Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

No C 168 / 2 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 12 . 6 . 96

STATE AID

C 6 / 96 ( ex N 853 / 95 )

Austria

( 96 / C 168 / 02 )

( Text with EEA relevance )

( Articles 92 to 94 of the Treaty establishing the European Community )

Commission notice pursuant to Article 93 ( 2 ) of the EC Treaty to other Member States and

interested parties concerning aid which Austria plans to grant to Hoffmann-La Roche

With the following letter, the Commission informed the
Austrian Government of its decision to initiate

proceedings :

' By letter dated 2 October 1995, the Austrian authorities
notified the Commission, as required by Article 93 ( 3 ),
of a plan to grant aid to Hoffmann-La Roche (').

This is the second time this plan has come before the
Commission . The Austrian authorities originally notified
it to the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 18 October
1994 . On 10 February 1995, after Austria had acceded to
the EU, the case was transferred to the Commission .

A meeting was held on 21 March 1995 at the Austrian
authorities ' request ; following that meeting, Commission
staff told the Austrian authorities that their recommen ­
dation would probably have to be that the Commission
initiate the procedure laid down in Article 93 ( 2 ) of the
EC Treaty in respect of the measure, on the ground that
it constituted investment aid in an area which did not
qualify for regional aid . The Austrian authorities
preferred to have the notification withdrawn, hoping to
submit a fuller notification at a later date . The request
for withdrawal of the notification reached the
Commission by telex dated 26 April 1995 ( 2 ). The
Commission then withdrew the case from the register of
notified aid measures .

However, the new notification repeatedly refers to
information in the old notification of 18 October 1994

and in the ensuing correspondence with the Surveillance
Authority and the Commission, so that in assessing the
new notification the Commission is bound to take

account of the information supplied earlier .

By letter dated 1 December 1995, the Commission asked
for further information ( } ). The answer reached the
Commission by letter of 29 December {*). The period of
two months in which the Commission must take a
decision on the measure expires on 3 March 1996 .

Hoffmann-La Roche ( Roche ) is a multinational
company operating in the pharmaceutical industry, with
its registered offices in Switzerland ; in 1986 it began
work on a new drug for the treatment of obesity, to be
known as Orlistat . In October and Novemer 1992 Roche
and Chemie Linz, a chemicals company controlled by
the Austrian State, concluded a contract under which
they agreed to cooperate on the implementation stage of
the project . A factory is to be built in Linz which is to
produce hydroxy-beta-lacton, a key substance in the
production of Orlistat . The contract is to be performed
in several stages from basic engineering work, which
began in August 1992, before the contract was signed, to
the construction of the plant and the launch of
production of the intermediate product, which is to
begin in 1998 and rund for a period of 10 years . The
intermediate product is to be exported to Switzerland,
where Orlistat will be manufactured .

The Austrian authorities state that the total cost of the
industrial project will be oS 7 125 million . This can be
broken down into the following categories of expen ­
diture :

— ôS 2 770 million in productive and environmental
investment .

— oS 2 160 million in R&D already carried out since

1986, mainly between 1989 and 1994 ;

— oS 2 194 million in R&D still to be carried out after

mid  - 1994, when the aid was promised .

(') Registered at the Commission on 6 . 10 . 1995 under the
No DG IV-A / 37394 . ( 3 ) Letter No DG IV-D / 25730 .

( 2 ) Registered at the Commission on 28 . 4 . 1995 under the ( 4 ) Registered at the Commission on 3 . 1 . 1996 under the
No DG IV-A / 33418 . No DG IV-A / 30017 .

12 . 6 . 96 I EN I Official Journal of the European Communities No C 168 / 3

The Austrian authorities state that the factory will incor ­ The contract between Roche and Chemie Linz clearly
porate the latest technological developments in the states that any benefit or subsidy which the Austrian
chemical industry in respect of both production processes authorities, federal or local, may grant to Chemie Linz
and the protection of the environment . They estimate in connection with the project must be paid over to
that about 25 % of the investment relates to safety and Roche .
protection of the environment and that the levels of
protection achieved will be far above that required by
Austrian law . (...)

(...)

According to the Austrian authorities, the R&D effort
includes the cost of clinical testing at the various stages
of experimentation ' and the cost of approvals . The notifi ­ (...)
cation also states that there are technological devel ­
opment costs for both the product and the process . Two

The arrangements for the establishment of the factory
are complex . It is to be located in an industrial estate in
Linz specializing in the chemical industry, known as
" Chemiepark Linz ". The estate is managed by Chemie
Linz . The construction and management of Roche's
plant is to be the responsibility of Chemie Linz, though
all the construction costs are to be borne by Roche,
which will own the plant . Roche is entitled to transfer

the management or the ownership or both to an under ­
taking of its choice, which may be Chemie Linz .

The entire output of hydroxy-beta-lacton, which is
expected to reach 100 t a year, will be bought by Roche
Switzerland, and thus exported outside the EEA, on
terms favourable to Chemie Linz . Under the contract
signed by the two parties, Roche is to cover all the costs
borne by Chemie Linz ( raw materials, production costs,
working capital, administrative costs and taxes ) and is to
pay a price surcharge (. . .).

The contract also specifies various incentives payable in
the event that Chemie Linz should achieve increases in

output or reductions in costs .

Of the Orlistat produced by Roche Switzerland, 85 %
will be sold outside the EEA, mainly in the United

States . According to the Austrian authorities, the project
will not compete with other treatments for obesity
currently on the market because it represents a new
long-term approach to treatment and will thus create a
new market .

At the production stage there will be 150 highly qualified
people employed directly . Another 140 will be employed
in maintenance and administration . The staff will have to
be trained, and the cost of traning will be borne by
Roche . But the notification indicates that Chemie Linz is

to receive a grant of oS 5 million towards occupational
retraining . This grant does not form part of the aid
notified, because the Austrian authorities take the view
that it is being provided under a general measure .

Two aid measures are planned in support of the project :
oS 300 million is to be given towards R&D, and oS 78
million towards environmental protection . The aid is, in
principle, to be provided by all three levels of
government, federal, regional and local, which would
respectively 66 %, 20 % and 14 % of the total cost ( 5 ).
The authorities calculate that the intensity of the aid
would be 5,3 %, given that the total cost of the project

( investment and R&D ) would be oS 7 124,9 million .

The arguments which are considered to justify the
granting of aid are as follows :

— since the beginning of the implementation phase in

1992, the R&D costs have risen constantly . Aid is
needed to ensure that the project continues,

— the final research results will allow health service
costs to be reduced as a result of spin-off thera ­
peutical innovations,

— the investment in environmental protection would

improve the protection offered to a level far above
that required by Austrian legislation,

— the presence of Roche at Chemiepark Linz will have

positive implications for the firms on the estate and
those wishing to locate there,

— the project will improve the competitiveness of the

European pharmaceutical industry .

( a ) Aid to R&cD

As we have seen, the Austrian authorities propose to
grant oS 300 million towards this programme .

The cost of R&D from the initial stages down to the
marketing of Orlistat in 1999 amounts to oS 4 122,6
million . The Austrian authorities state that this figure
includes :

( 5 ) This breakdown was given in the first notification and was

not contradicted in the second .

No C 168 / 4 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 12 . 6 . 96

— the cost of R&D work on the new active
substance, the " galenical " preparation and the
clinical tests,

— the cost of R&D work on the chemical synthesis

of the active principle .

In their reply of 29 December 1995, the Austrian

authorities stated that the research fell into the
category of " applied research and development " as
defined in point 4 of Annex I to the Community
framework for State aids for research and devel ­

opment ( 6 ). The Commission requested a detailed
and precise description of the stages of the research
and the exact cost at each stage, but no sufficiently
detailed account has been supplied .

The Austrian authorities have stated that the project
comprises elements of fundamental research, devel ­
opment of the molecule, development of the
galenical preparation, clinical testing, registration
and clinical refinement .

In the reply of 29 December 1995, the Austrian
authorities stated that they had been unable to
distinguish between the classes of expenditure
referred to in the third and fifth indents in Annex II

to the R&D framework ( 7 ) but assured the
Commission that only R&D expenditure directly
related to the Orlistat project had been allowed for .
The costs of legal advice had, however, been
included among the eligible costs of the Orlistat
project in so far as the legal advice actually related
to the research project .

Of the total figure about half, or öS 2 160 million,
was spent between 1986 and 1994, the year in which
the autorities promised the aid . This can be broken
down as follows :

It would appear from the documents in the case that
the cost of the Orlistat project has risen by öS 2 160
million between the promise of aid in the middle of

1994 and the notification in September 1995, by
which time it had reached öS 4 354,9 million . The
authorities have explained this increase by saying
that the data on the nature and amount of this R&D
spending have simply been completed and adjusted,
without any change to the initial project .

The authorities state that the intellectual property
rights in R&D results are the property of Roche and
are at the disposal of all enterprises in the Roche
group including Roche Switzerland .

( b ) Aid for environmental protection

The Austrian authorities plan to grant öS 78 million
in environmental aid . Out of the total investment of

öS 2 770 million, about 25 % is for measures to
protect the environment . Out of that figure, öS 376
million is the extra cost to Roche of achieving a level
of protection above what is required by the relevant
Austrian legislation .

The extra measures which Roche proposes to take
number 15 ; they can be grouped into the following
classes :

— measures to reduce, the risk of ecological accident

(. . .): extra cost of öS 142 million,

— measures to avoid water pollution (. . .): extra
cost of öS 37 million,

— measures to protect the atmosphere (. . .): extra

— öS (. . .) between 1986 and 1988, cost of öS 197 million .

— öS (. . .) between 1989 and mid-1994,

— öS (. . .) since 1992, in connection with the devel ­

opment of the manufacturing process in coop ­
eration with Chemie Linz .

Between the second half of 1994 and 1999 another
öS (. . .) will be needed for R&D on the Orlistat
project . Between 2000 and 2003 öS (. . .) will be
needed for additional studies and analyses .

A total of öS 4 354,9 million will ultimately have
been spent on R&D, including work carried out by
Roche in plants outside Austria .

The Commission would observe at the outset that

between the first notification and the second the amount
of aid has remained the same but that the legal basis has
changed : the first notification was concerned with
investment aid, which was to be granted in an area
ineligible for regional assistance, whereas the second
speaks of aid towards R&D and environmental
protection . This would seem to suggest that the purpose
of the aid remains the same : it has merely been
" repackaged ". The conclusion appears to be borne out
by the fact that the eligible costs used in calculating the
aid, although they are not detailed in the second notifi ­
cation, result in an aid figure which is the same as that in
the first notification .

The Commission attaches great importance to the devel ­
( 6 ) OJ NO C 83, 11 . 4 . 1986 . opment of the pharmaceutical industry, however, and
( 7 ) See footnote ( 6 ). has in fact sent the Council and Parliament a Communi

12 . 6 . 96 I EN I Official Journal of the European Communities No C 168 / 5

cation on the outlines of and industrial policy for the
pharmaceutical industry in the European Community (').

The Commission must accordingly seek to ensure that
measures taken by the Member States in this industry
comply with the EC Treaty, and in particular Articles 92
to 94 . It must therefore consider whether the aid of ôS
378 million which is to be given to Roche is compatible
with the EC Treaty and the EEA Agreement .

At least three separate aid components can be identified
here :

I. aid to Roche for R&D,

II . aid to Roche for environmental protection,

III . aid to Chemie Linz for training and retraining .

The first two also have indirect repercussions for Chemie

Linz . These are considered at IV, which deals with the
advantages to Chemie Linz of the existence of a Roche
plant in Linz .

I. The Austrian authorities are of the opinion that the

R&D aid complies with the Community framework
for State aids for research and development (').

The present Community rules on aid of this kind are
set out in the Community framework for State aids
for research and development which was approved
by the Commission on 20 December 1995 and
communicated to the Member States on 19 January

1996 ( 10 ). It is in the light of this new framework,
therefore, that the Commission has to assess the aid
and it takes the view that the description of the
R&D activity which has been supplied is still not
sufficiently detailed to allow the stages of R&D and
the eligible costs to be identified and a proper
assessment carried out . By way of example, the
Austrian authorities mention that what is involved is
" applied research and development " ("), while as
stages of R&D they indicate aspects of fundamental
research . Their reply also states that registration and
clinical refinement and the cost of legal advice
constitute eligible costs, even though no direct link
with the R&D activity has been shown, so that this
expenditure does not fall within Annex II to the
framework .

(») COM(93 ) 718 final, 2 . 3 . 1994 .
(') OJ No C 83, 11 . 4 . 1986 .
( 10 ) Réf . SG(96 ) D / 1497 .
(") This corresponds to the concept of precompetitive devel ­

The investment would appear to consist of devel ­
opment rather than research, being very close to the
market place, so that the potential distorting effect
of the aid is greater .

The Austrian authorities have argued that Orlistat
will not be in competition with other treatments for
obesity because the approach taken is a new one, so
that a new market will be created which will not
encroach upon others ; but this argument does not
appear convincing, as Orlistat is to be an alternative
to traditional treatments, and from the range of
treatments available the consumer will select the one

which suits him best . Moreover, the mechanisms
which lead to obesity are now better understood so
that most pharmaceutical companies, including the
European companies, have undertaken major
investments in order to position themselves on this
market .

If we compare the amount of aid to the costs of
research already completed or still to be carried out,
we arrive at an aid intensity of 7 % gross ; if we
compare the aid to the costs of research still to be
carried out at the time the aid was promised, the aid
intensity rises to 13,7 % gross . These figures are not
very significant, however, as no data are available
regarding the eligible costs .

Section 6 of the R&D framework (") explicitly
provides that " State aid for R&D should serve as an
incentive for companies to undertake additional
R&D activities, in addition to the normal operations
which firms carry out in any case ". Thus the aid
must have an incentive effect : as a result of the aid,
the enterprise must carry out more research than it
otherwise would have done .

In the present case it seems doubtful that there is
any incentive effect, as the product will apparently
be developed in any event, whether or not the aid is
granted . In fact, the implementation stage began in

1992 at a time when no aid was planned .

The only argument which has been put forward here
to show that there is such an incentive effect is the
claim that in the absence of aid the project might be
halted . The incentive effect is said to be incon ­
testable because only the granting of aid will
guarantee that the project continues .

opment activity in the new framework . ( I2 ) See footnote ( 10 ).

No C 168 / 6 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 12 . 6 . 96

It does not seem to have been shown that the towards the development of a new engine ; the
research investment at any rate would have any Commission approved the aid because, although part
incentive effect . The Austrian authorities have stated of the work was to be carried out in Germany, it
that R&D expenditure on the project is more than was to be paid for by Opel Austria . The intellectual
60 % higher than the spending which, according to property rights in the engine were to be transferred
the Commission, in the Communication referred to to Opel Austria, which was to be the sole owner of
earlier, is generally needed for the development of a those rights and was to receive royalties if the engine
new product ( COM(93 ) 718 final, 2 . 3 . 1994 ). The was manufactured at other General Motors plants .
efforts undertaken by the firm, it is argued, are
substantially greater than those normally associated
with the development of a pharmaceutical product .
In the present case it would appear that Roche
Austria is to be the recipient of the aid ( 14 ) although
it was Roche Switzerland that signed the coop ­
eration contract . The Commission must

Two points need to be made here : first, the
Communication does not authorize any exemption consequently contribute to verify the development to what of extent the single the aid market may .

towards the development of a new engine ; the
Commission approved the aid because, although part
of the work was to be carried out in Germany, it
was to be paid for by Opel Austria . The intellectual
property rights in the engine were to be transferred
to Opel Austria, which was to be the sole owner of
those rights and was to receive royalties if the engine
was manufactured at other General Motors plants .

Two points need to be made here : first, the
Communication does not authorize any exemption consequently contribute to verify the development to what of extent the single the aid market may .
from the Treaty, and notably Articles 92 and 93 ;
second, there is still no proof of any incentive effect .
The existence of such an effect will have to be
demonstrated . Lastly, the Austrian authorities have argued that the
realization of high-technology products in Austria
may result in a fall in the costs of the public health
system, which would be in the public interest .

The need for the aid has not been demonstrated
either . If the final product matches the description of
it supplied by the authorities, the investment should
be a great success commercially, given the size of
the potential market . The project does not seem to
be in need of the special support which might be
justified in the case of medicines intended for the
treatment of rare illnesses, where the small quantities
sold would not necessarily enable the manufacturer
to recover his research and production costs .

The Austrian authorities point out that only a small
proportion of the pharmaceutical products tested
clinically are in fact marketed, so that the economic
risks are substantial ; but while it may be true that
the commercial success of the product will depend at
least in part on the future policy of the Community
and the Member States in respect of approval and
health cover for pharmaceutical products, that is
hardly a sufficient argument, given that more than
80 % of output is to be sold in the United States .
Any industrial project involves economic risks . And,
under the new framework for aid to R&D, the risk
associated with an R&D project is no grounds for a
higher rate of aid .

It would also appear that a substantial proportion of
the research has already been carried out outside
Austria . The Commission has had occasion to take a
position on a case where part of an investment in
R&D was to take place outside the Member State
that wished to subsidize the research . That case, the
Opel Austria case ("), was concerned with aid

( u ) State aid measure N 135 / 95 .

II . The Austrian authorities argue that the aid to be

granted towards environmental protection satisfies
the tests laid down by the Commission in its
Community guidelines on State aid for environ ­
mental protection ( 1S ).

The aid which the authorities propose to grant
amounts to oS 78 million . This has to be seen in

relation to the extra environmental costs of oS 376

million which Roche is to bear in order to raise the
level of environmental protection above that
required by the Austrian legislation . This gives an
intensity of 20,75 % gross for the whole package of

measures .

As with the aid to R&D, the Commission takes the
view that it cannot make a proper assessment on the
basis of the information available .

It considers that, where new investment is
concerned, it is only natural to use the most modern
technology available in the industry, even where
there are no national standards to require it . The
authorities stated that that was indeed the case when

they submitted the first notification . In the
Commission's view, this is not a justification for
State aid since it is in the firm's own interest to use
the best equipment .

( u ) Information provided in the first notification of the plan .
( 1S ) OJ No C 72, 10 . 3 . 1994 .

12 . 6 . 96 I EN I Official Journal of the European Communities No C 168 / 7

In the present notification it would appear that, in
order to evaluate the standard level of environmental
protection asked of firms in the industry, as a
yardstick against which the improvements proposed
by Roche can be measured, the authorities have
referred to what exists in plants already in operation
rather than to new investments . This enables them to
say that Roche will be able to do better .

When it assesses new investments with environ ­
mental aspects, the Commission has to take a strict
approach in order to prevent firms from receiving
aid towards supposed environmental expenditure
that serves to finance investments which they would
have carried out in any event or which enable them
to secure economic advantages of other kinds . New
plants will inevitably be built to the highest level of
safety available on the market . It is consequently
difficult to accept that State aid should be granted to
help the firm to reach that level .

In the light of these considerations, the Commission
would ask the Austrian authorities to provide details

of the following, for each of the 13 measures listed
in the notification for which aid is to be granted :

— the proportionality of the aid in relation to the

investment and to the improvement in environ ­
mental protection,

— the justification of the fact that, in almost all of

the 13 measures for which aid is to be granted,
out of the total 15 notified, the aid intensity is
the maximum allowed by the guidelines on State
aid for environmental protection,

— detailed information on the nature of the eligible

costs .

The Commission considers that aid towards
measures to improve the protection of workers or
health or to improve the firm's efficiency or reduce
its costs cannot be declared compatible with the
common market, as those measures would have had
to be taken in any event .

III . Chemie Linz is to receive aid towards the retraining

of its employees so that they can be integrated into
the Orlistat project . It is true that the amount
involved is fairly small, at oS 5 million . In their most
recent letter the Austrian authorities asserted that
this was a general measure ; the Commission needs
full information on the relevant legislative and regu ­
latory provisions in order to confirm that this type
of grant is available to all firms on an objective
basis, rather than on a discretionary basis subject to
certain criteria .

IV . If the Commission were to find that these aid
measures were not compatible with the Treaty under

the rules on aid for the environment or for research,
the alternative question would then have to be asked
whether, considered as aid to Chemie Linz, they
might not qualify nevertheless . Chemie Linz is to
carry out part of the R&D, the building of the
factory, and the management of production for a
planned 10 years .

All the costs associated with these activities are to be

borne by Roche, and Roche is to remunerate
Chemie Linz by means of a price surcharge, so that
the activity will be profitable to Chemie Linz, which
will not have to bear any economic risk .

It is true that Chemie Linz is in the position of a
subcontractor, but this agreement constitutes an
advantage because (...) Chemie Linz is (...) experi ­
encing might otherwise cause it to close several of
the plants on the Chemiepark Linz estate . The terms
of the first notification, to which the Austrian auth ­
orities regularly refer the Commission in order to
explain particular points in the second notification,
are explicit on this point . The aid to Roche is there
stated to be justified by the need for a reorgan ­
ization of the Chemiepark Linz estate following the
opening of the domestic market to imports from
Eastern Europe and the loss of traditional markets
in Eastern Europe as a result of differences in legal
standards for environmental protection, subsidized
energy prices, and much lower labour costs .

The project, it is argued, is one of a number of
measures taken by Chemie Linz, not in order to
maintain surplus capacity, but in order to attract
innovative (...) firms which will invest in new plant
on the Chemiepark Linz estate so as to offset the
adverse consequences of the restructuring of Linz as
a centre of the chemical industry .

To conclude, these aids supporting high-technology
innovation contribute to the restructuring and
ultimately the privatization of the chemical instal ­
lation, and furthermore ensure that large amounts of
resources will be received from third countries .

Maintaining a substantial activity in chemicals and
pharmaceuticals should allow Chemie Linz to
release the financial resources necessary to
undertake its own restructuring . Thus Chemie Linz
will receive a benefit artificially induced by the
subsidized arrival of the multinational . (. . .).

It is clear that Chemie Linz is receiving no direct
aid, with the exception of the aid for retraining, but
it seems that it will in fact be benefiting indirectly
from the aid to Roche . The benefit to Chemie Linz

is easy to measure because the sums which Roche is
to pay to it are set by the contract between them .
Ignoring the indexation of the price surcharge and

No C 168 / 8 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 12 . 6 . 96

the premiums for productivity improvements, which
by definition cannot be evaluated at this stage,
Roche would have to pay Chemie Linz (. . .) oS (. . .)
between 1996 and 2007 ; the upshot is that, by
financing the arrival of Roche in Linz, the Austrian
authorities are inducing a financial flow to Chemie
Linz, (. . .). One might perhaps imagine, therefore,
that this was the main reason for the granting of aid
to the Swiss multinational .

In conclusion, it would seem from all the facts outlined
above that the planned aid to Roche is in reality aid for
investment in an area which does not qualify for regional
aid, and is aimed at improving the position of Chemie
Linz without aiding it directly .

There are clearly aspects of the project which may be of
value from the point of view of the environment and of

research, and some of the environmental measures and
some of the R&D investment are probably eligible for
aid under the Community guidelines governing aid of
those kinds, but the Austrian authorities have so far
failed to provide irrefutable evidence that this is so .

The Commission consequently takes the view that the
aid which the Austrian authorities propose to grant to
Roche and the retraining aid which they have granted to
Chemie Linz constitute State aid under Article 92 ( 1 ) of
the EC Treaty and Article 61 ( 1 ) of the EEA Agreement
and that, on the basis of the information available at
present, they do not appear to qualify for any of the
exemptions provided for in Article 92 ( 3 ) of the EC
Treaty or Article 61 ( 3 ) of the EEA Agreement .

It hereby gives your authorities notice, as part of that
procedure, to submit their comments, and any
information they consider necessary for a proper
assessment of the aid, within one month of receiving this
letter . This letter will be published in the Official Journal

of the European Communities so that if the Austrian auth ­

orities believe that any of the information in it is confi ­
dential they are asked to inform the Commission
accordingly within 15 working days of the date of this
letter .

The Commission would remind you of the suspensory
effect of Article 93 ( 3 ) of the EC Treaty and would draw
your attention to the communication it published in the

Official Journal of the European Communities No 318 of
24 November 1983, page 3, and to the letters it sent to
all Member States on 4 March 1991 and 22 February

1995, in which it reminded them that any aid granted
unlawfully might have to be recovered from the recipient
firms .

It also requests your Government to inform the recipient
firms without delay that these proceedings have been
initiated and that they may have to repay any aid
improperly received .

If the Commission were to decide that the aid was not
compatible with the common market, it would in
principle have to be recovered from the recipients in
accordance with the substantive and procedural
requirements of Austrian law, with interest at the
reference rate for the calculation of regional aid running
from the date on which the aid was disbursed .'

The Commission hereby invites other Member States and
interested parties to submit their comments on the
measures in question within one month of the date of
publication of this Communicaton to :

European Commission,
Rue de la Loi / Wetstraat 200,
B - 1 049 Brussels .

The comments will be communicated to the Austrian

Government .