and
dismiss the curators' claim. If, however, the court should
decide that, despite the fact that the state complied with its
contractual rights and obligations, the state still must pay
the full amount of the credit facility to the curators, in the
framework of the said bankruptcy proceedings, such a
decision could be deemed to be tantamount to granting
new state aid to KH's creditors, and it would have to be
notified to the Commission in accordance with Article 88
(3) of the Treaty.

— the Netherlands ensures that the company is liqui-
dated in a manner that would put an end to the
distortion of competition,
i.e. the activities of the
undertakings concerned should end and their assets
should be sold on market terms as soon as possible. It
is generally speaking the case that the sale of an
undertaking as a whole involves the risk of the aid that
has been granted being transferred to whoever
acquires the undertaking. That risk is reduced if only
the undertaking's assets are sold.

7.

CONCLUSIONS

(56)

In the light of the foregoing, the Commission has found
that the measure under review constitutes state aid within
the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty. The information
submitted by the Dutch authorities, whether or not during
the formal investigation, has confirmed that the restructur-
ing aid which the Netherlands intends to grant to KH, by

(8) All the old loans were granted on market terms.

L 366/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.12.2006

means of transforming the EUR 45 million rescue loan and
interest due thereon into equity capital, does not fulfil the
requirements of the Community guidelines and is therefore
not in accordance with Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty.

(57)

In so far as the aid measure has already been implemented
the EUR 9,25 million loan
through conversion of
transferred to NK into equity capital,
this must be
recovered,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The state aid measure in the form of restructuring aid for KG
Holding NV amounting to EUR 45 million does not fulfil the
requirements of the Community guidelines on state aid for
rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty and is therefore
incompatible with the common market.

Article 2

1. The Netherlands shall take all necessary measures to recover
from KG Holding NV and Kliq BV that part of the aid referred to
in Article 1 that was transferred as a EUR 9,25 million rescue
loan by KG Holding NV to its subsidiary Kliq BV, plus any
interest.

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

3. The amount to be recovered shall bear interest from the date
on which the individual parts thereof were first put at the

disposal of
recovery.

the beneficiaries until

the date of

their actual

4. The interest to be recovered pursuant to paragraph 3 shall be
calculated in accordance with the methods set out in Articles 9
and 11 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 (9).

Article 3

The Netherlands shall register its claim of EUR 35,75 million on
the KG Holding NV and/or Kliq Reïntegratie as a creditor in the
bankruptcy proceedings with the curator. The Netherlands shall
ensure that the undertakings are liquidated in a manner that will
put an end to the distortion of competition, with the activities of
the undertakings concerned being terminated and their assets
sold on market terms as soon as possible.

Article 4

The Netherlands shall
inform the Commission, within two
months of notification of this Decision, of the measures planned
and already taken to comply with it.

This Decision is addressed to the Netherlands.

Article 5

Done at Brussels, 19 July 2006.

For the Commission
Neelie KROES
Member of the Commission

(9) OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1.