2007/612/EC: Commission Decision of 4 April 2007 on State aid C 14/06 which Belgium is planning to implement for General Motors Belgium in Antwerp (notified under document number C(2007) 435) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2007-04-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, State aid, control of State aid, motor vehicle industry, spare part, vocational training

18.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 243/71

(Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is not obligatory)

II

DECISIONS

COMMISSION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 4 April 2007

on State aid C 14/06 which Belgium is planning to implement for General Motors Belgium in
Antwerp

(notified under document number C(2007) 435)

(Only the Dutch and French versions are authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/612/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

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

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

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

Whereas:

1. PROCEDURE

(2)

(3)

(1)

The planned training aid to General Motors Belgium in
Antwerp was notified to the Commission by letter of
on
8 December

registered

received

2005,

as

14 December. The Commission requested further infor-
mation on 4 January 2006 and Belgium replied by letter
received on
of 7 February 2006,
10 February. The Commission asked for further clarifi-
cations on 15 February 2006 and these were submitted
by letter of 2 March 2006, registered as received on
8 March.

registered

as

By letter of 26 April 2006, the Commission informed
Belgium that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid
down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty in respect of the
notified aid. The Commission decision to initiate the
procedure was published in the Official
the
1
on
The
European Union
Commission
submit
interested
invited
comments on the measures. No third party submitted
comments.

2006 (2).
to

September

Journal of

parties

In a letter of 31 May 2006, registered as received on
6 June, the Belgian authorities reacted to the decision
initiating the procedure. By letters of 13 December
2006 and 5 February 2007, they submitted additional
information. A meeting between the Commission and
the Belgian authorities was held on 13 February 2007.
information by letter of
Belgium submitted further
20 February 2007. On 23 February the Commission
sent a new request
information to which the
for
Belgian authorities replied by letter of 28 February.

(1) OJ C 210, 1.9.2006, p. 6.

(2) See footnote 1.

L 243/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.9.2007

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT

(7)

(4)

The beneficiary of
the aid would be General Motors
Belgium in Antwerp (hereinafter ‘GM Belgium’), which
the General Motors Corporation (‘GMC’).
is part of
GMC activities in Europe (‘GM Europe’) are managed by
a dedicated management team. The company, which was
set up in 1924, produces car parts for internal use and
for other GMC subsidiaries and also assembles cars. In
2005 it produced 253 000 cars. The bulk of production
is exported. The plant currently assembles the Opel Astra
model, which is present on a segment of the automobile
market where, as confirmed by the Belgian authorities,
competition is particularly strong. The company employs
around 5 000 workers.

According to the information provided by Belgium, the
programme includes elements of general training costing
EUR 6,22 million. The general
training will cover
activities related to:

— technical training (EUR 2,63 million) (trainers: 90 %
fork-lift-truck
external and 10 % internal): welding,
drivers, roller bridge, toolmakers, maintenance tech-
nicians, Allen Bradley, Controllogix;

(5)

GM Belgium has announced an investment programme
of EUR 127 million for the period 2005-07, including:

a) The production of a new version of the Astra model:
in addition to the three versions already being
produced, the plant will manufacture the Astra with
a retractable hardtop (the ‘cabrio’ or ‘Astra TwinTop’).
Until now, the ‘cabrio’ version has not been produced
by GM Europe but has been outsourced to the Italian
company Bertoné.

b) The doubling of the capacity of the press shop: the
extension of the press activities is part of GM Europe’s
strategy for production to be matched more closely to
local needs. The enhanced self-supply of bodywork
parts and the more efficient
logistics between the
group's various subsidiaries will make it possible to
reduce the number of parts transported between
plants.

(6)

For

this

These two additional activities will limit the reduction in
the workforce in Antwerp and guarantee the future of
the plant. They entail the introduction of new machines,
new components, new assembly techniques and new
working methods.
training
programme linked to these additional activities and
covering the period 2005-07 has been set up. The
costs amount to EUR 19,94 million, and the notified
aid to EUR 5 338 500. As Antwerp is located in a
non-assisted area, the maximum aid intensity is 50 %
for general training and 25 % for specific training. The
aid is to be granted as ad hoc aid by the Flemish Region
(Vlaamse Gemeenschap).

reason,

a

— basic training (EUR 0,79 million)

and 5 % internal):

(trainers: 95 %
external
(office
software: Excel, Access, Word, PowerPoint, etc.),
social skills (presentation, communication, leadership,
etc.) and upgrading of basic knowledge (finance for
non-finance staff, ISO standards, safety skills);

IT training

— general coordination (EUR 0,89 million)

(advisers:
100 % internal): a temporary team comprising staff
from different departments will be in charge of the
development, follow-up and support of the general
training
training
included
programmes. This item is not training in itself but
represents the cost of advisory services in connection
with the general part of the training programme;

activities

the

in

— simulated work environment

(SWE)

(trainers: 100 % internal):

(EUR 1,89
training on the
million)
implemented in a
global production principles
complex work environment.
In a simulated work
environment, explanation of the following concepts
their increasing importance:
and demonstration of
to
workplace
saving,
standards,
permanent improvement, etc. All 5 000 employees
follow the SWE training in
of GM Belgium will
groups of 17.
take place in a dedicated
training room containing a simulated production
line with wooden cars.

organisation,
safety,
visual management,

working
cost

It will

(8)

The specific training costs amount to EUR 13,73 million
and cover activities related to:

— on-the-job training (EUR 4,54 million)

(trainers:
100 % internal): practical training of workers, on an
individual basis, at their workplace;

18.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 243/73

— training related to the extension of the press activities
(EUR 4,35 million) (trainers: 20 % external and 80 %
internal): a broader variety and larger quantity of
metal sheets will be produced at GM Belgium.
In
order to prepare the current workforce for this, a
higher
required.
technical
Accordingly,
training activities will take place that
increase the technical skills of the press workforce
(perforating matrixes, cutting tools, etc.);

degree

skills

of

is

— specific

training

technical

(EUR 4,82 million)
(trainers: 20 % external and 80 % internal): the start
of production of the Astra TwinTop will affect the
plant’s existing production processes, in particular the
assembly, quality
press, bodywork, paint
control
the
and
workplace layout will be fully reorganised. A group
of engineering and team representatives will assist the
heads of section in implementing these modifications
to the production process.

shop,
activities.

Likewise,

logistic

(12)

(increasing)

the press activities: press-related training expenses
of
are necessary for
the production of car
parts, which is a normal activity in the automobile
industry. Car parts constitute an important and indis-
pensable input to the assembly plant and represent a
significant part of
the car. Thus, market
forces alone should suffice to prompt the company to
incur the corresponding training expenses. Therefore, the
training activities covered would probably have been
undertaken in any event, and notably in the absence of
aid.

the cost of

the

expected costs of

The Commission therefore asked Belgium to explain
why, in this case and contrary to what is observed for
most car manufacturers in the Community, it considers
that the beneficiary would not be able (or willing) to
cover
training activities
thanks to the benefits it can derive from them (in
particular, the ability to produce a new product and/or
the increased productivity of the trained workforce). The
Commission also argued that, at
the
procedure, Belgium has not provided evidence that
market forces alone would not prompt the company to
undertake the planned training programme.

stage of

this

the

(9)

(10)

3. REASONS FOR INITIATING THE PROCEDURE

In its decision of 26 April 2006 to initiate the procedure,
the Commission expressed its doubts as to the necessity
of the aid and wondered whether the training activities
would have been undertaken in any event, even without
aid. As the aid did not seem to lead to additional
activities on the part of the beneficiary,
it appeared to
have no positive effect, but to be only distortive. If this
analysis were confirmed, the aid could not be authorised.

training

associated with

Regarding the training activities linked to the launch of a
in the car
new model, the Commission observed that,
is a normal
industry, the production of a new model
feature necessary to maintain competi-
and regular
tiveness. The
the
costs
launching of a new model are therefore normally
the
incurred by car makers solely on the basis of
market
to produce new
models, car manufacturers need to train their workforce
in the new techniques to be adopted. Consequently, the
training activities in question would most probably have
been undertaken by GM Europe in any event, notably in
the absence of aid. This seems also to be the behaviour
of most competitors in the industry.

incentive. Clearly,

in order

(13)

The Commission decision to initiate the procedure was
published in the Official Journal of the European Union on
1 September 2006 (3). The Commission invited interested
parties to submit comments on the measures. No third
party submitted comments.

(14)

4. COMMENTS FROM BELGIUM

consistently

Belgium contests the Commission's initial assessment on
two grounds. First, it considers that the principles of legal
certainty, equality of treatment and good administration
have been infringed. For example, Belgium observes that
the Commission has
approved similar
training aid in the past, including for GM Belgium. The
Belgian authorities also claim that
the Commission
interpretation of Regulation
changed dramatically its
(EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application
of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid (4)
(‘the Regulation’) only six months before its expiry.
According to the Belgian authorities, the Regulation has
been applied in a consistent manner for four and half
years. Under the principle of good administration, the
Commission should have waited for
its expiry and
amended it at
the time in accordance with the new
approach.

(11)

The Commission raised similar questions about
the
incentive effect of the aid in supporting the extension

(3) See footnote 1.
(4) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 20. Its validity has been prolonged until
30 June 2008 by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1976/2006
(OJ L 368, 23.12.2006, p. 85).

L 243/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.9.2007

(15) As a subsidiary argument, Belgium alleges

the
training activities concerned have important positive
effects
this
training programme goes beyond the mere needs of
the company. However, this assertion has been substan-
tiated only for certain parts of the training programme.

It also asserts

economy.

that

that

the

for

(16)

Belgium also argues that, like the earlier versions of the
model,
the Astra TwinTop could have been built by
Bertoné.

5.2. Legal basis for the assessment

(19)

Belgium asks that the aid be approved on the basis of
Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 of 12 January 2001 as the
aid is related to a training programme.

(20)

the Treaty. The Commission notes that

In accordance with Article 5 of the Regulation, where the
amount of aid granted to one enterprise for a single
training project exceeds EUR 1 million, the aid is not
exempted from the notification requirement of Article
88(3) of
the
proposed aid in this case amounts
to EUR 5,338
million, that it is to be granted to one company and
that the training project is a single project. It therefore
considers that the notification requirement applies to the
proposed aid and that it has been duly complied with by
Belgium.

(17)

Lastly, the Belgian authorities had already claimed before
the initiation of the procedure (5) that GM Europe had
carried out comparative studies to determine the best
location for production of the Astra TwinTop and that
the training aid had been a factor in the award of the
project to GM Belgium. Belgium considers that, under the
circumstances, the aid is necessary.

(21)

Recital 16 to Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 explains that
this type of aid cannot be automatically exempted: ‘It is
appropriate that large amounts of aid remain subject to
an individual assessment by the Commission before they
are put into effect.’

5. ASSESSMENT OF THE AID

5.1. Existence of aid

(18)

it

The Commission considers that the measure constitutes
state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the
Treaty:
takes the form of a grant by the Flemish
Government and is therefore financed through state
resources. The measure is selective as it is limited to
selective grant could
General Motors Belgium. This
distort competition between GM Europe's production
plants by conferring on General Motors Belgium an
advantage relative to the other plants in the group. It
could also distort competition with other car manufac-
turers. Moreover, the market for motor vehicles is char-
acterised by extensive trade between Member States. The
Commission also notes that GM Europe’s plants are
located in different Member States. Thus, the aid could
trade between Member
distort competition and affect
States.
the Commission
In the light of
concludes that
the notified measure constitutes state
aid. Belgium does not dispute this conclusion.

the above,

(5) Letter of 7 February 2006.

training aid which, because of

(22) As already indicated in the decision to initiate the
procedure,
the Commission concludes that, since the
measure is not exempt under Regulation (EC) No
68/2001, it has to be assessed directly on the basis of
Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, which stipulates that ‘aid to
facilitate the development of certain economic activities
or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not
adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary
to the common interest’ may be considered to be
compatible with the common market. When assessing
an individual
its size,
does not qualify for the exemption laid down in that
Regulation and has therefore to be assessed directly on
the basis of Article 87(3)(c) of
the
Commission nevertheless applies by analogy the same
guiding principles as in the Regulation. This involves,
among other things, verifying compliance with all the
other exemption criteria laid down in the Regulation.
The Commission, however, does not confine itself to
verifying compliance with those criteria but has
to
conduct a more thorough analysis of the compatibility
of the measure. The very purpose of individual notifi-
cations is a detailed assessment of the aid in the light
of the special circumstances of the case.

the Treaty,

18.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 243/75

(23)

5.3. Compatibility with the common market

that

In particular,

The Commission considers
the notified project
complies with the formal exemption criteria laid down
in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 68/2001. First, the
notified eligible costs comply with Article 4(7) of the
the trainees’ personnel costs
Regulation.
covered by the aid seem to have been limited to the
the other eligible costs (6).
amount of
Second, in accordance with Article 4(2) and (3), the aid
intensity has been limited to 25 % for specific training
and to 50 % for general training since GM Belgium is a
large company located in a non-assisted area and the
training is not given to disadvantaged workers.

the total of

their workers’.

(26) Accordingly, the market failure acknowledged by Regu-
lation (EC) No 68/2001 is that firms ‘underinvest in the
Indeed, when planning new
training of
training activities, a company will usually compare the
cost of those activities with the benefits it can derive
from them (such as increased productivity or the ability
to produce new products). The company will generally
not take into account the benefits for the Community
economy as a whole which it is not able to capture for
itself. It will also consider whether there are (cheaper)
alternatives to training, such as the hiring of an already
skilled workforce (possibly at
the expense of existing
employees). Therefore, in certain cases training aid effec-
tively addresses a specific market failure. Under those
circumstances, aid is ‘necessary to obtain the Community
objective which market forces alone would not make possible’.

(24) However, the Commission observes that an aid measure
can be found compatible with the common market
pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty only when it
is necessary to enable the beneficiary to undertake the
activity in question. It notes that the necessity of the aid
is a general compatibility criterion. Where the aid does
not lead to additional activities being undertaken by the
beneficiary that would have not been achieved by market
forces alone, the aid cannot be deemed to have positive
effects likely to offset the distortion of trade and cannot,
therefore, be authorised. With regard to compatibility
pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty, the aid does
not ‘facilitate’ the development of economic activities if
the company would have undertaken the supported
activities in any event, and notably in the absence of aid.

(25)

the

the fact

improves

In view of

In the context of training aid, recital 10 to Regulation
(EC) No 68/2001 states that ‘Training usually has positive
external effects for society as a whole since it increases
the pool of skilled workers from which other firms may
draw,
competitiveness of Community
industry and plays an important role in employment
that enterprises in the
strategy.
in the training of
Community generally underinvest
their workers, State aid might help to correct
this
imperfection and therefore can be considered
market
under certain conditions to be compatible with the
common market and therefore exempted from prior
notification.’ Recital 11 adds that it must be ‘ensure[d]
that State aid is limited to the minimum necessary to
forces
obtain the Community objective which market
alone would not make possible […]’.

(6) On account of this limitation of the trainees' costs that are eligible
for aid, eligible general training costs are reduced to EUR 5 438 000
and eligible specific training costs to EUR 10 478 000.

(27) As regards verification of the necessity of training aid in
the car industry, the Commission observes that, over the
last year and a half, it has amassed evidence that some
car manufacturers are putting their production plants in
different Member States into competition with each other
for the production of new models. Car makers compare
several plants when they plan to launch a new product
and then decide where to locate the production on the
basis of total operating costs, which means all types of
costs, including government support of any kind, notably
training aid. This seems to stem from the fact that large
car manufacturers have production capacities in excess of
demand and that their production lines have become
more flexible. A plant can thus accommodate the
production of additional models more easily. In view of
this
competition between
production plants is more intense, and in view of the
resulting risk that certain training aid measures do not
contribute to the common interest objective laid down in
recital 10 to Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 but simply
constitute operating aid that distorts competition,
the
Commission has to scrutinise more carefully the need
for aid ‘in order to ensure that State aid is limited to
the minimum necessary to obtain the Community
objective which market forces alone would not make
possible’
the Regulation) (7). This
assessment is even more justified in view of the current
market situation in the motor vehicle sector, charac-
terised as it
is by significant overcapacity within the
EU, which persists because of sluggish demand growth
regularly
and
achieved (8).

(recital 11 to

reality, where

productivity

significant

economic

gains

the

(7) The Commission came to similar conclusions in paragraph 33 of its
decision of 4 July 2006 concerning Ford Genk (OJ L 366,
21.12.2006, p. 32).

(8) Faced with this weak demand growth, productivity gains and falling
prices, several large car manufacturers have closed plants or reduced
their workforce in the Community in recent years. GM Europe
announced a major restructuring plan at the end of 2004 that
called for a reduction of the workforce by up to 12 000 persons:
http://www.gmeurope.com/news/archive_0410.html

L 243/76

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.9.2007

(28)

it necessary

training activities,
to verify

Since in the present case several plants have been put
into competition and since the aid, therefore, may have
been granted for objectives other than prompting the
the
firm to undertake additional
the
Commission considers
necessity of the aid. Contrary to what was claimed by
Belgium in response to the decision to initiate the
procedure, the Commission considers that it is legally
authorised to undertake that verification. As pointed
in earlier
out by Belgium,
cases analyse in detail the need for specific training aid
for launch costs. This, however, does not prevent it from
doing so once it notices that the economic conditions on
the relevant markets have changed (9).

the Commission did not

(29)

The Commission notes that the training programme at
issue is related to two new activities at the plant, namely
the production of the Astra TwinTop and the extension
of press activity.

Necessity of the aid related to the production of the new Astra
TwinTop

(30)

The Belgian authorities allege in the notification (10) that,
owing to assembly of the Astra TwinTop, more manual
operations, such as welding, have to be carried out. They
assert that the production of this type of car has an
company
influence on all
(bodywork, paint
and
assembly) and that the introduction of each new model
invariably entails:

the
of
activities
shop, press hall,

the
logistics

— the assembly of new parts;

— the introduction of modern working methods;

— new assembly techniques.

(31)

They claim that not only does a new model therefore
involve the introduction of a new product but also that
many workers will have to adapt to new machines, parts,
assembly techniques and working methods.

the Treaty in the past,

(9) In paragraph 52 of its judgment of 30 September 2003 in Joined
Cases C-57/00 P and C-61/00 P, the Court of Justice ruled that
‘whatever the interpretation given by the Commission to Article
92(2)(c) [now 87(2)(c)] of
that cannot
affect the correctness of the Commission's interpretation of that
its validity.’
provision in the
Similarly, in paragraph 177 of its judgment of 15 June 2005 in
‘the
Case T-171/02,
legality of a Commission decision declaring that new aid does
not fulfil the conditions under which the exemption in Article
87(3)(c) EC applies must be assessed solely in the context of that
article, and not in the light of the Commission's earlier decision-
making practice, assuming that is established.’

contested decision and hence

Instance indicated that

the Court of First

(10) Annex 2 to the notification.

(32)

This description confirms that, as in the case at hand, the
introduction of a new model on a production line can
generally be achieved successfully only after extensive
significant
In other words,
major training activities are necessary to produce the
new model.

the workforce.

training of

(33)

Consequently, once GM Europe has decided to produce
this model,
the training costs become necessary to
implement that business decision.

(34) As already stated in the decision initiating the procedure,
in the car industry,
the
the Commission notes that,
is a normal and regular
launching of a new model
feature indispensable to maintain market shares and prof-
itability. Since new models require the workforce to be
trained in the new production techniques, the training
costs associated with a new model are incurred by car
makers on the sole basis of the market incentive.

(35)

(36)

contradicting this

assessment. Despite
in the decision initiating the procedure,

The Belgian authorities have not presented any new
the
elements
request
they
have not provided any convincing argument why GM
would not have undertaken the training activities in the
absence of aid.

In this respect, Belgium claimed only that the training aid
was necessary in order for GM Belgium to be the plant
selected by the management of GM Europe for the
production of the Astra TwinTop. Evidence in support
the Belgian
of this claim was submitted.
the new
authorities argued that
model could have been entrusted to Bertone, which is
more familiar with producing that type of car.

the production of

In addition,

Belgium has

(37) However, the Commission observes that, unlike regional
investment aid,
the objective of Regulation (EC) No
68/2001 is not to influence the choice of location of
economic activities, but to remedy the underinvestment
in training in the Community, as mentioned above.
Moreover,
the
hypothetical alternative subsidiary of GM Europe that
would have been awarded production of
the model
would not have undertaken similar training activities (11).
On the contrary, the information submitted by Belgium
shows that, under those circumstances, any other plant
of GM Europe would in all likelihood have been forced
to implement a similar training programme. Therefore, it
cannot be concluded that the aid led GM Europe to carry
out more training activities in the Community.

explained why

not

(11) The most likely candidates were plants already producing other
versions of the Astra, and in particular Bochum (Germany).

18.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 243/77

(38) As regards the claim by the Belgian authorities that the
production of the new model could have been awarded
to Bertone, it is not clear to the Commission what are
the conclusions to be drawn from it.
In particular,
in particular any factual
Belgium did not present
the production by Bertone would have
evidence that
required less
case of GM
training
Europe (12). In addition, it did not demonstrate that the
aid played a role in GM Europe's decision to stop
outsourcing production of that model. On the contrary,
this important strategic decision had
it
the Belgian authorities
already been taken before
promised the aid.
like
In conclusion,
previous versions, the Astra TwinTop could have been
outsourced to Bertone does not render the training aid
necessary and compatible.

than in the

is likely that

the fact

that,

(41)

in general terms
The above description confirms that,
and in the case at hand, an extension of
the press
activity can be successful only if it includes significant
training of the workforce.
In other words, training is
necessary for the extension of the press activities.

(42)

In the decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission
questioned the incentive effect of the aid related to the
extension of the press activities (13). The Belgian autho-
forward any new elements
rities have not brought
they have
contradicting this assessment.
not explained why GM would have not undertaken the
training activities in question in the absence of aid.

In particular,

Necessity of
activities

the aid related to the extension of

the press

Intermediate conclusion

(39)

The Belgian authorities allege that the extension of the
press shop is part of GM's strategy in Europe to meet
local needs more effectively,
in order to reduce the
transport of car parts between subsidiaries. As regards
the Antwerp plant, the project entails:

— two additional presses;

— production of additional bodywork parts;

(44)

— introduction of new technologies.

(40)

Belgium claims that the extension also means that many
of the workers will have to become familiar with the new
machines, parts, press techniques and working methods.
The training programme is designed to meet this need.

(12) Bertone states in its website that ‘Carrozzeria Bertone has always
considered the human factor to be of strategic importance. […]
This
is why Carrozzeria Bertone has always devoted special
attention to continuously training and updating its workforce. In
concrete terms, over the past two years this strategy has led to 240
hours of training [per capita]; an investment of 3 million euros.’
http://www.bertone.it/carrozzeria3.htm

lead to additional

(43) On the basis of the above, it can be concluded that all
training activities which provide workers with the skills
necessary for the successful implementation of the two
projects (production of the new model and extension of
the press activities) would have been undertaken in any
event, even without aid. Consequently, the corresponding
aid does not
training but covers
normal operating expenditure of the company, thereby
reducing normal
costs. The Commission considers
the aid will distort competition and
therefore that
affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the
common interest (14). Accordingly,
the aid cannot be
justified on the basis of Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty.
Since none of the other exemptions laid down in Article
87(2) and (3) of the Treaty can be applied either, the aid
is incompatible with the common market.

a

Belgian

competitive
authorities

the operation of
the

The above conclusion applies irrespective of the general
or specific nature of the training in question. In particular,
the Commission notes that the general training activity
labelled as ‘technical training’ (15) concerns skills that are
necessary for the two new activities and, more generally,
car plant (16).
for
provided
However,
‘technical
evidence showing that part of
training’ concerns skills that call for a lengthy training
period and that a significant number of
the workers
involved leave the company each year. This is linked to
a substantial shortage of those skills in the Belgian labour
(‘bottleneck jobs’). The Commission considers
market
these
that
Belgium has
training’
arguments for three of
activities.

substantiated
‘technical

have
the general

the general

sufficiently

(13) See paragraph 11.
(14) Case T-459/93 Siemens SA v Commission, ECR [1995] II-1675,

paragraph 48.
(15) See paragraph 7.
(16) For example, the production of the new model requires the welding
of more parts, which increases the company's need of welders.

L 243/78

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.9.2007

Content of training

Total duration of learning
period (hours)

Workforce turnover:
annual percentage of
workers leaving the firm

Eligible costs: participants

Eligible costs: other costs

Fork-lift-truck drivers

Toolmakers

Maintenance techniques

40

2 000

400

58 %

13 %

20 %

132 000

660 000

198 000

42 500

355 000

197 500

N.B: As regards ‘welding’, Belgium claims a total duration of the learning period of 60 hours and a workforce turnover in the plant of 4 %. The Commission
considers that these figures are relatively low and do not prevent the company from appropriating the benefits of the training costs. The workforce turnover is
therefore not high enough to deter the company from incurring those costs.

Thus it is apparent that, for those types of training, high
workforce turnovers actually prevent the company from
appropriating sufficient benefits to recoup the training
it is likely that the company
costs incurred. Therefore,
would not incur those costs in the absence of aid.

(45) Accordingly, the Commission considers that the aid is
necessary for the three training activities in question
(unlike the rest of the general ‘technical training’).

Training activities not directly related to the two projects

In their notification, the Belgian authorities described the
whole training programme as being designed to support
the two projects in question (17). However, additional
information submitted
the
decision to initiate the procedure shows that some of
the training activities relate to skills which are actually
those projects. The following
not
training items concerned (see respective descriptions
above) are:

by Belgium following

indispensable for

— basic training;

elements

further
the Commission
considers that the state aid seems to be necessary for
the training in question to be carried out.

contrary,

to the

(48)

(49)

Lastly, the Commission observes that the expense item
‘general coordination’ does not concern a training activity
as such but the advisory services in support of the general
it can also be partially included in
training. Therefore,
in so far as it covers ‘basic
part in the eligible costs,
‘Technical
‘SWE’ and the part of the general
training’,
training’ for which aid has been deemed necessary (18).

Taking into account
the rule in Regulation (EC) No
68/2001 that limits trainees’ costs to the total amount
of the other expenses, the eligible costs in the case of the
the training programme for which aid is
parts of
necessary amount to EUR 4,362 million, and the aid
itself
to EUR 2,181 million. Since, as mentioned in
paragraph 23, the other formal conditions in Regulation
(EC) No 68/2001 are
the Commission
concludes that this part of the notified aid is compatible
with the common market.

also met,

— simulated work environment (SWE).

6. CONCLUSION

The Commission notes that, contrary to the rest of the
training programme, basic training and SWE relate to
skills which are not necessary for the execution of the
two projects at hand: the projects can be fully imple-
mented and production started without a need for that
type of training. Nor do these training items concern
skills which are immediately required for the production
of cars. Therefore, the reasoning developed above as to
the necessity of the training is not applicable to them. As
that
the
company,
it cannot be concluded that it would have
been undertaken in the absence of aid. For want of

to exceed the needs of

training appears

(17) Annex 2 to the notification.

(50)

the measures notified by
The Commission finds that
Belgium that
represent eligible costs of EUR 4,362
million, corresponding to an aid amount of EUR 2,181
million, comply with the criteria for compatibility with
the common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the
Treaty.

(18) On the basis of the number of training hours, the Commission
concludes that 80,71 % of the ‘general coordination’ costs, repre-
senting an amount of EUR 0,723 million, can be attributed to basic
training, SWE and the part of general technical training for which
aid is necessary. The training hours considered are:
technical
training (letter from Belgium dated 28 February 2007): 50 800
hours, of which 30 000 related to the three activities for which
aid is deemed necessary; (ii) basic training (letter from Belgium dated
7 February 2006; number of trainees multiplied by the average
number of training hours per trainee over three years): 17 000
hours; and (iii) SWE (idem): 40 000 hours.

(i)

(46)

(47)

18.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 243/79

(51)

The Commission finds that the rest of the aid is not
necessary for carrying out
the corresponding training
activities. The aid is not compatible with the common
market under any derogation laid down in the Treaty and
must therefore be prohibited. According to the Belgian
authorities, the aid has not yet been granted and so there
is no need for it to be recovered,

remainder of

state
The
2 181 161,60,
compatible with the
pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) of the Treaty.

aid,

the

is

amounting

to EUR
common market

Article 2

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

This Decision is addressed to Belgium.

Article 3

The state aid which Belgium is planning to implement
for
a training project at General Motors Belgium in Antwerp
is incompatible with the common market
to the extent of
EUR 3 157 338,40.

Done at Brussels, 4 April 2007.

That part of the aid may accordingly not be implemented.

For the Commission

Neelie KROES
Member of the Commission