2008/717/EC: Commission Decision of 27 February 2008 on State aid C 46/07 (ex NN 59/07) implemented by Romania for Automobile Craiova (formerly Daewoo Romania) (notified under document number C(2008) 700) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2008-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Romania, State aid, control of State aid, debt, invitation to tender, motor vehicle industry, privatisation

L 239/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2008

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

II

DECISIONS

COMMISSION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 27 February 2008

on State aid C 46/07 (ex NN 59/07) implemented by Romania for Automobile Craiova (formerly
Daewoo Romania)

(notified under document number C(2008) 700)

(Only the Romanian version is authentic)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/717/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty
Community,
and in particular
Article 88(2) thereof,

establishing the European
subparagraph of
the

first

submitted information by letter of 15 February 2007.
The Commission requested further
information on
8 March and 22 May 2007 which Romania submitted
by letters of 21 March, 25 May and 31 May 2007. A
meeting with the Romanian authorities was held on
3 May 2007.

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

(2)

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

Whereas:

indicating at

By letter of 5 July 2007, the Commission asked the
Romanian authorities to remove the specific conditions
for Automobile
attached to the privatisation contract
Craiova,
failure to
suspend any unlawful aid might lead the Commission
investigation
to adopt a decision to initiate the formal
procedure on the basis of Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty
and a suspension injunction on the basis of Article 11(1)
of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2).

the same time that

1. PROCEDURE

(1)

On 17 January 2007 the Commission requested infor­
mation on several Romanian public undertakings,
including SC Automobile Craiova SA (hereinafter Auto­
mobile Craiova), formerly Daewoo Romania (*),
in the
context of the national privatisation process. Romania

(3)

the Romanian authorities
By letter of 18 July 2007,
informed the Commission that the privatisation of Auto­
mobile Craiova would be notified to the Commission. By
letter of 20 August 2007, the Commission reminded
Romania that the privatisation of Automobile Craiova
would have to be notified before any measure binding
the public authorities was taken.

(1) OJ C 248, 23.10.2007, p. 25.
(*) Mistake: the text should read ‘and its subsidiary Daewoo Romania’.

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

6.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 239/13

from the
In September 2007 the Commission learnt
press that on 12 September 2007 Romania had signed
a sale-purchase agreement (SPA) with the only bidder,
Ford.

(10)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

By letter of 10 October 2007, the Commission informed
Romania that it had decided to initiate the procedure laid
down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty in respect of
unlawful aid and to issue a suspension injunction. The
Commission Decision to initiate the procedure together
with a suspension injunction was published in the Official
Journal of the European Union (3). The Commission invited
interested parties to submit their comments on the aid.

Romania submitted its comments by letter of 24 October
2007. By letter of 23 November 2007, Ford submitted
its comments, which were forwarded to Romania on
30 November 2007. Romania submitted its observations
on Ford's comments by letter of 7 December 2007.

The Commission asked for additional
information by
letters of 12 October 2007, 17 October 2007,
19 October 2007, 14 November 2007 and 14 January
2008. Romania submitted the additional information by
letters of 18 October 2007, 24 October 2007,
6 November 2007, 12 November 2007, 19 November
2007, 23 November 2007, 7 December 2007, 8 January
2008 and 23 January 2008.

(8)

The Commission met with the Romanian authorities and
representatives of Ford on 5 October 2007, 12 October
2007, 7 November 2007, 15 November 2007,
17 December 2007 and 24 January 2008.

2. DESCRIPTION

2.1. The undertaking concerned

(9)

Automobile Craiova is a company active in the trade in
automotive spare parts. It also produces exhaust boxes
and PVC joinery. The Romanian State holds 72,4 % of its
through the Romanian privatisation agency,
shares
AVAS. The remaining 27,6 % of the shares are held by
a private investment fund (SIF Oltenia) and by private-
law natural and legal persons. Its shares are listed on the
Bucharest stock exchange. Automobile Craiova made
profits of EUR 83 479 in 2005 and of EUR 51 125 in
2006. Its turnover was EUR 2,15 million in 2005 and
EUR 2,14 million in 2006.

The company has one subsidiary, Daewoo Romania
(‘DWAR’), which is also the majority shareholder in
Mecatim. The car producer DWAR was established in
1994 as a joint venture, the Romanian State holding
49 % of the shares and Daewoo Motors South Korea
51 %. After Daewoo Motors went bankrupt, DWAR
acquired in 2006 51 % of its own shares. In line with
Romanian company legislation, the 51 % of the shares
were annulled in November 2007 so that DWAR was
wholly owned by Automobile Craiova.

(11)

In 2007 DWAR employed 3 959 people.
In 2006 it
produced 24 898 cars, mostly small models. The plan
in 2007 was to produce about 19 000 cars. In January
In addition, DWAR
2008 car production stopped.
produces engines for different GM Daewoo subsidiaries.
The Craiova plant has a production capacity of 100 000
cars/year.

(12) DWAR generated losses of around EUR 350 million in
2006 and of around EUR 3,4 million until 30 April
2007. In 2006 it had total debts of around EUR 88
million, of which EUR 56 million to the public budget
and EUR 25 million to suppliers.

(13) According to the financial

statements,

in 2006 the
company had land and fixed assets worth EUR 193
million, raw materials and other materials worth EUR
cash amounting to EUR 96
55 million, available
million, and receivables and settlements totalling EUR
108 million.
In conclusion, according to the balance
sheet at the end of 2006, DWAR had net assets of
EUR 419 million in 2006.

(14) Mecatim is a subsidiary of DWAR which owns 75 % of
its shares; 20 % are held by AVAS and the remaining 5 %
by minority private
company is
situated in Timișoara. Its core activity is the production
of spare parts for vehicles and vehicle engines. However,
the company has stopped production and is currently
trading in vehicles.

shareholders. The

(3) See footnote 1.

(15) Automobile Craiova is based in a region eligible for aid

under Article 87(3)(a) of the EC Treaty.

L 239/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2008

2.2. The privatisation process

(16) On 19 and 21 May 2007 the Romanian privatisation
agency, AVAS, announced the sale of its participation
of 72 % in Automobile Craiova. Although several under­
takings had previously submitted non-binding letters of
interest, only two potential
Ford Motor
Company (‘Ford’) and General Motors (‘GM’), bought
the presentation
the Information Memorandum (i.e.
information
them access
file), which gave
contained in the Data Room and allowed them even­
tually to submit a final and binding bid.

investors,

to the

(17)

for

25 %,

accounting

investments

fourth year

The presentation file contained certain conditions relating
in particular to minimum production, employment and
investment levels. The scoring grid showed that the price
offered represented only 35 % of the total scoring, with
aggregate
the
achievement of a production integration level of 60 %
accounting for 20 % and the
in the
commitment to a production level of 200 000 cars in
the fourth year accounting for 20 %. If the offered inte­
gration level was below 60 % and/or if this level would
be achieved only after four years, the investor would
score 0 points. The same applied to the production
level, where,
if the offered production level was lower
than 200 000 cars in the fourth year and/or if a longer
period would be needed to reach this production level,
the investor would also score 0 points.

(18)

The deadline for submitting final offers was 5 July 2007.
Being the only party to submit a binding bid, Ford was
awarded the tender. Initially it offered a price of EUR 55
million and, after the subsequent negotiations, one of
EUR 57 million.

reorganisation ownership of

(19) During the negotiation phase following the bidding
process, the parties agreed that Ford, the buyer, would
obtain through a
the
industrial assets of Automobile Craiova, DWAR and
Mecatim, while the non-core assets (mostly real estate
and net excess cash) would be set aside and remain in
state ownership. The State also undertook to use its best
efforts to purchase the remaining 28 % from the private
shareholders and sell them to Ford.

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

(25)

(20)

sales

The
12 September 2007.

purchase

agreement was

signed

on

3. DECISION TO INITIATE THE FORMAL INVESTI­
GATION PROCEDURE AND TO ISSUE A SUPSENSION
INJUNCTION

The formal
account of
entailed State aid.

investigation procedure was initiated on
the privatisation process
suspicions

that

First, the Commission had doubts whether the tender
transparent and non-discriminatory.
itself was open,
the time,
According to the information available at
the
which was based mostly on press
Commission had grounds
certain
to assume
potential investors have been disadvantaged at an early
stage and deterred from submitting a bid.

articles,
that

the Commission doubted that

Second,
the conditions
attached to the privatisation did not lead to a reduction
in the sales price, thereby conferring an advantage on the
undertaking to be privatised. According to the infor­
mation available at the time of the decision to initiate
the procedure, AVAS attached four conditions which
were liable to reduce the sales price and might have
deterred
from
submitting a bid. The price offered accounted for only
35 % of the total score.

potentially

interested

parties

other

an

authorities

commitment

including their

the Commission wondered whether
attached

Further,
the
employment
Romanian
guarantee to the privatisation. According to the presen­
tation file, the potential bidders had to present a business
to maintain the
plan,
current number of employees. Also,
the draft SPA
attached to the presentation file stipulates the obligation
for the buyer to maintain for the next five years the
the
current number of employees;
buyer breaching its obligation,
jure
become null and void, without any notification or addi­
tional
the Romanian authorities
informed potential buyers before the publication of the
privatisation announcement
the main
objectives of
to maintain the
current workforce.

in the event of
the SPA will de

the privatisation was

that one of

formality.

Finally,

stage,

Lastly, the Commission had suspicions that the renego­
tiation of certain terms during the negotiation phase
following the tender conferred an advantage on Ford,
the buyer. According to the information available at
the Romanian State
that
that
undertook to take over actual and potential claims
against Automobile Craiova,
including a customs claim
of EUR 800 million. Further, during the subsequent
negotiations, the State and Ford reached an agreement
to reorganise the company in such a way that the core

seemed

it

6.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 239/15

activity (production of cars) would be separated from the
non-core assets, in particular real estate. Following this
reorganisation, Ford would acquire and pay for
the
industrial activity only and the State would retain
ownership of the land.

build small models, production of less than 200 000 cars
per year would not be profitable.

(26)

Since Romania went ahead and signed the privatisation
contract despite its repeated warnings, the Commission
issued at the same time a suspension injunction.

4. COMMENTS FROM ROMANIA

(27)

(28)

(29)

the

First, Romania emphasises that the tender process was
open, transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional.
The first announcement
regarding the intention to
privatise DWAR, published on 5 December 2006, and
the announcement published on 9/12 March 2007 do
not contain any pre-qualification or selection criteria, let
alone any conditions which needed to be met by bidders.
Moreover,
announcement on the privatisation
published on 18/21 May 2007 did not contain any
mandatory conditions, but simply award criteria which
would allow the different bids to be scored. Further,
Romania claims that the increase in the employment
level was never a criterion in the tender procedure. In
conclusion, all potential bidders had access to all the
information available
entire privatisation
process was transparent. Therefore, no potential bidder
was deterred from submitting an offer.

since

the

for

the

bidders

potential

possibility

Second, Romania argues that neither the presentation file
the draft SPA imposed mandatory conditions
nor
without
to
negotiate them. It explains that AVAS initially intended
to privatise DWAR as a whole but, during the privati­
sation process it decided to give potential bidders the
(i.e.
option to bid only for
from the
excluding the real estate).
outset, all potential bidders were aware that
the real
estate was not included in the privatisation offer but
would be sold separately.

the
It stresses that,

industrial

assets

that

the criteria in the
Third, Romania emphasises
presentation file did not have any effect on the bidders,
especially since all potential interested parties were auto­
motive undertakings. It also submits that these criteria
had no influence on the purchase price offered by
Ford, since they were compatible with its business plan.
According to Romania, the production level of 200 000
cars per year, as required by AVAS in the presentation
file, needs to be achieved for economic reasons: given the
size and capacity of the car plant, which is equipped to

(30)

(31)

(32)

It

that

claims

former parent

Fourth, Romania argues
it acted as a market
that
economy operator when selling its participation in Auto­
mobile Craiova.
the price obtained
represents the market value and presents the following
the shares in
arguments: DWAR purchased 51 % of
2006 from the
company Daewoo
Motors Ltd.
for a sales price of USD 50 million.
Therefore, the total value of all the shares at that time
was EUR 78 million. Ford offered EUR 57 million for
the shares in Automobile Craiova, corre­
72,4 % of
them. Also,
sponding to EUR 78 million for all of
taking the value per
stock
the shares in Automobile
exchange,
Craiova on 16 March 2007 was about EUR 59 million.
Therefore, the purchase price of EUR 57 million paid by
Ford for 72 % of the shares is above the market price. In
addition, under the restructuring process, AVAS will also
remain owner of the non-core assets. Finally, according
to the valuation of DWAR made by an independent
expert KPMG after
the parent
company, the company was valued in 2004 at between
USD 18 million and USD 81 million, depending on the
valuation method used.

the bankruptcy of

the value of all

traded on the

share

foreseeable

Fifth, as regards the alleged indemnification, Romania
submitted detailed information on the debt arrangement
included in the special law on the privatisation of Auto­
mobile Craiova.
It argues that, according to normal
business practice, AVAS takes over only debts which
are not
It
emphasises that Automobile Craiova and DWAR do
the State,
not have any outstanding debts
course of
except
business.
payments
amounting to USD 10 million paid in 2006 to the
company (4), DWAR does not
any
have
parent
outstanding debts to former Daewoo subsidiaries.

towards
those deriving from the normal
the

and cannot be quantified.

addition,

because

of

In

Sixth, as regards the customs claim of EUR 800 million,
Romania explained its origin. According to Law 71/1994
on attracting foreign investors, Romanian companies
were exempted from customs duties and profits tax if
the foreign subscribed
they fulfilled four conditions:
least 50 % of
least USD 50 million; at
capital
production is exported; a production integration level
of at least 60 % is achieved; and the share capital does
not decrease within 14 years of the date of the foreign
subscription with the result that the foreign participation
falls below USD 50 million.

is at

(4) In 2006 DWAR acquired 51 % of the shares from Daewoo Motors
Ltd. for a sales price of USD 50 million plus a settlement payment
of USD 10 million for any outstanding liabilities to other Daewoo
subsidiaries.

L 239/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2008

(33)

it claimed repayment of

The local customs authority calculated the production
integration level of the company in 2005 and came to
the conclusion that the 60 % ceiling was not reached.
Thus,
the tax exemptions,
which amounted to EUR 800 million. DWAR challenged
the decision before the National Customs Authority.
Since the court of first instance upheld the repayment
decision, DWAR filed a new appeal. The court of appeal,
in a judgment of 27 June 2007, annulled the repayment
order.

(34)

In conclusion, Romania stresses that DWAR did not
benefit from any debt waiver.

(35)

Seventh, the Romanian authorities argue that maintaining
the current workforce was never a condition of the priva­
tisation since it was not an award criterion. In addition,
the draft SPA attached to the presentation file was only
indicative and so potential bidders could have understood
that the individual terms of the contract could be subject
to bilateral negotiations. Therefore, potential bidders who
did not plan to maintain the current workforce could
have nevertheless submitted an offer with a different
business plan.

(36)

Lastly, as regards the subsequent negotiations on other
contractual terms, Romania claims that they were part of
the normal negotiation process preceding the conclusion
of the SPA.

5. COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES

(37)

By letter of 23 November 2007, Ford intervened as an
interested party in the procedure
initiated by the
Commission.

(38)

First, Ford argues that the privatisation process was open,
transparent, non-discriminatory and unconditional. All
the correspondence between Ford and AVAS during the
privatisation process was disclosed in the Data Room.

(39)

the

award

criteria were not mandatory
Second,
liable to deter potential bidders. On the
conditions
contrary, Ford declared that
it was its understanding
that these criteria were negotiable. Further, the scoring
criteria had no impact on Ford's offer since Ford's
business plan easily exceeded the requirements set out
in the presentation file.

(40)

(41)

the purchase price paid by Ford to AVAS
Third,
represents the market value of the shares covered by
the tender procedure. Ford stated that it had intended
paying a maximum purchase price of USD 100 million
(i.e. EUR 71,4 million) for all the shares, which would
correspond to a price of EUR 51,7 million for 72,4 % (5).
It did not intend to offer a higher price, even in the
absence of the award criteria.
Initially, Ford offered a
purchase price of EUR 55 million and, after negotiations
with the Romanian authorities, one of EUR 57 million.
Furthermore, Ford was the only bidder, so that its offer
represents the market value.

Lastly, Ford argues that indemnifications contained in the
SPA were standard business practice for the acquisition
of companies and thus in conformity with the market
and did not lead to a sale at a price lower than the
highest possible bid. Ford highlights the fact that such
indemnifications relate only to risks outside the ordinary
course of business and are impossible to assess by a new
investor on taking over a company. Ford has assumed all
the debts and liabilities of Automobile Craiova, including
DWAR,
that had arisen in the ordinary course of
business and that were quantified and disclosed in the
Data Room. However, Ford was not willing to assume
potential risks which it could not assess and quantify on
the basis of due diligence.

6. ASSESSMENT

6.1. Existence of State aid within the meaning of
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty

(42) Article 87(1) of

the EC Treaty states that, save as
otherwise provided in the Treaty, any aid granted by a
Member State or through state resources which distorts
or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain
undertakings or
is
in so far as it
incompatible with the common market,
affects trade between Member States.

the production of certain goods

6.1.1. State resources and conferring of an advantage

(43)

The conditions pertaining to the privatisation contract
were attached by the Romanian public privatisation
agency, AVAS. By attaching such conditions, which
could lead to a fall in the sales price, as shown below,
the Romanian State accepted that it would not obtain the
highest possible price. The lower sales price for the
72,4 % stake is thus paid from the revenue forgone by
the State. Therefore, the measures involve state resources.

(5) Based on an exchange rate of EUR 1 = USD 1,4.

6.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 239/17

(44)

In addition, the Commission takes note of the fact that
the actions of the public privatisation agency, AVAS, are
attributable to the State. This fact is not disputed by the
Romanian authorities.

if the behaviour of the Member States is the same as that
which a market economy investor would have.

(45) A given measure cannot be regarded as constituting aid if
it does not confer an advantage (6). Accordingly,
the
Commission must determine whether the measure in
question confers an advantage.

(46) An undertaking benefits from an advantage if it obtains
something positive from the State which it would not
have obtained under normal market conditions. To this
end, it has first to be assessed whether the State acted as
a market economy operator or as a state authority which
sold a company under conditions not corresponding to
normal market conditions.

(47) According to Article 86(1) of

the EC Treaty, public
companies are subject to State aid rules. Article 295 of
the EC Treaty stipulates that Community rules are neutral
as regards public and private ownership.

(48)

In conformity with the settled case law of the European
courts (7) and with the rules and practice developed by
the Commission regarding State aid in the context of
privatisations (8), when a Member State either acquires
or sells shares in companies, no advantage is conferred

(6) See Case T-471/93 Tiercé Ladbroke SA v Commission, at points 54 and

56-63.

(7) See, for example, Case T-296/97 Alitalia, Cases T-228/99 and T-
233/99 WestLB v Commission, Case T-366/00 Scott SA, Cases C-
328/99 and C-399/00 Italy and SIM 2 Multimedia v Commission
and Case T-358/94 Air France v Commission.

aids

to State

(8) XXIIIrd Report on Competition Policy (1993), p. 255. This set of
rules, specifically for the aviation sector, can be found in ‘Application
of Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty and Article 61 of the EEA
(OJ C 350,
Agreement
10.12.1994, p. 5), which states that ‘Aid is excluded […] if, upon
privatisation, the following conditions are fulfilled: the disposals made by
way of an unconditional public invitation to tender […]. On the other
hand, the following sales are subject to the pre-notification requirements of
Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty because there is a presumption that they
contain aid: […] all sales that are realised in conditions that would not be
acceptable for a transaction between market economy investors.’

aviation sector’

in the

(49)

(50)

Consequently, when the privatisation takes place by way
of the sale of shares on the stock exchange, it is generally
assumed to be on market conditions and not to involve
aid. However, when the privatisation is carried out
through a trade sale, it can be assumed that no aid is
involved only if the following conditions are fulfilled:
first, the company is sold by a competitive tender that
is open to all comers,
transparent and non-discrimi­
natory; second, no conditions are attached which are
not
transactions between
private parties and which are capable of potentially
reducing the sales price; third, the company is sold to
the highest bidder; and, fourth, bidders must be given
enough time and information to carry out a proper
valuation of the assets being bid for (9). In other cases,
trade sales must be vetted for any possible aid and must
therefore be notified.

customary in comparable

economy

In such cases, assessing whether a transaction concerning
state assets involves aid generally means determining
whether a market economy operator placed in a similar
situation would have behaved in the same way, i.e. would
have sold the company at the same price. In applying the
investor principle, non-economic
market
considerations,
reasons,
employment considerations or
regional development
objectives, which would not be acceptable to a market
economy operator, cannot be taken into account as
reasons
lower price but, on the
contrary, point to the existence of aid. This principle
has been repeatedly explained by the Commission (10)
and constantly confirmed by the Court (11).

accepting a

industrial

policy

such

for

as

(9) Points 402 et seq. of the XXIIIrd Report on Competition Policy
(1993). See also point 248 of the XXIst Report on Competition
Policy (1991): ‘[…] no aid is involved where the shareholdings are sold
to the highest bidder as a result of an open and unconditional bidding
procedure. If shareholdings are sold under other conditions, aid elements
may be present.’

(10) See, for example, the Commission Decision on TASQ of 3 May
2000, which states that ‘The French authorities also showed that the
invitation to tender was transparent and unconditional […]. In particular,
the documents submitted to the Commission showed that
the sale of
locations
TASQ was not conditional on, for example,
or continuation of activity.’ This fact enabled the Commission to
conclude that no aid was involved in that privatisation.

job maintenance,

(11) See,

for example, Cases T-228/99 and T-233/99 WestLB v
Commission, Case T-366/00 Scott SA, Cases C-328/99 and C-
399/00 Italy and SIM 2 Multimedia v Commission and Case T-
358/94 Air France v Commission.
In Case T-296/97 Alitalia, the
Court states that ‘It must be emphasised that the conduct of a private
investor in a market economy is guided by prospects of profitability. The
measure was motivated by the desire to keep the jobs and therefore, above
all, by considerations pertaining to the applicant’s viability and survival
rather than by prospects of profitability.’

L 239/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2008

(51)

if any of

the above requirements are not
Therefore,
fulfilled, the Commission considers that the privatisation
should be assessed to determine whether it entails State
therefore be notified (12). Consequently,
aid and must
compliance with these requirements would ensure that
the State obtains
the market
the highest price,
price, for its shares and no State aid is therefore involved.

i.e.

employment, conditions beneficial for the geographical
region concerned or ensuring a certain investment
level) but would sell
the company to the highest
bidder, who would then be free to determine the
future of the acquired company or assets (14).

(54)

(52)

By imposing certain conditions on the buyer in the priva­
tisation, the State potentially lowers the sales price and
thus forgoes additional revenues. Also, some conditions
can deter potentially interested investors from submitting
a bid in the first place, so that the competitive environ­
ment of the tender is disturbed and even the highest of
the offers eventually submitted does not necessarily
represent the actual market value (13).

the solvency of

This does not mean that all the conditions of a privati­
sation automatically result in the presence of some State
aid elements. First, the conditions that are also normally
encountered in transactions between private parties
(certain standard forms of indemnification on account
the bidder or conformity with
of
domestic
do not
constitute a problem. Second, the conditions which do
not normally seem to be present in transactions between
private persons result in the presence of State aid only to
the extent that they make it possible to reduce the sales
price and can confer an advantage. The fact that these
conditions do not result in aid must be demonstrated in
each case in question (15).

legislation on labour

relations)

(53)

By imposing such conditions and thus accepting that it
will not receive the best price for the shares or assets
owned by it,
like a market
the State does not act
economy operator, who would try to obtain the
highest possible price. Instead, the State chooses to sell
the undertaking at a price below the market value. A
market
an
economy
in attaching comparable conditions
economic interest
the level of
(in particular,

such as maintenance of

operator would

have

not

for example,

include State aid. See,

(12) See the XXIIIrd Report on Competition Policy (1993), p. 255.
(13) In several of the Commission Decisions, the absence of conditions.
i.e. the unconditional nature of the tender, was a decisive argument
that allowed the Commission to conclude that privatisation
the
procedures did not
Commission Decisions of 15 February 2000 on Dessauer Gerätein­
dustrie (OJ L 1, 4.1.2001, p. 10), of 13 December 2000 on SKET
Walwerkstechnik (OJ L 301, 17.11.2001, p. 37) and of 30 January
2002 on Gothaer Fahrzeugtechnik (OJ L 314, 18.11.2002, p. 62),
in which the Commission explained: ‘ To rule out any aid element in
the transaction, the BvS would have had to demand a price corresponding
to the company’s market value. The Commission therefore verifies whether
the sales procedure was an appropriate one for the purpose of establishing
the market value. […] the sales price is the market price if the sale is
effected through an open and unconditional tender procedure and the
assets go to the highest or only bidder.’

C o n d i t i o n s a t t a c h e d t o t h e p r i v a t i s a t i o n
o f A u t o m o b i l e C r a i o v a

(55)

In the case in point, the tender procedure organised by
the Romanian authorities was geared primarily to
achieving a given level of production and amount of
employment in Craiova. The Romanian authorities have
not produced any evidence to show that these conditions
were imposed for
that a market economy
operator would have taken into account.

reasons

(14) See, for example, Commission Decision 97/81/EC of 30 July 1996
on Head Tyrolia Mares, where the Commission states that ‘It is not
in the interest of a market economy investor to ensure, without clear
economic reasons, a certain employment level when taking his divesting
decisions. Without the condition in question, a potential buyer would gain
entrepreneurial independence and HTM’s value would increase, which could
result in a higher sale price or reduced funding by AT.’ and Commission
Decision 2000/628/EC of 11 April 2000 on the aid granted by
Italy to Centrale del Latte di Roma, in which the Commission spells
the criteria whereby a privatisation of a publicly owned
out
company does not involve State aid (see recital 32 et seq., and in
particular recital 36): ‘The Commission believes that the market value of
the company would have been the price a private investor would have paid
had the sale been subject to no conditions, particularly those relating to the
maintenance of a certain number of jobs and the supply of raw materials
from local producers.’

(15) Such an analysis was carried out, for example, in the Commission
Decision of 20 June 2001 on GSG and enabled the Commission to
conclude that no aid was involved even in the presence of some
unusual conditions because it found that those conditions could not
lead to a reduction in the sales price.

6.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 239/19

(56) When privatising Automobile Craiova, the privatisation
agency set four conditions in the form of award criteria
in order to select the successful bidder: the price offered
represented 35 % of the total score, the total investments
25 %, the achievement of a production integration level
of 60 % in the fourth year 20 %, and the commitment to
a production level of 200 000 cars in the fourth year
20 %. If the last two requirements were not fulfilled by
the potential investor, the offer would score 0 points on
it was practically
those particular
impossible for a potential
investor making different
industrial use of the car plant to win solely on account
of a higher sales price, without achieving the production
and integration levels
the
investment level was the same).

required (assuming that

criteria. Thus,

(59)

the production of
It should here be emphasised that
200 000 cars per year represents a doubling of
the
current capacity, which, particularly at the present time,
is significantly underutilised. The production level that
needs to be achieved is specified in detail and will
increase in
therefore certainly lead to a substantial
market presence. The Commission considers that
this
situation is comparable to that in which the economic
conduct of a company is influenced by state measures
that reduce the costs normally borne by companies or by
direct subsidies.

(57) Assuming that

a

competitive

to 230 % of

In concrete terms,

investor might have
proposed a similar level of investments but would not
have been able to fulfil the production level criterion, this
competitive bidder would (in order to win the bid) have
the price
to propose a price equivalent
proposed by Ford (16).
in order to
outbid Ford's offer of EUR 57 million, a potential
investor would need to propose a sales price in excess
in order to
of EUR 133 (i.e. EUR 76 million higher)
compensate for
the condition
the non-fulfilment of
relating to the production level. These factors must
have been taken into account by both Ford and its
potential competitors and thus influenced their decision
to submit a bid and the price offered.

(58)

that,

although the

formal
The Commission notes
announcement of
the privatisation of Automobile
Craiova did not contain any reference to conditions,
the precise conditions being laid down only in the
Information Memorandum,
subsequent
general
objective of
the Romanian authorities as regards the
maintenance of a certain level of employment and a
certain level of car production at the site was publicly
known. For the Commission, there are indications that
certain potential investors who might have considered a
strategy had been deterred from
different
industrial
this
showing a concrete interest
initial stage.

in the company at

the

free movement of goods. Accordingly,

(16) In the above calculations, the Commission assumed that the impact
of the condition relating to the integration level can be ignored. As
rightfully pointed out by Ford and in line with the Commission’s
practice, this requirement is in breach of the internal market rules
regarding the
Ford
undertook to achieve a 60 % integration level within four years
to consistency with EU law’. Since
the privatisation ‘subject
of
in its correspondence with AVAS,
Ford highlighted this aspect
is assumed that GM too
which was also available to GM,
understood that
requirement could be accepted
conditionally without having any practical consequences for its
offer. However,
if the price would also have to compensate for
the failure to meet this criterion, the price differential would be
even wider than explained above.

this particular

it

(60) As regards the distinction drawn by the Romanian auth­
orities between conditions and the scoring model, the
Commission does not recognise the relevance of
the
argument. Scoring the production and integration levels
amounts de facto to the actual conditions attached to the
privatisation, which,
in the Commission's view, have
reduced the sales price. It cannot accept the argument
that the sales price obtained reflects the market value of
the company. In this case too, there are indications for
the Commission that potential investors with a different
production strategy or industrial activity who did not
envisage
and
achieving a 60 % integration level might have been
deterred from the start from submitting an offer and
tender was
competitive position in the
that
without doubt significantly impaired. These appear to
be circumstances in which the Romanian authorities
opted for the scoring method described above. Indeed,
a bidder with a different industrial strategy decided in the
end not to submit an offer after participating in the
tender procedure.

producing 200 000 cars

their

year

per

is

true

to those

that AVAS,

tender documents.

(61) As regards the negotiability of the conditions attached,
the Commission cannot accept Romania's argument that
the negotiability of
the conditions was known to all
potential
investors and could be easily deduced from
in
It
the
response to Ford's questions, confirmed that the draft
SPA was only indicative and served as a basis for
further negotiations. However,
refers
only
contractual negotiations which are
inherent in a share sale by way of negotiations based
on final,
improved and irrevocable bids and does not
generally provide confirmation that further negotiations
on the mandatory
in the public
in particular, the elements of the
announcement and,
scoring grid were in fact possible. Romania did not
provide any evidence which would show that
the
criteria of the scoring grid could have been considered
negotiable. In fact, if the scoring criteria were negotiable,
the scoring model would lose any practical relevance.

statement

set out

terms

this

L 239/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2008

(62)

(63)

(64)

to

Ford's

according

question regarding

The Commission does not agree with the argument put
forward by Romania
to which AVAS
confirmed that it was possible to change its position in
the course of the negotiations. This answer refers exclu­
planned
sively
requirement for the purchaser to renounce the right to
claim protection and reimbursement from the State in
the
being
successfully claimed by third parties. It is the Commis­
it cannot be deduced from this
sion's opinion that
statement
the conditions would generally be
negotiable.

of Automobile Craiova's

that all

assets

event

the

The Commission cannot accept
the calculations put
forward by Romania, which aim at demonstrating that
the price paid by Ford represents the market value of
Automobile Craiova. First, the sales price paid by Ford
for 72 % of Automobile Craiova, including DWAR and
Mecatim, cannot be compared to the price that DWAR
paid in 2006 for 51 % of
the
general economic context at the time of the latter sale
to be taken into account: when the bankrupt
has
its 51 % in 2006,
Daewoo Motors agreed to sell
DWAR was confronted with significant
liabilities (the
pending customs claim, debts towards other Daewoo
subsidiaries, etc.).

its own shares. Also,

the shares

Second, the comparison between the sales price and the
in Automobile
stock exchange value of
Craiova, which was about EUR 50 million, cannot be
It does not take into consideration the fact
accepted.
that,
the
the acquisition of a majority holding,
for
value of the shares is significantly higher than the sum
of the price for individual shares. In addition, since only
the shares are actually
a very small proportion of
available on the market,
the stock exchange price
might not reflect the real value of the company.

and

and,

transparent

non-discriminatory

in
was
particular, whether all potentially interested parties had
equal access to information regarding the company to be
privatised, the award criteria and the possibility of nego­
tiating certain contractual terms with the privatisation
agency. According to the information available at that
preliminary
time,
discussions with certain car producers before
the
official privatisation announcement was published.

the Romanian

authorities

held

(68)

to information, with none of

investors had equal
Romania argues that all potential
access
them being
favoured. The preliminary contacts that the government
had with the potential interested parties did not affect the
privatisation strategy and procedure.

the

company's debts

industrial
and a

assets,
swift privatisation process.

(69) On the basis of the information supplied by them, the
Commission notes
the Romanian authorities
that
conducted informal preliminary discussions with several
potential
aspects
investors which addressed similar
regarding the company to be privatised: full ownership
and
of
the
liabilities,
is
presumed that the State as the seller would engage in
those discussions with the aim of obtaining preliminary
information such as market demand, minimum sales
price, etc. Unless such discussions are conducted with
the aim or
to be
attached to the tender, the Commission agrees that it
can be considered usual for the government to engage
in consultations
and preliminary discussions with
potential
investors before publishing a privatisation
announcement.

result of establishing conditions

It

(65) Accordingly, the Commission has to conclude that the
conditions attached to the privatisation of Automobile
Craiova have lowered the sales price and deterred other
potential bidders from submitting a bid. As a direct
result, the State has renounced the receipts from the
privatisation.

(66)

In the light of the above considerations, the Commission
concludes
issue, an economic
advantage has been conferred by way of state resources
on the economic activities privatised.

in the case at

that,

(70) After the publication of the privatisation announcement,
only two potential bidders, Ford and GM, bought the
presentation file, enabling them to obtain access to the
Data Room and eventually to submit a final and binding
offer. It is true that, after publication of the privatisation
announcement, all correspondence between AVAS, on
the one hand, and Ford and GM, on the other, was
available to them in the Data Room. Therefore,
the
Commission concludes that, at that particular stage of
the privatisation, both potential
investors had equal
access to information.

O p e n ,
t e n d e r

t r a n s p a r e n t , n o n - d i s c r i m i n a t o r y

(71)

(67) When initiating the procedure under Article 88(2) of the
Treaty, the Commission had doubts whether the tender

In conclusion, on the basis of the information provided
by Romania, the Commission's doubts as regards the
open, transparent and non-discriminatory nature of the
tender for the privatisation of Automobile Craiova have
been allayed.

6.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 239/21

W a i v i n g o f d e b t s

(72) When initiating the procedure under Article 88(2) of the
EC Treaty, the Commission expressed doubts that AVAS
might waive within the context of
the privatisation
certain debts of the company (in particular the customs
claim amounting to EUR 800 million) and that it would
offer a guarantee concerning the payment of debts
towards the other former Daewoo subsidiaries.

the privatisation strategy chosen for this company (i.e.
negotiations based on final,
improved and irrevocable
bids). Romania also stressed that Ford’s offer envisaged
the acquisition of the production unit (currently DWAR);
in exchange, Ford offered a package comprising the sales
price of EUR 57 million plus the non-core assets which
will remain in state ownership.

(73) As

the

regards

customs

claim, Romania provided
conclusive information showing that the customs claim
was declared unfounded by a national court: the claim
originated from the wrongful
interpretation and appli­
cation of national
legislation. Thus, the customs claim
was annulled. According to the case law of the Court
to
Justice, national courts must give full effect
of
Community law provisions regarding State aid. Further,
if necessary, to apply any
national courts may refuse,
contrary
provision
to
Community
The Commission
assessed the grounds for the annulment of the customs
claim through the court judgment and concluded that it
did not lead to the granting of new aid.

law provisions (17).

law that

national

of

is

(78) During the negotiation phase, AVAS and Ford agreed on
a corporate restructuring process which was also laid
down in the SPA. Under this corporate restructuring,
Automobile Craiova and Mecatim will be merged with
DWAR. The core assets (i.e. industrial assets) of all three
companies will remain in the ownership of DWAR. The
remaining non-core assets (in particular real estate) will
into a new company (Newco). The net
be hived off
excess cash available to DWAR will also be transferred
to Newco. Further, AVAS has undertaken to use its best
efforts to acquire the remaining shares of
the new
DWAR (i.e. core assets) from the minority shareholders
and sell them to Ford.

(74) As regards current liabilities deriving from the normal
course of business, Romania argued that these will not
be taken over by AVAS but will be paid by DWAR.

(79)

The arguments put forward by Romania have allayed the
Commission’s doubts regarding the negotiation phase.

(75) As

the

the guarantee offered by AVAS against
regards
authorities
liabilities,
Romanian
contingent
explained that
the state guarantee applies only to
unknown claims related to DWAR's past activity, which
no new investor could have assessed and quantified with
due diligence. Further, Romania asserts that taking over
such liabilities is normal business practice under the
usual contractual negotiations.

(76)

In conclusion, the Commission's doubts as regards the
potential debt waiver expressed in the decision to initiate
the procedure have been allayed.

6.1.2. Selectivity

(80)

The measure is selective as it favours only Automobile
Craiova, including the car producer DWAR.

6.1.3. Distortion of competition and effect on trade between

Member States

(81) Automobile Craiova is a car and spare parts producer
these products being
and DWAR a car producer,
widely traded across the European Union. Thus,
the
measure threatens to distort competition and to affect
trade between Member States.

N e g o t i a t i o n p h a s e

6.1.4. Conclusion

(77) When initiating the procedure under Article 88(2) of the
EC Treaty, the Commission had doubts whether, during
the negotiation phase, AVAS changed the terms of the
tender to such an extent as to favour Ford's business
plan. Romania
to other
that
contractual terms which occurred during the negotiation
phase are current business practice and are allowed under

changes

shows

the

(17) See, for example, Case C-119/05 Italy v Lucchini.

(82)

the considerations

set out above,
the
In view of
Commission concludes
the conditions attached
that
entail State aid because they lead to a reduction in the
sales price for the 72,4 % stake in Automobile Craiova
and confer an advantage on the privatised economic
entity. The present decision applies only to this sale of
the 72,4 % stake by AVAS to Ford. It does not prejudge
any future assessment of a potential sale of the remaining
27,6 % of shares.

L 239/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2008

(83)

(84)

activity
that
The Commission notes
benefits from the advantage conferred and from State aid.

economic

the

6.2. Quantification of the aid

the company (i.e.

The amount of State aid granted is equal to the difference
the
between the market value of
highest possible price which AVAS would have
obtained for the 72,4 % participation in Automobile
Craiova if no conditions had been attached) and the
price actually received. This difference was borne by
the State.

(85) Naturally, it is difficult to estimate what price would have
transparent, non-discrimi­
been achieved in an open,
tender. The best possible
natory and unconditional
solution would be to annul
the tender
and reorganise the privatisation, with no conditions
being attached,
thus ensuring that no State aid is
granted. This solution was proposed to the Romanian
authorities but they did not accept it.

the result of

(86)

to assess

the aid element granted to the
In order
privatised economic activity resulting from the privati­
sation, the market value of the company needs to be
assessed. Following discussions with the Romanian auth­
orities and Ford, and in the light of the particular circum­
stances of the case, the Commission considers it appro­
priate in the case at hand to base the analysis of the
market value on the net asset value of the company sold.

the

the

real

company’s

assets minus

(87) When looking at the book value of the company at the
time of the tender, according to the balance sheet as of
the latest data available to the
31 March 2007 (i.e.
potential bidders for determining their bids), the total
value of
total debts
amounted to EUR – 465 million. This value does not
include
estate, which ultimately was not
in
purchased by Ford. In addition, as explained above,
the SPA both parties decided that the sale would be
followed by a corporate restructuring process. First,
Ford would not acquire valuable non-core assets, which
were to be carved out and to remain with AVAS. Second,
AVAS would also retain the net excess cash of RON 310
together with the
million (around EUR 92 million),
corresponding
(it was
company
estimated that the cash would be sufficient to pay the
the balance sheet of March 2007
liabilities). Lastly,
included the provisions for the potential repayment of
the customs claim (described in points (25) and (73)),
which significantly reduced the net asset value of the
following the court’s judgment
company;
this claim
disappeared and the provision could be released.

liabilities of

the

(88)

(89)

In addition to these elements, the Romanian authorities
submitted arguments in favour of certain adjustments in
the values in the balance sheet in order to adequately
reflect the actual value of the assets. In particular, the
value of land and buildings, machinery and equipment,
other
and inventories has been adjusted
accordingly in order to reflect their actual market value.

tangibles

If all those factors are taken into account,
i.e. the net
excess cash is deducted, if liabilities and the provisions
for the customs claim are disregarded and if, finally, the
above adjustments are applied, the resulting net asset
value of 100 % of DWAR would amount
to EUR
115 923 000, meaning that
the net asset value of
72,4 % of DWAR amounts to EUR 83 928 000.

(90)

The difference between the net asset value as determined
and the price actually paid by Ford (EUR 57 million)
amounts to EUR 26 928 000. In conclusion, the State
aid amounts to EUR 26 928 000 million.

6.3. Classification of the state measure as unlawful
aid

(91) According to Article 1(f) of Council Regulation No
659/1999 ‘unlawful aid’ means new aid put into effect
in contravention of Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty.

(92)

The Romanian authorities did not notify the measure
before its implementation and put it into effect in contra­
the measure
vention of Article 88(3). Consequently,
constitutes unlawful aid.

6.4. Compatibility of the unlawful aid

(93)

Since it has been established that
the state measure
constitutes aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of
the EC Treaty,
it is necessary to consider whether the
measure could be compatible with the common market.

(94)

The exemptions in Article 87(2) of the EC Treaty do not
apply in the present case because the aid measure neither
is granted to individual
has a social character nor
consumers. Moreover,
the measure does not make
good the damage caused by natural disasters or excep­
tional occurrences and is not granted to the economy of
certain areas of the Federal Republic of Germany affected
by its division.

(95)

(96)

6.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 239/23

The exemptions provided for in Article 87(3)(b) and (d)
of the EC Treaty do not apply either. They refer to aid to
promote the execution of an important project of
common European interest or
to remedy a serious
disturbance in the economy of a Member State and to
aid to promote culture and heritage conservation.

the presence which the company can enjoy on its market
or markets after the end of the restructuring period (i.e.
compensatory measures). As regards Automobile Craiova,
the conditions attached to the privatisation ensure a
thus, an increased
significant capacity increase and,
presence on the relevant market.

the

leaves

This
in
exemptions
Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of the EC Treaty and in the
relevant Community guidelines.

provided

for

Rescue and restructuring guidelines

(97)

The Commission does not possess any information
which would show that the aid can be considered to
be compatible with the EC Treaty on the basis of the
Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and
restructuring firms in difficulty (18).

(98) Under these guidelines, the company receiving restruc­
turing aid must be in difficulty,
i.e. unable, whether
through its own resources or with funds it is able to
to
obtain from its owner/shareholders or creditors,
stem losses which, without outside intervention by the
public authorities, will almost certainly condemn it to
going out of business in the short or medium term. It
is true that DWAR made losses of EUR 350 million in
2006 and had debts of EUR 88 million; however, the
company had assets valued at EUR 419 million (mainly
real estate). Moreover, following the privatisation and the
sale to Ford, DWAR would become part of a larger
the guidelines
business group within the meaning of
which most
to
overcome its difficulties.
In conclusion, DWAR does
not rank under the guidelines as a company in difficulty.

likely could financially support

it

(99)

In addition, the granting of restructuring aid is condi­
tional on the existence of a sound restructuring plan
the duration of which must be as short as possible and
which restores the long-term viability of the firm within
a reasonable timescale and on the basis of
realistic
to the future operating conditions.
assumptions as
Romania did not provide such a restructuring plan.

(100) Further, undue distortions of competition must be
avoided. This usually takes the form of a limitation on

(101) Despite the doubts raised by the Commission when
initiating the formal
investigation procedure, Romania
did not establish that these conditions had been met.
The Commission concludes therefore that the conditions
laid down in the guidelines have not been met.

Regional aid guidelines

(102) The Commission notes

that Automobile Craiova is
located in an assisted area under Article 87(3)(a) of the
EC Treaty that is eligible for regional aid. Nevertheless,
Romania did not provide any information to show that
the conditions for the granting of regional aid as laid
down in the guidelines on national regional aid were
met.

(103) The Commission notes that the conditions attached to
the privatisation agreement did indeed relate to the
planned investments and maintenance of employment,
which could be compared to the objectives of regional
aid. However, the point is made that the reduced price
achieved by
conditional on
compliance with the rules set out in the guidelines on
national regional aid, such as maintenance of the project
in the region for a certain period of time, verification of
eligible costs or rules concerning cumulation of aid,
transparency and monitoring.

Ford was not made

(104)

In addition, the Commission notes that Romania notified
the regional aid separately (19). This aid will be assessed in
a new decision on its own merits.

Other guidelines and frameworks

(105) Furthermore, the Commission notes that the aid is not
compatible under any other Community guidelines or
frameworks. In any event, the Romanian authorities did
not refer to any of these provisions.

(19) State aid N 767/07: Large Investment Project — Romania — Ford

(18) OJ C 244, 1.10.2004, p. 2.

Craiova.

L 239/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.9.2008

Conclusion

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

(106)

the

In vies of
Commission concludes
with the common market.

that

considerations

set out
the aid is

above,

the
incompatible

Article 1

7. RECOVERY

(107) Pursuant to Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No
659/1999, where negative decisions are taken in cases of
unlawful aid,
the
Member State
all necessary
concerned must
measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary.

the Commission must decide that

take

(108) Only

aid

can

incompatible

The
Commission has established that aid amounting to EUR
26 928 000 was unlawfully granted. This aid is not
compatible under any of the EC State aid provisions
and so needs to be recovered.

recovered.

be

(109) The Commission concludes that the beneficiary of the
the economic entity which has been
State aid is
privatised,
i.e. the core industrial assets held by Auto­
mobile Craiova and DWAR or any subsequent entity. It
the SPA,
notes that, according to the provisions of
this
following
economic entity will be the owner of only the core
industrial
assets, which have benefited from the
conditions attached to the privatisation, and not of the
non-core assets.

restructuring process,

corporate

the

(110)

as

the

suspension injunction issued by

In view of the specific suspension clauses in the SPA as
the
well
Commission, the SPA between AVAS and Ford has not
yet entered into force. Consequently, the Commission
concludes that the aid has not been put at the disposal
of the beneficiary and so no recovery interest needs to be
paid.

The State aid which Romania has implemented under the priva­
tisation process for Automobile Craiova, amounting to EUR
26 928 000, is incompatible with the common market.

Article 2

1.
Romania shall take all necessary measures to recover from
the beneficiary the aid referred to in Article 1 and unlawfully
made available to the beneficiary.

2.
The sums to be recovered shall include interest from the
date on which they were at the disposal of the beneficiary until
the date of their recovery.

3.
Interest shall be calculated on a compound basis in
accordance with Chapter V of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 794/2004 (20).

Recovery

shall be

and in
4.
accordance with the procedures of national law provided that
they allow the immediate and effective execution of
the
Decision.

effected without delay

Article 3

1.
Recovery of
immediate and effective.

the aid referred to in Article 1 shall be

Romania shall ensure that this Decision is implemented

2.
within four months following the date of its notification.

Article 4

1. Within two months of notification of
Romania
Commission:

this Decision,
following information to the

submit

shall

the

(111) The Commission notes that the net excess cash of Auto­
mobile Craiova and DWAR (as well as other non-core
assets) is not part of the transaction between AVAS and
Ford and is not therefore taken over by the latter. Thus,
when calculating the net asset value of the company for
the quantification of the aid, the Commission did not
In conclusion,
take into account this net excess cash.
following the present decision,
the aid will not be
this net excess cash. The Commission
repaid out of
the
to be kept
therefore,
corporate restructuring and in particular to be given
evidence on the level of the net excess cash at the date
of the SPA and at the date of the repayment, as well as
information on any differences arising between those two
dates,

informed about

requests

(a)

the total amount to be recovered from the beneficiary;

(b) a detailed description of the measures already taken and

planned to comply with this Decision;

(c) documents demonstrating that

the beneficiary has been

ordered to repay the aid;

(d) documents demonstrating that the aid has been repaid;

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

6.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 239/25

(e) documents demonstrating that the aid has not been repaid
out of the non-core industrial assets which are to be trans­
ferred to the newly created company owned by AVAS and
the minority shareholders (in particular, net excess cash and
real estate) as defined in the sale-purchase agreement;

and planned to comply with this Decision. It shall also provide
detailed information concerning the amounts of aid and
recovery interest already recovered from the beneficiary.

(f) a detailed description of

the
corporate restructuring process as defined in the sales-
purchase agreement.

implementation of

the

Article 5

This Decision is addressed to Romania.

Done at Brussels, 27 February 2008.

2.
Romania shall keep the Commission regularly informed of
the progress of the national measures taken to implement this
Decision until recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 has
been completed. It shall immediately submit, on simple request
by the Commission, information on the measures already taken

For the Commission

Neelie KROES
Member of the Commission

ANNEX

Information regarding the application of the Commission Decision in case C 46/07 (ex NN 59/07) on aid
implemented by Romania for Automobile Craiova

Information about the amounts of aid received, to be recovered and already recovered

Identity of the beneficiary

Total amount of aid
received (°)

Total amount of aid
to be recovered (°)
(Principal)

Total amount already repaid (°)

Principal

Recovery interest

(°) In of national currency (million)