18.8.2006

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/2

COMMUNITY GUIDELINES ON STATE AID TO PROMOTE RISK CAPITAL INVESTMENTS IN SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES

(2006/C 194/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1	INTRODUCTION

1.1	Risk capital as a Community objective

1.2	Experience in the field of State aid to risk capital

1.3	The balancing test for State aid supporting risk capital investments

1.3.1

The State Aid Action Plan and the balancing test

1.3.2

Market failures

1.3.3

Appropriateness of the instrument

1.3.4

Incentive effect and necessity

1.3.5

Proportionality of aid

1.3.6

Negative effects and overall balance

1.4	Approach for State aid control in the area of risk capital

2	SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS

2.1

Scope

2.2	Definitions

3	APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 87(1) IN THE FIELD OF RISK CAPITAL

3.1	General applicable texts

3.2	Presence of aid at three levels

3.3	De minimis amounts

4	ASSESSMENT OF THE COMPATIBILITY OF RISK CAPITAL AID UNDER ARTICLE 87(3) (C) OF THE EC TREATY

4.1	General principles

4.2	Form of aid

4.3	Conditions for compatibility

4.3.1

Maximum level of investment tranches

4.3.2

Restriction to seed, start-up and expansion financing

4.3.3

Prevalence of equity and quasi-equity investment instruments

4.3.4

Participation by private investors

4.3.5

Profit-driven character of investment decisions

4.3.6

Commercial management

4.3.7

Sectoral focus

5	COMPATIBILITY OF RISK CAPITAL AID MEASURES SUBJECT TO A DETAILED ASSESSMENT

5.1	Aid measures subject to a detailed assessment

5.2	Positive effects of the aid

5.2.1

Existence and evidence of market failure

5.2.2

Appropriateness of the instrument

5.2.3

Incentive effect and necessity of aid

5.2.3.1

Commercial management

5.2.3.2

Presence of an investment committee

5.2.3.3

Size of the measure/fund

5.2.3.4

Presence of business angels

5.2.4

Proportionality

5.3	Negative effects of the aid

5.3.1

Crowding-out

5.3.2

Other distortions of competition

5.4	Balancing and decision

6	CUMULATION

7	FINAL PROVISIONS

7.1	Monitoring and reporting

7.2	Entry into force and validity

7.3	Appropriate Measures

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Risk capital as a Community objective

Risk capital relates to the equity financing of companies with perceived high-growth potential during their early growth stages. The demand for risk capital typically comes from companies with growth potential that do not have sufficient access to capital markets, while the offer of risk capital comes from investors ready to take high risk in exchange of potentially above average returns from the equity invested.

In its Communication to the Spring European Council, Working together for growth and jobs — A new start for the Lisbon strategy (1), the Commission has recognised the insufficient level of risk capital available for start-up, innovative young businesses. The Commission has taken initiatives, like the Joint European Resources for Micro- to Medium Enterprises (JEREMIE) which is a joint initiative of the Commission and the European Investment Fund to tackle the lack of risk capital for small and medium-sized enterprises in some regions. Building on the experience gained with the financial instruments under the multiannual programme for enterprise and entrepreneurship, and in particular for small and medium-sized enterprises (MAP) adopted by Council Decision 2000/819/EC (2) the Commission has proposed a High Growth and Innovative SME Facility (GIF) under the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP), which is currently being adopted and will cover the period 2007-2013 (3). The Facility will increase the supply of equity to innovative SMEs by investing on market terms into venture capital funds focused on SMEs in their early stages and in the expansion phase.

The Commission addressed the issue of risk capital financing in its Communication on ‘Financing SME Growth- Adding European Value’ adopted on 29 June 2006 (4). The Commission has also stressed the importance of reducing and redirecting State aids to address market failures in order to increase economic efficiency and to stimulate research, development and innovation. In this context, the Commission has undertaken to reform the State aid rules, inter alia, with the aim of facilitating access to finance and risk capital.

In fulfilment of its commitment, the Commission published the ‘State Aid Action Plan — Less and better targeted State aid: A roadmap for State aid reform 2005-2009 (“the State Aid Action Plan”) (5)’ in June 2005. The State Aid Action Plan has highlighted the importance of improving the business climate and facilitating the rapid start-up of new enterprises. In this context, the State Aid Action Plan announced the review of the Communication on State aid and risk capital (6) to tackle the market failures affecting the provision of risk capital to start-ups and young, innovative small and medium-sized enterprises (‘SMEs’), in particular by increasing the flexibility of the rules contained in the Communication on State aid and risk capital.

While it is the primary role of the market to provide sufficient risk capital in the Community, there is an ‘equity gap’ in the risk capital market, a persistent capital market imperfection preventing supply from meeting demand at a price acceptable to both sides, which negatively affects European SMEs. The gap concerns mainly high-tech innovative and mostly young firms with high growth potential. However, a wider range of firms of different ages and in different sectors with smaller growth potential that cannot find financing for their expansion projects without external risk capital may also be affected.

The existence of the equity gap may justify the granting of State aid in certain limited circumstances. If properly targeted, State aid in support of risk capital provision can be an effective means to alleviate the identified market failures in this field and to leverage private capital.

These guidelines replace the Communication on State aid and risk capital by setting out the conditions under which State aid supporting risk capital investments may be considered compatible with the common market. The guidelines explain the conditions under which State aid is present in accordance with Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty and the criteria that the Commission will apply in the compatibility assessment of the risk capital measures in accordance with Article 87(3) of the EC Treaty.

1.2 Experience in the field of State aid to risk capital

These guidelines have been prepared in the light of the experience gained in the application of the Communication on State aid and risk capital. Comments from public consultations of Member States and stakeholders on the revision of the Communication on State aid and risk capital, on the State aid Action Plan and on the Communication on State aid to innovation (7) have also been taken into account.

The experience of the Commission and the comments received in the consultations have shown that the Communication on State aid and risk capital has generally worked well in practice, but also revealed a need to increase the flexibility in the application of the rules and to adjust the rules to reflect the changed situation of the risk capital market. In addition, experience has shown that for some types of risk capital investments in some areas it was not always possible to fulfil the conditions set out in the Communication on State aid and risk capital, and, as a result, risk capital could not be adequately supported with State aid in these cases. Furthermore, experience has also shown a low overall profitability of the aided risk capital funds.

To remedy these problems, these guidelines adopt a more flexible approach in certain circumstances so as to allow Member States to better target their risk capital measures to the relevant market failure. These guidelines also set out a refined economic approach for the assessment of the compatibility of risk capital measures with the EC Treaty. Under the Communication on State aid and risk capital the assessment of the compatibility of schemes was already based on a relatively sophisticated economic analysis focussing on the size of the market failure and the targeting of the measure. Hence, the Communication on State aid and risk capital already reflected the key focus of a refined economic approach. However, some fine-tuning was still needed in respect of some of the criteria to ensure that the measure better target the relevant market failure. In particular, the guidelines contain elements to ensure that profit-driven and professional investment decisions are strengthened in order to further encourage private investors to co-invest with the State. Finally, an effort has been made to provide clarity where the experience with the Communication on State aid and risk capital has shown that this was needed.

1.3 The balancing test for State aid supporting risk capital investments

1.3.1 The State Aid Action Plan and the balancing test

In the State Aid Action Plan the Commission underlined the importance of strengthening the economic approach to State aid analysis. This translates into a balancing the potential positive effects of the measure in reaching an objective of common interest against its potential negative effects in terms of distortion of competition and trade. The balancing test, as outlined in the State Aid Action Plan, is composed of three steps, the first two relating to the positive effects and the last one to the negative effects and the resulting balance:

(1)	Is the aid measure aimed at a well-defined objective of common interest, such as growth, employment, cohesion and environment?

(2)

Is the aid well designed to deliver the objective of common interest, that is does the proposed aid address the market failure or other objective?

(i)	Is State aid an appropriate policy instrument?

(ii)	Is there an incentive effect, i.e. does the aid change the behaviour of firms and/or investors?

(iii)

Is the aid measure proportional, i.e. could the same change in behaviour be obtained with less aid?

(3)	Are the distortions of competition and effect on trade limited, so that the overall balance is positive?

The balancing test is equally relevant for the design of State aid rules and for the assessment of cases falling within their scope.

1.3.2 Market failures

On the basis of the experience gained in applying the Communication on State aid and risk capital, the Commission considers that there is no general risk capital market failure in the Community. It does, however, accept that there are market gaps for some types of investments at certain stages of enterprises' development. These gaps result from an imperfect matching of supply and demand of risk capital and can generally be described as an equity gap.

The provision of equity finance, in particular to smaller businesses, presents numerous challenges both to the investor and to the enterprise invested in. On the supply side, the investor needs to make a careful analysis not merely of any collateral being offered (as is the case of a lender) but of the entire business strategy in order to estimate the possibilities of making a profit on the investment and the risks associated with it. The investor also needs to be able to monitor that the business strategy is well implemented by the enterprise's managers. The investor finally needs to plan and execute an exit strategy, in order to generate a risk-adjusted return on investment from selling its equity stake in the company in which the investment is made.

On the demand side, the enterprise must understand the benefits and risks associated with external equity investment to pursue the venture and to prepare sound business plans to secure the necessary resources and mentoring. Owing to a lack of internal capital or the collateral needed to obtain debt funding and/or a solid credit history, the enterprise may face very tight funding constraints. In addition, the enterprise must share control with an outside investor, who usually has an influence over company decisions in addition to a portion of the equity.

As a result, the matching of supply and demand of risk capital may be inefficient so that the level of risk capital provided in the market is too restricted, and enterprises do not obtain funding despite having a valuable business model and growth prospects. The Commission considers that the main source of market failure relevant to risk capital markets, which particularly affects access to capital by SMEs and companies at the early stages of their development and which may justify public intervention, relates to imperfect or asymmetric information.

Imperfect or asymmetric information may result notably in:

(a)

Transaction and agency costs: potential investors face more difficulties in gathering reliable information on the business prospects of an SME or a new company and subsequently in monitoring and supporting the enterprise's development. This is in particular the case for highly innovative projects or risky projects. Furthermore, small deals are less attractive to investment funds due to relatively high costs for investment appraisal and other transaction costs.

(b)	Risk aversion: investors may become more reluctant to provide risk capital to SMEs, the more the provision of risk capital is subject to imperfect of asymmetric information. In other words, imperfect or asymmetric information tends to exacerbate risk aversion.

1.3.3 Appropriateness of the instrument

The Commission considers that State aid to risk capital measures may constitute an appropriate instrument within the limits and conditions set out in these guidelines. However, it must be borne in mind that risk capital provision is essentially a commercial activity involving commercial decisions. In this context, more general structural measures not constituting State aid may also contribute to an increase in the provision of risk capital, such as promoting a culture of entrepreneurship, introducing a more neutral taxation of the different forms of SME financing (for example new equity, retained earnings and debt), fostering market integration, and easing regulatory constraints, including limitations on investments by certain types of financial institutions (for example, pension funds) and administrative procedures for setting up companies.

1.3.4 Incentive effect and necessity

State aid for risk capital must result in a net increase in the availability of risk capital to SMEs, in particular by leveraging investments by private investors. The risk of ‘dead weight’, or lack of incentive effect, means that some enterprises funded through publicly supported measures would have obtained finance on the same terms even in the absence of State aid (crowding out). There is evidence of this happening, although such evidence is inevitably anecdotal. In those circumstances public resources are ineffective.

The Commission considers that aid in the form of risk capital satisfying the conditions laid down in these guidelines ensures the presence of an incentive effect. The need to provide incentives depends on the size of the market failure related to the different types of measures and beneficiaries. Therefore different criteria are expressed in terms of size of investment tranches per target enterprise, degree of involvement of private investors, and consideration of notably the size of the company and the business stage financed.

1.3.5 Proportionality of aid

The need to provide incentives depends on the size of the market failure related to the different types of measures, beneficiaries and development stage of the SMEs. A risk capital measure is well designed if the aid is necessary in all its elements to create the incentives to provide equity to SMEs in their seed, start-up and early stages. State aid will be inefficient if it goes beyond what is needed to induce more risk capital provision. In particular, to ensure that aid is limited to the minimum, it is crucial that there is significant private participation and that the investments are profit-driven and are managed on a commercial basis.

1.3.6 Negative effects and overall balance

The EC Treaty requires the Commission to control State aid within the Community. This is why the Commission has to be vigilant in order to ensure that measures are well targeted and to avoid severe distortions of competition. When deciding whether the grant of public funds for measures designed to promote risk capital is compatible with the common market, the Commission will seek to limit as far as possible the following categories of risk:

(a)

the risk of ‘crowding out’. The presence of publicly supported measures may discourage other potential investors from providing capital. This could, over the longer term, further discourage private investment in young SMEs and thus end up widening the equity gap, while at the same time creating the need for additional public funding;

(b)	the risk that advantages to the investors and/or investment funds create an undue distortion of competition in the venture capital market relative to their competitors that do not receive the same advantages;

(c)

the risk that an oversupply of public risk capital for target enterprises not invested according to a commercial logic could help inefficient firms stay afloat and could cause an artificial inflation of their valuations, making it all the less attractive for private investors to supply risk capital to these firms.

1.4 Approach for State aid control in the area of risk capital

Provision of risk capital funding to enterprises cannot be linked to the traditional concept of ‘eligible costs’ used for State aid control, which relies on certain specified costs for which aid is allowed and the setting of maximum aid intensities. The diversity of possible models for risk capital measures devised by Member States also means that the Commission is not in a position to define rigid criteria by which to determine whether such measures are compatible with the common market. The assessment of risk capital therefore implies a departure from the traditional way in which State aid control is carried out.

However, since the Communication on State aid and risk capital has proved to work well in practice in the area of risk capital, the Commission has decided to continue and thereby ensure continuity with the approach of the Communication.

2 SCOPE AND DEFINITIONS

2.1 Scope

These guidelines only apply to risk capital schemes targeting SMEs. They are not intended to constitute the legal basis for declaring an ad hoc measure providing capital to an individual enterprise compatible with the common market.

Nothing in these guidelines should be taken to call into question the compatibility of State aid measures which meet the criteria laid down in any other guidelines, frameworks or regulations adopted by the Commission.

The Commission will pay particular attention to the need to prevent the use of these guidelines to circumvent the principles laid down in existing frameworks, guidelines and Regulations.

Risk capital measures must specifically exclude the provision of aid to enterprises:

(a)	in difficulty, within the meaning of the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (8);

(b)	in the shipbuilding (9), coal (10) and steel industry (11).

These Guidelines do not apply to aid to export-related activities, namely aid directly linked to the quantities exported, to the establishment and operation of a distribution network or to other current expenditure linked to the export activity, as well as aid contingent upon the use of domestic in preference to imported goods.

2.2 Definitions

For the purposes of these guidelines, the following definitions shall apply:

(a)	‘equity’ means ownership interest in a company, represented by the shares issued to investors;

(b)	‘private equity’ means private (as opposed to public) equity investment in companies not listed on a stock-market, including venture capital, replacement capital and buy-outs;

(c)	‘quasi-equity investment instruments’ means instruments whose return for the holder (investor/lender) is predominantly based on the profits or losses of the underlying target company, are unsecured in the event of default. This definition is based on a substance over form approach;

(d)	‘debt investment instruments’ means loans and other funding instruments which provide the lender/investor with a predominant component of fixed minimum remuneration and are at least partly secured. This definition is based on a substance over form approach;

(e)	‘seed capital’ means financing provided to study, assess and develop an initial concept, preceding the start-up phase;

(f)	‘start-up capital’ means financing provided to companies, which have not sold their product or service commercially and are not yet generating a profit, for product development and initial marketing;

(g)	‘early-stage capital’ means seed and start-up capital;

(h)	‘expansion capital’ means financing provided for the growth and expansion of a company, which may or may not break even or trade profitably, for the purposes of increasing production capacity, market or product development or the provision of additional working capital;

(i)	‘venture capital’ means investment in unquoted companies by investment funds (venture capital funds) that, acting as principals, manage individual, institutional or in-house money and includes early-stage and expansion financing, but not replacement finance and buy-outs;

(j)	‘replacement capital’ means the purchase of existing shares in a company from another private equity investment organisation or from another shareholder or shareholders. Replacement capital is also called secondary purchase;

(k)

‘risk capital’ means equity and quasi-equity financing to companies during their early-growth stages (seed, start-up and expansion phases), including informal investment by business angels, venture capital and alternative stock markets specialised in SMEs including high-growth companies (hereafter referred to as investment vehicles);

(l)	‘risk capital measures’ means schemes to provide or promote aid in the form of risk capital;

(m)	‘Initial Public Offering’ (‘IPO’) means the process of launching the sale or distribution of a company's shares to the public for the first time;

(n)	‘follow-on investment’ means an additional investment in a company subsequent to an initial investment;

(o)	‘buyout’ means the purchase of at least a controlling percentage of a company's equity from the current shareholders to take over its assets and operations through negotiation or a tender offer;

(p)

‘exit strategy’ means a strategy for the liquidation of holdings by a venture capital or private equity fund according to a plan to achieve maximum return, including trade sale, write-offs, repayment of preference shares/loans, sale to another venture capitalist, sale to a financial institution and sale by public offering (including Initial Public Offerings);

(q)

‘small and medium-sized enterprises’ (‘SMEs’) means small enterprises and medium-sized enterprises within the meaning of Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises (12) or any Regulation replacing that Regulation;

(r)	‘target enterprise or company’ means an enterprise or company in which an investor or investment fund is considering investing;

(s)	‘business angels’ means wealthy private individuals who invest directly in young new and growing unquoted business (seed finance) and provide them with advice, usually in return for an equity stake in the business, but may also provide other long-term finance;

(t)	‘assisted areas’ means regions falling within the scope of the derogations contained in Article 87(3)(a) or (c) of the EC Treaty;

3 APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 87(1) IN THE FIELD OF RISK CAPITAL

3.1 General applicable texts

There are already a number of published Commission texts which provide interpretation on whether individual measures fall within the definition of State aid and which may be relevant to risk capital measures. These include the 1984 communication on government capital injections (13), the 1998 notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (14) and the notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees (15). The Commission will continue to apply these texts, when assessing whether risk capital measures constitute State aid.

3.2 Presence of aid at three levels

Risk capital measures often involve complex constructions devised to promote risk capital because the public authorities create incentives for one set of economic operators (investors) in order to provide finance to another set (target SMEs). Depending on the design of the measure, and even if the intention of the public authorities may be only to provide benefits to the latter group, enterprises at either or both levels may benefit from State aid. Moreover, in most cases the measure provides for the creation of a fund or other investment vehicle which has an existence separate from that of the investors and the enterprises in which the investment is made. In such cases it is also necessary to consider whether the fund or vehicle can be considered to be an enterprise benefiting from State aid.

In this context, funding with resources, which are not State resources within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, is considered to be provided by private investors. This is, in particular, the case for funding by the European Investment Bank and the European Investment fund.

The Commission will take into account the following specific factors in determining whether State aid is present at each of the different levels (16).

Aid to investors. Where a measure allows private investors to effect equity or quasi-equity investments into a company or set of companies on terms more favourable than public investors, or than if they had undertaken such investments in the absence of the measure, then those private investors will be considered to receive an advantage. Such advantage may take different forms, as specified in section 4.2 of these guidelines. This remains the case even if the private investor is persuaded by the measure to confer an advantage on the company or companies concerned. In contrast, the Commission will consider the investment to be effected pari passu between public and private investors, and thus not to constitute State aid, where its terms would be acceptable to a normal economic operator in a market economy in the absence of any State intervention. This is assumed to be the case only if public and private investors share exactly the same upside and downside risks and rewards and hold the same level of subordination, and normally where at least 50 percent of the funding of the measure is provided by private investors, which are independent from the companies in which they invest.

Aid to an investment fund, investment vehicle and/or its manager. In general, the Commission considers that an investment fund or an investment vehicle is an intermediary vehicle for the transfer of aid to investors and/or enterprises in which investment is made, rather than being a beneficiary of aid itself. However, measures such as fiscal measures or other measures involving direct transfers in favour of an investment vehicle or an existing fund with numerous and diverse investors with the character of an independent enterprise may constitute aid unless the investment is made on terms which would be acceptable to a normal economic operator in a market economy and therefore provide no advantage to the beneficiary. Likewise, aid to the fund's managers or the management company will be considered to be present if their remuneration does not fully reflect the current market remuneration in comparable situations. On the other hand, there is a presumption of no aid if the managers or management company are chosen through an open and transparent public tender procedure or if they do not receive any other advantages granted by the State.

Aid to the enterprises in which investment is made. In particular, where aid is present at the level of the investors, the investment vehicle or the investment fund, the Commission will normally consider that it is at least partly passed on to the target enterprises and thus that it is also present at their level. This is the case even where investment decisions are being taken by the managers of the fund with a purely commercial logic.

In cases where the investment is made on terms which would be acceptable to a private investor in a market economy in the absence of any State intervention the enterprises in which the investment is made will not be considered as aid recipients. For this purpose, the Commission will consider whether such investment decisions are exclusively profit-driven and are linked to a reasonable business plan and projections, as well as to a clear and realistic exit strategy. Also important will be the choice and investment mandate of the fund's managers or the management company as well as the percentage and degree of involvement of private investors.

3.3 De minimis amounts

Where all financing in the form of risk capital provided to beneficiaries is de minimis within the meaning of Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of 12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid (17) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the agriculture and fisheries sectors (18), then it is deemed not to fall under Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty. In risk capital measures the application of the de minimis rule is made more complicated by difficulties in the calculation of the aid and also by the fact that measures may provide aid not only to the target enterprises but also to other investors. Where these difficulties can be overcome, however, the de minimis rule remains applicable. Therefore, if a scheme provides public capital only up to the relevant de minimis threshold to each enterprise over a three-year period, then it is certain that any aid to these enterprises and/or the investors is within the prescribed limits.

4 ASSESSMENT OF THE COMPATIBILITY OF RISK CAPITAL AID UNDER ARTICLE 87(3) (C) OF THE EC TREATY

4.1 General principles

Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty provides that aid to facilitate the development of certain economic activities may be considered to be compatible with the common market where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. On the basis of the balancing test set out in section 1.3, the Commission will declare a risk capital measure compatible only if it concludes that the aid measure leads to an increased provision of risk capital without adversely affecting trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. This section sets out a set of conditions under which the Commission will consider that aid in the form of risk capital is compatible with Article 87(3)(c).

Where the Commission is in possession of a complete notification which shows that all the conditions laid down in this section are met, it will try to make a rapid assessment of the aid within the time limits laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (19). For certain types of measures which do not fulfil all the conditions set out in this section, the Commission will undertake a more detailed assessment of the risk capital measure as set out in detail in section 5.

Where there is also aid at the level of target enterprises and the provision of risk capital is linked to costs which are eligible for aid under another regulation or framework or other guidelines, that text may be applied to consider whether the aid is compatible with the common market.

4.2 Form of aid

The choice of form of an aid measure lies in general with the Member State and this applies equally to risk capital measures. However, the Commission's assessment of such measures will include whether they encourage market investors to provide risk capital to the target enterprises and are likely to result in investment decisions being taken on a commercial (that is, a profit-driven) basis, as further explained in section 4.3.

The Commission believes that the types of measure capable of producing this result include the following:

(a)	constitution of investment funds (‘venture capital funds’) in which the State is a partner, investor or participant, even if on less advantageous terms than other investors;

(b)

guarantees to risk capital investors or to venture capital funds against a proportion of investment losses, or guarantees given in respect of loans to investors/funds for investment in risk capital, provided the public cover for the potential underlying losses does not exceed 50 % of the nominal amount of the investment guaranteed;

(c)	other financial instruments in favour of risk capital investors or venture capital funds to provide extra capital for investment;

(d)	fiscal incentives to investment funds and/or their managers, or to investors to undertake risk capital investment.

4.3 Conditions for compatibility

To ensure that the incentive effect and the necessity of aid as set out in section 1.3.4 are present in a risk capital measure a number of indicators are relevant. The rationale is that State aid must target a specific market failure for the existence of which there is sufficient evidence. For this purpose, these guidelines lay down specific safe-harbour thresholds relating to tranches of investment in target SMEs in their early stages of business activity. Furthermore, so that aid is limited to the minimum necessary, it is crucial that aided investments into target SMEs are profit-driven and are managed on a commercial basis. The Commission will consider that the incentive effect, the necessity and proportionality of aid are present in a risk capital measure and that the overall balance is positive where all the following conditions are met.

Measures specifically involving investment vehicles will be assessed under section 5 of these guidelines and not under the conditions in this section.

4.3.1 Maximum level of investment tranches

The risk capital measure must provide for tranches of finance, whether wholly or partly financed through State aid, not exceeding EUR 1.5 million per target SME over each period of twelve months.

4.3.2 Restriction to seed, start-up and expansion financing

The risk capital measure must be restricted to provide financing up to the expansion stage for small enterprises, or for medium-sized enterprises located in assisted areas. It must be restricted to provide financing up to the start-up stage for medium-sized enterprises located in non-assisted areas.

4.3.3 Prevalence of equity and quasi-equity investment instruments

The risk capital measure must provide at least 70 % of its total budget in the form of equity and quasi-equity investment instruments into target SMEs. In assessing the nature of such instruments, the Commission will have regard to the economic substance of the instrument rather than to its name and the qualification attributed to it by the investors. In particular, the Commission will take into account the degree of risk in the target company's venture borne by the investor, the potential losses borne by the investor, the predominance of profit-dependent remuneration versus fixed remuneration, and the level of subordination of the investor in the event of the company's bankruptcy. The Commission may also take into account the treatment applicable to the investment instrument under the prevalent domestic legal, regulatory, financial, and accounting rules, if these are consistent and relevant for the qualification.

4.3.4 Participation by private investors

At least 50 % of the funding of the investments made under the risk capital measure must be provided by private investors, or for at least 30 % in the case of measures targeting SMEs located in assisted areas.

4.3.5 Profit-driven character of investment decisions

The risk capital measure must ensure that decisions to invest into target companies are profit-driven. This is the case where the motivation to effect the investment is based on the prospects of a significant profit potential and constant assistance to target companies for this purpose.

This criterion is considered to be met if all the following conditions are fulfilled:

(a)	the measures have significant involvement of private investors as described in section 4.3.4, providing investments on a commercial basis (that is, only for profit) directly or indirectly in the equity of the target enterprises; and

(b)	a business plan exists for each investment containing details of product, sales and profitability development and establishing the ex ante viability of the project; and

(c)	a clear and realistic exit strategy exists for each investment.

4.3.6 Commercial management

The management of a risk capital measure or fund must be effected on a commercial basis. The management team must behave as managers in the private sector, seeking to optimise the return for their investors. This criterion is considered to be present where all the following conditions are fulfilled:

(a)	there is an agreement between a professional fund manager or a management company and participants in the fund, providing that the manager's remuneration is linked to performance and setting out the objectives of the fund and proposed timing of investments; and

(b)	private market investors are represented in decision-making, such as through an investors' or advisory committee; and

(c)	best practices and regulatory supervision apply to the management of funds.

4.3.7 Sectoral focus

To the extent that many private sector funds focus on specific innovative technologies or even sectors (such as health, information technology, biotechnology) the Commission may accept a sectoral focus for risk capital measures, provided the measure falls within the scope of these guidelines as set out in section 2.1.

5 COMPATIBILITY OF RISK CAPITAL AID MEASURES SUBJECT TO A DETAILED ASSESSMENT

This section applies to risk capital measures which do not satisfy all the conditions laid down in section 4. A more detailed compatibility assessment based on the balancing test outlined in section 1.3 is necessary for these measures due to the need to ensure the targeting of the relevant market failure and due to the higher risks of potential crowding-out of private investors and of distortion of competition.

The analysis of compatibility of the measures with the EC Treaty will be based on a number of positive and negative elements. No single element is determinant, nor can any set of elements be regarded as sufficient on its own to ensure compatibility. In some cases their applicability, and the weight attached to them, may depend on the form of the measure.

Member States will have to provide all the elements and the evidence they consider useful for the assessment of a measure. The level of evidence required and the Commission assessment will depend on the features of each case and will be proportionate to the level of market failure tackled and to the risk of crowding out private investment.

5.1 Aid measures subject to a detailed assessment

The following types of risk capital measures not complying with one or more of the conditions set out in section 4 will be subject to a more detailed assessment given the less obvious evidence of a market failure and the higher potential for crowding out of private investment and/or distortion of competition.

(a) Measures providing for investment tranches beyond the safe-harbour threshold of EUR 1.5 million per target SME over each period of twelve months

The Commission is aware of the constant fluctuation of the risk capital market and of the equity gap over time, as well as of the different degree by which enterprises are affected by the market failure depending on their size, on their stage of business development, and on their economic sector. Therefore, the Commission is prepared to consider declaring risk capital measures providing for investment tranches exceeding the threshold of EUR 1.5 million per enterprise per year compatible with the common market, provided the necessary evidence of the market failure is submitted.

(b) Measures providing finance for the expansion stage for medium-sized enterprises in non-assisted areas

The Commission recognises that certain medium-sized enterprises in non-assisted areas may have insufficient access to risk capital even in their expansion stage despite the availability of finance to enterprises having a significant turnover and/or total balance. Therefore, the Commission is prepared to consider declaring measures partly covering the expansion stage of medium-sized enterprises compatible with the common market in certain cases, provided the necessary evidence is submitted.

(c) Measures providing for follow-on investments into target companies that already received aided capital injections to fund subsequent financing rounds even beyond the general safe-harbour thresholds and the companies' early-growth financing

The Commission recognises the importance of follow-on investments into target companies that already received aided capital injections in their early stages to finance financing rounds even beyond the maximum safe-harbour investment tranches and the companies' early-growth financing up to the exit of the initial investment. This may be necessary to avoid dilution of the public participation in these financing rounds while ensuring continuity of financing for the target enterprises so that both public and private investors can fully benefit from the risky investments. In these circumstances and taking into account the specificities of the targeted sector and enterprises, the Commission is prepared to consider declaring follow-on investment compatible with the common market provided the amount of this investment is consistent with the initial investment and with the size of the fund.

(d) Measures providing for a participation by private investors below 50 % in non-assisted areas or below 30 % in assisted areas

In the Community the level of development of the private risk capital market varies to a significant extent in the various Member States. In some cases, it might be difficult to find private investors, and therefore the Commission is prepared to consider declaring measures with a private participation below the thresholds set out in section 4.3.4 compatible with the common market, if Member States submit the necessary evidence.

This problem may be even greater for risk capital measures targeting SMEs in assisted areas. In these cases there may be an additional shortage of capital available for them given their remote location from venture capital centres, the lower population density, and the increased risk-aversion of private investors. These SMEs may also be affected by demand-side issues such as the difficulty in drawing up a viable, investment-ready business proposition, a more limited equity culture, and particular reluctance to lose management control as a result of venture capital intervention.

(e) Measures providing seed capital to small enterprises which may foresee (i) less or no private participation by private investors, and/or (ii) predominance of debt investment instruments as opposed to equity and quasi-equity

The market failures affecting enterprises in their seed stage are more pronounced due to the high degree of risk involved by the potential investment and the need to closely mentor the entrepreneur in this crucial phase. This is also reflected by the reluctance and near absence of private investors to provide seed capital, which implies no or very limited risk of crowding-out. Furthermore, there is reduced potential for distortion of competition due to the significant distance from the market of these small-size enterprises. These reasons may justify a more favourable stance of the Commission towards measures targeting the seed stage, also in light of their potentially crucial importance to generate growth and jobs in the Community.

(f) Measures specifically involving an investment vehicle

An investment vehicle may facilitate the matching between investors and target SMEs for which it may therefore improve the access to risk capital. In case of market failures related to the enterprises targeted by the vehicle, the vehicle may not function efficiently without financial incentives. For instance, investors may not find the type of investments targeted by the vehicle attractive compared to investments of higher tranches of investments or investments in more established enterprises or more established market places, despite a clear potential for profitability of the target enterprises. Therefore, the Commission is prepared to consider declaring measures specifically involving an investment vehicle compatible with the common market, provided the necessary evidence for a clearly defined market failure is submitted.

(g) Costs linked to the first screening of companies in view of the conclusion of the investments, up to the due diligence phase (‘scouting costs’)

Risk capital funds or their managers may incur ‘scouting costs’ in identifying SMEs, prior to the due diligence phase. Grants covering part of these scouting costs must encourage the funds or their managers to carry out more ‘scouting’ activities than would otherwise be the case. This may also be beneficial for the SMEs concerned, even if the search does not lead to an investment, since it enables those SMEs to acquire more experience with risk capital financing. These reasons may justify a more favourable stance of the Commission towards grants covering part of the scouting costs of risk capital funds or their managers, subject to the following conditions: The eligible costs must be limited to the scouting costs related to SMEs mainly in their seed or start-up stage, where such costs do not lead to investment, and the costs must exclude legal and administrative costs of the funds. In addition, the grant must not exceed 50 % of the eligible costs.

5.2 Positive effects of the aid

5.2.1 Existence and evidence of market failure

For risk capital measures envisaging investment tranches into target enterprises beyond the conditions laid down in section 4, in particular those providing for tranches above EUR 1.5 million per target SME over each period of twelve months, follow-on investments or financing of the expansion stage for medium-sized enterprises in non-assisted areas as well as for measures specifically involving an investment vehicle, the Commission will require additional evidence of the market failure being tackled at each level where aid may be present before declaring the proposed risk capital measure compatible with the common market. Such evidence must be based on a study showing the level of the ‘equity gap’ with regard to the enterprises and sectors targeted by the risk capital measure. The relevant information concerns the supply of risk capital and the fundraising capital, as well as the significance of the venture capital industry in the local economy. It should ideally be provided for periods of three to five years preceding the implementation of the measure and also for the future, on the basis of reasonable projections, if available. The evidence submitted could also include the following elements:

(a)	development of the fundraising over the past five years, also in comparison with the correspondent national and/or European averages;

(b)	the current overhang of money;

(c)	the share of government aided investment programs in the total venture capital investment over the preceding three to five years;

(d)	the percentage of new start-ups receiving venture capital;

(e)	the distribution of investments by categories of amount of investment;

(f)	a comparison of the number of business plans presented with the number of investments made by segment (amount of investment, sector, round of financing, etc.).

For measures targeting SMEs located in assisted areas, the relevant information must be supplemented by any other relevant evidence proving the regional specificities which justify the features of the measure envisaged. The following elements may be relevant:

(a)

estimation of the additional size of the equity gap caused by the peripherality and other regional specificities, in particular in terms of total amount of risk capital invested, number of funds or investment vehicles present in the territory or at a short distance, availability of skilled managers, number of deals and average and minimum size of deals if available;

(b)	specific local economic data, social and/or historic reasons for an underprovision of risk capital, in comparison with the relevant average data and/or situation at national and/or Community level as appropriate;

(c)	any other relevant indicator showing an increased degree of market failure.

Member States may resubmit the same evidence several times provided that the underlying market conditions have not changed. The Commission reserves the right to question the validity of the submitted evidence.

5.2.2 Appropriateness of the instrument

An important element in the balancing test is whether and to what extent State aid in the field of risk capital can be considered as an appropriate instrument to encourage private risk capital investment. This assessment is closely related to the assessment of the incentive effect and the necessity of aid, as set out in section 5.2.3.

In its detailed assessment, the Commission will take particular account of any impact assessment of the proposed measure which the Member State has made. Where the Member State has considered other policy options and the advantages of using a selective instrument such as State aid have been established and submitted to the Commission, the measures concerned are considered to constitute an appropriate instrument. The Commission will also assess evidence of other measures taken or to be taken to address the ‘equity gap’ notably ex post evaluations and both supply and demand side issues affecting the targeted SMEs, to see how they would interact with the proposed risk capital measure.

5.2.3 Incentive effect and necessity of aid

The incentive effect of the risk capital aid measures plays a crucial role in the compatibility assessment. The Commission believes that the incentive effect is present for measures meeting all the conditions in section 4. However, as for the measures covered in this section the presence of the incentive effect becomes less obvious. Therefore, the Commission will also take into account the following additional criteria showing the profit-driven character of investment decisions and the commercial management of the measure, where relevant.

5.2.3.1 Commercial management

In addition to the conditions laid down in section 4.3.6 the Commission will consider it positively that the risk capital measure or fund is managed by professionals from the private sector or by independent professionals chosen according to a transparent, non-discriminatory procedure, preferably an open tender, with proven experience and a track record in capital market investments ideally in the same sector(s) targeted by the fund, as well as an understanding of the relevant legal and accounting background for the investment.

5.2.3.2 Presence of an investment committee

A further positive element would be the existence of an investment committee, independent of the fund management company and composed of independent experts coming from the private sector with significant experience in the targeted sector, and preferably also of representatives of investors, or independent experts chosen according to a transparent, non-discriminatory procedure, preferably an open tender. These experts would provide the managers or management company with analyses of the existing and the expected future market situation and would scrutinise and propose to them potential target enterprises with good investment prospects.

5.2.3.3 Size of the measure/fund

The Commission will consider it positively where a risk capital measure has a budget for investments into target SMEs of a sufficient size to take advantage of economies of scale in administering a fund and the possibility of diversifying risk via a pool of a sufficient number of investments. The size of the fund should be such as to ensure the possibility of absorbing the transaction costs and/or financing the later more profitable financing stages of target companies. Larger funds will be considered positively also taking into account the sector targeted, and provided the risks of crowding-out private investment and distorting competition are minimised.

5.2.3.4 Presence of business angels

For measures targeting seed capital, in view of the more pronounced level of market failure that can be perceived in this phase, the Commission will consider positively the direct or indirect involvement of business angels in investments in the seed stage. In such circumstances, it is therefore prepared to consider declaring measures compatible with the common market even if they foresee a predominance of debt instruments, including a higher degree of subordination of the State funds and a right of first profit for business angels or higher remuneration for their provision of capital and active involvement in the management of the measure/fund and/or of the target enterprises.

5.2.4 Proportionality

Compatibility requires that the aid amount is limited to the minimum necessary. The way to achieve this aspect of proportionality will necessarily depend on the form of the measure in question. However in the absence of any mechanism to check that investors are not overcompensated, or a measure where the risk of losses is borne entirely by the public sector and/or where the benefits flow entirely to the other investors, the measure will not be considered proportionate.

The Commission will consider that the following elements positively influence the assessment of proportionality as they represent a best-practice approach:

(a)

Open tender for managers. A transparent, non-discriminatory open tender for the choice of the managers or management company ensuring the best combination of quality and value for money will be considered positively, as it will limit the cost (and possibly aid) level at the minimum necessary and will also minimise distortion of competition.

(b)

Call for tender or public invitation to investors. A call for tender for the establishment of any ‘preferential terms’ given to investors, or the availability of any such terms to other investors. This availability might take the form of a public invitation to investors at the launch of an investment fund or investment vehicle, or might take the form of a scheme (such as a guarantee scheme) which remained open to new entrants over an extended period.

5.3 Negative effects of the aid

The Commission will balance the potential negative effects in terms of distortion of competition and risk of crowding-out private investment against the positive effects when assessing the compatibility of risk capital measures. These potentially negative effects will have to be analysed at each of the three levels where aid may be present. Aid to investors, to investment vehicles and to investment funds may negatively affect competition in the market for the provision of risk capital. Aid to target enterprises may negatively affect the product markets on which these enterprises compete.

5.3.1 Crowding-out

At the level of the market for the provision of risk capital, State aid may result in crowding out private investment. This might reduce the incentives of private investors to provide funding for target SMEs and encourage them to wait until the State provides aid for such investments. This risk becomes more relevant, the higher the amount of an investment tranche invested into an enterprise, the larger the size of an enterprise, and the later the business stage, as private risk capital becomes progressively available in these circumstances.

Therefore, the Commission will require specific evidence regarding the risk of crowding-out for measures providing for larger investment tranches in target SMEs, for follow-on investments or for financing of the expansion stage in medium-sized enterprises in non-assisted areas or for measures with low participation by private investors or measures involving specifically an investment vehicle.

In addition, Member States will have to provide evidence to show that there is no risk of crowding-out, specifically concerning the targeted segment, sector and/or industry structure. The following elements may be relevant:

(a)	the number of venture capital firms/funds/investment vehicles present at national level or in the area in case of a regional fund and the segments in which they are active;

(b)	the targeted enterprises in terms of size of companies, growth stage, and business sector;

(c)	the average deal size and possibly the minimum deal size the funds or investors would scrutinise;

(d)	the total amount of venture capital available for the target enterprises, sector and stage targeted by the relevant measure.

5.3.2 Other distortions of competition

As most target SMEs are recently established, at the level of the market where they are present, it is unlikely that these SMEs will have significant market power and thus that there will be a significant distortion of competition in this respect. However, it can not be excluded that risk capital measures might have the effect of keeping inefficient firms or sectors afloat, which would otherwise disappear. Furthermore, an over-supply of risk capital funding to inefficient enterprises may artificially increase their valuation and thus distort the risk capital market at the level of fund providers, which would have to pay higher prices to buy these enterprises. Sector specific aid may also maintain production in non-competitive sectors, whereas region-specific aid may build up an inefficient allocation of production factors between regions.

In its analysis of these risks, the Commission will examine, in particular, the following facors:

(a)	overall profitability of the firms invested in over time and prospects of future profitability

(b)	rate of enterprise failure targeted by the measure;

(c)	maximum size of investment tranche envisaged by the measure as compared to the turnover and costs of the target SMEs;

(d)	over-capacity of the sector benefiting from the aid.

5.4 Balancing and decision

In the light of the above positive and negative elements, the Commission will balance the effects of the risk capital measure and determine whether the resulting distortions adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. The analysis in each particular case will be based on an overall assessment of the foreseeable positive and negative impact of the State aid. For that purpose the Commission will not use the criteria set out in these guidelines mechanically but will make an overall assessment of their relative importance.

The Commission may raise no objections to the notified aid measure without entering into the formal investigation procedure or, following the formal investigation procedure laid down in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, it may close the procedure with a decision pursuant to Article 7 of that Regulation. If it adopts a conditional decision pursuant to Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 closing a formal investigation procedure, it may in particular attach the following conditions to limit the potential distortion of competition and ensure proportionality:

(a)	if higher thresholds of investment tranches per target enterprise are foreseen, it may lower the maximum amount proposed per investment tranche or set an overall maximum amount of finance per target enterprise;

(b)	if investments in the expansion stage in medium-sized enterprises in non-assisted areas are foreseen, it may limit investments predominantly to the seed and start-up stage and/or limit the investments to one or two rounds and/or limit the tranches to a maximum threshold per target enterprise;

(c)

if follow-on investment is foreseen, it may set specific limits to the maximum amount to be invested into each target enterprise, to the investment stage eligible for intervention, and/or to the period during which aid may be granted, having also regard to the sector concerned and to the size of the fund;

(d)

if a lower participation of private investors is foreseen, it may require a progressive increase of the participation of private investors over the life of the fund, having particular regard to the business stage, the sector, the respective levels of profit-sharing and subordination, and possibly the localisation in assisted areas of the target enterprises;

(e)

for measures providing seed capital only, it may require Member States to ensure that the State receives an adequate return on its investment commensurate with the risks incurred for these investments, in particular where the State finances the investment in the form of quasi-equity or debt instruments, the return on which should, for instance, be linked to potential rights of exploitation (for example, royalties) generated by intellectual property rights created as a result of the investment;

(f)	require a different balancing between respective profit- and loss-sharing arrangements and level of subordination between the State and private investors;

(g)	require more stringent commitments as regards cumulation of risk capital aid with aid granted under other State aid regulations or frameworks, by way of derogation from section 6.

6 CUMULATION

Where capital provided to a target enterprise under a risk capital measure covered by these guidelines is used to finance initial investment or other costs eligible for aid under other block exemption regulations, guidelines, frameworks, or other State aid documents, the relevant aid ceilings or maximum eligible amounts will be reduced by 50 % in general and by 20 % for target enterprises located in assisted areas during the first three years of the first risk capital investment and up to the total amount received. This reduction does not apply to aid intensities provided for in the Community Framework for State aid for Research and Development (20) or any successor framework or block exemption regulation in this field.

7 FINAL PROVISIONS

7.1 Monitoring and reporting

Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (21) require Member States to submit annual reports to the Commission.

In respect of risk capital measures the reports must contain a summary table with a breakdown of the investments effected by the fund or under the risk capital measure including a list of all the enterprise beneficiaries of risk capital measures. The report must also give a brief description of the activity of investments funds with details of potential deals scrutinised and of the transactions actually undertaken as well as the performance of investment vehicles with aggregate information about the amount of capital raised through the vehicle. The Commission may request additional information regarding the aid granted, to check whether the conditions of the Commission's decision approving the aid measure have been respected.

The annual reports will be published on the internet site of the Commission.

In addition, the Commission considers that further measures are necessary to improve the transparency of State aid in the Community. In particular, it appears necessary to ensure that the Member States, economic operators, interested parties and the Commission itself have easy access to the full text of all applicable risk capital aid schemes.

This can easily be achieved through the establishment of linked internet sites. For this reason, when examining risk capital aid schemes, the Commission will systematically require the Member State concerned to publish the full text of all final aid schemes on the internet and to communicate the internet address of the publication to the Commission.

The scheme must not be applied before the information is published on the internet.

Member States must maintain detailed records regarding the granting of aid for all risk capital measures. Such records must contain all information necessary to establish that the conditions laid down in the guidelines have been observed, notably as regards the size of the tranche, the size of the company (small or medium-sized), the development stage of the company (seed, start-up or expansion), its sector of activity (preferably at 4 digit level of the NACE classification) as well as information on the management of the funds and on the other criteria mentioned in these guidelines. This information must be maintained for 10 years from the date on which the aid is granted.

The Commission will ask Member States to provide this information in order to carry out an impact assessment of these guidelines three years after their entry into force.

7.2 Entry into force and validity

The Commission will apply these guidelines from the date of their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. These guidelines will replace the 2001 Communication on State aid and risk capital

These guidelines will cease to be valid on 31 December 2013. After consulting Member States, the Commission may amend it before that date on the basis of important competition policy or risk capital policy considerations or in order to take account of other Community policies or international commitments. Where this would be helpful the Commission may also provide further clarifications of its approach to particular issues. The Commission intends to carry out a review of these guidelines three years after their entry into force.

The Commission will apply these guidelines to all notified risk capital measures in respect of which it must take a decision after the guidelines are published in the Official Journal of the European Union, even where the measures were notified prior to the publication of the guidelines.

In accordance with the Commission notice on the determination of the applicable rules for the assessment of unlawful State aid (‘consecutio legis’) (22), the Commission will apply the following in respect of non-notified aid:

(a)	these guidelines, if the aid was granted after their publication in the Official Journal of the European Union;

(b)	the Communication on State aid and risk capital in all other cases.

7.3 Appropriate Measures

The Commission hereby proposes to Member States, on the basis of Article 88(1) of the EC Treaty, the following appropriate measures concerning their respective existing risk capital measures.

Member States should amend, where necessary, their existing risk capital measures in order to bring them into line with these guidelines within twelve months after the publication of the guidelines.

The Member States are invited to give their explicit unconditional agreement to these proposed appropriate measures within two months from the date of publication of these guidelines. In the absence of any reply, the Commission will assume that the Member State in question does not agree with the proposed measures.

(1) COM(2005) 24.

(2) OJ L 333, 29.12.2000, p. 84. Decision as last amended by Decision No 1776/2005/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 289, 3.11.2005, p. 14).

(3) COM(2005) 121 final.

(4) COM(2006) 349.

(5) COM(2005) 107 final – SEC(2005) 795.

(6) OJ C 235, 21.8.2001, p. 3.

(7) COM(2005) 436 final.

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

(9) For the purpose of these Guidelines, the definitions laid down in the Framework on State aid to shipbuilding OJ C 317, 30.12.2003, p. 11, apply.

(10) For the purpose of these Guidelines, ‘coal’ means high-grade, medium-grade and low–grade category A and B coal within the meaning of the international codification system for coal laid down by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

(11) For the purpose of these Guidelines, the definition laid down in Annex I in the Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 (OJ C 54, 4.3.2006, p. 13) applies.

(12) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 33; Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1040/2006 (OJ L 187, 8.7.2006, p. 8).

(13) Bulletin EC 9-1984, reproduced in ‘Competition law in the European Communities’, Volume IIA, p. 133.

(14) OJ C 384, 10.12.1998, p. 3.

(15) OJ C 71, 11.3.2000, p. 14.

(16) It should, however, be noted that guarantees granted by the State in favour of investments in risk capital are more likely to include an element of aid to the investor than is the case with traditional loan guarantees, which are normally considered to constitute aid to the borrower rather than to the lender.

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

(18) OJ L 325, 28.10.2004, p. 4.

(19) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

(20) OJ C 45, 17.2.1996, p. 5.

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

(22) OJ C 119, 22.5.2002, p. 22.

18.8.2006

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/22

STATE AID — SLOVENIA

State aid No C 20/2006 (ex NN 30/2006) — Alleged state aid to Novoles Straža

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

(2006/C 194/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By means of the letter dated 16 May 2006 reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the Commission notified Slovenia of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the abovementioned measure.

Interested parties may submit their comments on the measure in respect of which the Commission is initiating the procedure within one month of the date of publication of this summary and the following letter, to:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

State aid Greffe

Office: SPA3, 6/5

B-1049 Brussels

Fax No: (32-2) 296 12 42

These comments will be communicated to Slovenia. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

TEXT OF SUMMARY

I. PROCEDURE

On 27 May 2004 the Slovenian Government adopted a resolution that certain financial measures should be allocated to the Slovenian company Novoles Lesna Industrija Straža d.d. (hereinafter ‘Novoles Straža’). This was not notified to the Commission on the grounds that it had been approved by the Slovenian State aid Monitoring Commission on 23 April 2004, i.e. prior to accession. However, given the Commission's practice that the relevant criterion is the legally binding act by which the competent national authority undertakes to grant state aid, the measures in question would constitute new aid, and should thus be notified on the basis of Article 88 EC Treaty and assessed under Article 87 EC Treaty.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE AID

2.	Novoles Straža is a Slovenian manufacturer of semi-finished wood products such as plywood and fine veneer as well as of furniture such as chairs and tables and other retail furniture. It experienced financial constraints in 2003.

The company therefore has devised a restructuring plan for a period of 5 years (2004 — 2008) indicating a redirection of the firm's activities, a rescheduling of debts as well as industrial and employment restructuring. To this end, the company receives a loan guarantee from the State of around EUR 0.8 million for technological restructuring, a State grant of around EUR 1.2 million for redundancy payments and retraining measures and a State guarantee of EUR 4.6 million for financial restructuring.

III. ASSESSMENT

The Commission considers that the measure constitutes state aid within the meaning of Article 87 (1) EC Treaty. At this stage, the Commission has doubts on the compatibility of the measure with the Common market, and in particular with the Community Guidelines on aid for rescue and restructuring of firms in difficulty of 1999. (1)

The Commission is first not sure whether the company showed the usual signs of a company in difficulty, given that its sales increased still in 2003, and inventories have still decreased in 2002. Second, it is not entirely clear how the restructuring plan would enable the company to restore its long term viability. Third, the Commission has doubts whether the company was providing a significant own contribution for the restructuring, because any alleged contribution from own funds seems not plausible in the light of the fact that the company did not have any free liquidity and was not able to obtain financing from its investors. Fourth the Commission, has doubts whether the one time, last time principle is complied with, given that the company already received restructuring aid in 1999. Finally, the Commission is not sure whether the fact that no compensatory measures were provided is acceptable in the present case.

In accordance with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, all unlawful aid can be subject to recovery from the recipient.

TEXT OF LETTER

‘1.	Komisija želi obvestiti Slovenijo, da je po preučitvi informacij o zgoraj navedeni pomoči, ki jih je prejela od slovenskih organov, sklenila začeti postopek iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES.

I. POSTOPEK

2.	Dne 1. decembra 2004 je Komisija prejela pritožbo glede domnevne pomoči slovenskemu lesnopredelovalnemu podjetju Novoles Lesna Industrija Straža d.d. (v nadaljnjem besedilu ‚Novoles Straža‘).

S pismoma z dne 21. decembra 2004 in 10. maja 2005 je Komisija zahtevala informacije glede časa dodelitve domnevne pomoči, do 15. novembra 2005 in 23. decembra 2005 pa je zahtevala informacije o prestrukturiranju podjetja. Slovenski organi so odgovorili s pismi z dne 19. januarja 2005, 8. junija 2005, 5. decembra 2005 in 6. februarja 2006.

4.	Slovenski organi so v pismu z dne 8. junija 2005 Komisiji sporočili, da so bili ukrepi odobreni pred pristopom in da niso bili vključeni v tako imenovani začasni postopek, ker je bila ekonomska izpostavljenost državne pomoči natančno znana pred postopkom.

Iz sklepa, ki ga je predložila Slovenija, je razvidno, da je razne ukrepe državnega financiranja odobrila medresorska strokovna komisija dne 16. aprila 2004. Pozneje so družbe dne 20. aprila 2004 zaprosile komisijo za spremljanje državnih pomoči za soglasje, ki je bilo izdano dne 23. aprila 2004. Komisija za spremljanje državnih pomoči je odločila, da so ukrepi državna pomoč, ki je skladna z zakonom o spremljanju državnih pomoči.

Šele 27. maja 2004 pa je vlada sprejela resolucijo, da bi bilo treba družbi dodeliti državno pomoč na način, ki ga določajo resolucije pristojne medresorske strokovne komisije. V pismu z dne 2. februarja 2006 je Slovenija potrdila, da ‚je bila pomoč odobrena družbi Novoles Straža […] s sklepom vlade v času, ko je bila Slovenija že polnopravna članica EU‘.

II. PODROBEN OPIS POMOČI

Družba Novoles Straža je proizvajalec lesenih polizdelkov, kot so vezane plošče in furnir, ter pohištva, kot so mize in stoli ter drugo pohištvo za maloprodajo. Družba je v kraju Straža v Sloveniji, leta 2003 pa je imela okoli 800 zaposlenih (leta 2002 pa 650). Novoles Straža je ena od družb, ki v slovenskem lesnem in pohištvenem sektorju zaposlujejo največ delavcev.

8.	Družba je v lasti več fizičnih oseb in investicijskih skladov, od katerih ima eden, in sicer investicijski sklad PID, več kakor 25-odstotni delež, ki znaša 33,4 odstotka. Videti je, da je 8,5 odstotka v državni lasti.

9.	Družba ima več odvisnih družb, med katerimi so Novoles-Primara, d.o.o., Pohištvo Brežice, d.d. in IP TP Intarzija, d.o.o.

10.

Glavni finančni in operativni pokazatelji kažejo, da se je finančno poslovanje družbe leta 2003 poslabšalo. Družba je izgubila velik delež svojega registriranega osnovnega kapitala, ki je znašal 1,262 milijard SIT [okoli 5,3 milijonov EUR (2)], aprila 2004 pa le še 0,75 milijarde SIT. Poleg tega je družba od leta 2003 naprej ustvarjala izgubo, njen prosti denarni tok pa se je od leta 2002 zmanjšal. Vendar pa so se njene zaloge leta 2002 zmanjšale, povečale pa so se le leta 2003. Poleg tega je do leta 2003 prodaja rasla.

11.

Aprila 2004 je družba Novoles Straža ministrstvu za gospodarstvo predložila načrt prestrukturiranja za obdobje od 2004 do 2008. V njem družba razlaga, da je stečaj grozil celotni družbi, to pa dokazuje s sklicevanjem na različne teste, npr. tako imenovana Altmanova vrednost Z, ki kažejo, da je od leta 2001 družbi grozil stečaj.

12.

Družba svoje trenutne razmere razlaga s padcem gospodarske rasti na glavnih izvoznih trgih (zlasti v Nemčiji in ZDA), kjer prodaja 60 odstotkov svoje proizvodnje. Poleg tega je v zadnjih letih veliko vlagala v posodobitev tehnologije in širitev proizvodnih programov. Zaradi upada prihodkov v letu 2003 družba ni mogla več poravnavati obveznosti iz lastnih sredstev, ampak je morala povečati svoje dolgove in s tem finančne obremenitve. Organizacijska struktura ji ni omogočila uskladiti proizvodnje s povpraševanjem.

13.

Glavna poglavja prestrukturiranja družbe Novoles Straža je mogoče povzeti:

—	Družba Novoles Straža bo spremenila prodajno strategijo tako, da se bo preusmerila s trgov EU in severnoameriških trgov zlasti na vzhodnoevropski in ruski trg. Poleg tega si družba prizadeva zmanjšati svoj delež polizdelkov v korist končnih izdelkov.

—

Da bi postala stroškovno učinkovitejša in prilagodila tehnološko opremo proizvodnji, ki bo vezana na povpraševanje, ter da bi izpolnjevala okoljske standarde, bo izvedla industrijsko prestrukturiranje. Stroške v višini 1,656 milijarde SIT bo deloma krila iz lastnih sredstev, deloma pa s posojilom v znesku 200 milijonov SIT (0,8 milijona EUR), zavarovanim z državnim jamstvom.

—	Cilj prestrukturiranja zaposlenih bo zmanjšanje števila zaposlenih za 96 delavcev, za preostale zaposlene pa bo izvedla posebno in splošno usposabljanje. Stroške v višini 537 milijona SIT bo deloma krila z lastnimi sredstvi, deloma pa s subvencijo v znesku 283 milijonov SIT (1,2 milijona EUR).

—	Cilj finančnega prestrukturiranja je reprogramiranje obstoječih kratkoročnih finančnih obveznosti, predvideno pa je z državnim jamstvom, s katerim bo zagotovljen nov kredit v višini 1,100 milijarde SIT (4,6 milijona EUR).

14.

Na podlagi realističnih predvidevanj, ki predpostavljajo od 3,6- do 5,7-odstotno letno rast domače prodaje in 6,5- do 8,4-odstotno letno rasti prodaje v tujini, bo po načrtu leta 2004 prestrukturiranje doseglo do 4,2-odstotni presežek iz poslovanja, leta 2008 pa naj bi presežek dosegel 11,7 odstotka. Dobiček iz poslovanja v primerjavi z lastniškim kapitalom se bo v letu 2007 povečal na 12,6 odstotkov.

15.	Komisija za spremljanje državnih pomoči je določila izravnalni ukrep, da družba v obdobju prestrukturiranja ne sme prejeti nobene druge državne pomoči.

16.	Slovenija je obvestila Komisijo, da je družba Novoles Straža v letu 2004 iz javnih in zasebnih virov prejela tudi ugodna posojila za okoljske namene v znesku […] (3) SIT ([…] EUR), katerih neto protivrednost nepovratnih sredstev naj bi znašala […] SIT ([…] milijona EUR).

17.	Slovenija tudi poroča, da je družba v letu 1999 prejela […] SIT ([…] EUR) pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje, […] SIT ([…] EUR) pomoči za zaposlovanje, […] pomoči za raziskave in razvoj ter […] SIT ([…] EUR) izvozne pomoči.

III. PRESOJA POMOČI

1. Obstoj državne pomoči

18.

V skladu s členom 87 Pogodbe ES je vsaka pomoč, ki jo dodeli država članica, ali kakršna koli vrsta pomoči iz državnih sredstev, ki izkrivlja ali bi lahko izkrivljala konkurenco z dajanjem prednosti posameznim podjetjem ali proizvodnji posameznega blaga, nezdružljiva državna pomoč, če prizadene trgovino med državami članicami, razen kadar jo je mogoče upravičiti na podlagi člena 87(2) ali (3) ES.

19.

Komisija opaža, da je pomoč dodeljena iz državnih sredstev posameznemu podjetju. Ker trgovina z lesnimi izdelki med Slovenijo in drugimi državami članicami obstaja, bi lahko ukrep izboljšal položaj prejemnika v primerjavi z njegovimi konkurenti v Sloveniji in v EU, kar pomeni, da pomoč izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami. Zato Komisija meni, da sedanje jamstvo in subvencija družbi Novoles Straža pomenita državno pomoč v skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES.

2. Obstoj nove državne pomoči

20.

Slovenski organi so sprva dvomili, da je Komisija pristojna za presojo pomoči na podlagi člena 88 Pogodbe ES, glede na to, da je bila pomoč izplačana pred pristopom. Komisija je bila soočena z vprašanjem, ali sme presojati pomoč, dodeljeno tik pred pristopom, v smislu Priloge IV.3 Akta o pristopu (4). Komisija je pojasnila, da je ustrezni kriterij, s katerim se ugotovi, ali je bila pomoč izvedena pred pristopom, pravno zavezujoča listina, s katero se pristojni nacionalni organi obvežejo, da bodo odobrili pomoč (5). Odsotnost takega sklepa pred pristopom pomeni, da ukrep ni bil odobren pred pristopom in pomeni novo pomoč, katere skladnost s skupnim trgom Komisija presoja na podlagi člena 88 Pogodbe ES.

21.

V tem primeru Komisija zaključuje, da ustrezna zavezujoča listina, s katero so se pristojni nacionalni organi obvezali, da bodo odobrili pomoč, ni začela veljati pred pristopom. Veljavni slovenski zakon v členu 22 določa, da se pomoč dodeli s sklepom vlade na predlog ministrstva. Predhodni sklepi medresorskih strokovnih odborov in pristojnega ministrstva so bili sicer potrebni za dodelitev, vendar pa niso zadostovali za odobritev pomoči. Končno odločitev sprejme vlada. Ta resolucija pa je bila izdana šele maja 2004. Zato ukrep predstavlja novo pomoč in ga je treba priglasiti na podlagi člena 88 Pogodbe ES in presojati na podlagi člena 87(1) Pogodbe ES.

3. Združljivost pomoči

22.

Slovenija je navedla, da gre za pomoč za prestrukturiranje, ki bi morala izpolnjevati merila iz Smernic Skupnosti o pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah (v nadaljnjem besedilu ‚smernice‘) glede združljivosti s skupnim trgom na podlagi člena 87(3) Pogodbe ES. Če je družba resnično v težavah, se ne uporablja nobena druga izjema iz člena 87(2) ali (3) Pogodbe ES. Ker je bila pomoč dodeljena maja 2004, jo je treba presojati na podlagi smernic o pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 1999 (6).

23.

Komisija dvomi, da je družba Novoles Straža upravičena do pomoči za prestrukturiranje. Ni jasno, ali družba Novoles Straža ni del večje poslovne skupine v smislu točke 8 smernic, glede na to, da kontrolni delež investicijskih skladov PID znaša več kakor 25 odstotkov. Komisija se tudi sprašuje, ali ne bi mogla pridobiti finančne podpore od svojih delničarjev. Če so bili lastniki družbe očitno sposobni zagotoviti finančne vložke v zadnjih letih, zakaj tega niso mogli storiti tudi leta 2004?

24.

Poleg tega je jasno, da družba ne kaže kapitalske izgube na podlagi točke 5 smernic, zato Komisija dvomi, da ima družba vse običajne znake podjetja v težavah na podlagi točke 6 smernic. Res je, da je družba imela izgube v letu 2003 ter da se ji je od leta 2002 zmanjšal denarni tok. Po drugi strani pa se je prodaja povečala tudi leta 2003, zaloge pa so se leta 2002 še zmanjšale, kakor je navedeno v točki (10). Zato Komisija ni prepričana, ali je slabo poslovanje družbe izjemen dogodek, in ne stalna težnja. Leto 2003 je bilo slabo poslovno leto za številne družbe v EU. Komisiji ni jasno, zakaj vlagatelji ne bi mogli premostiti teh težav preprosto s pomočjo zunanjega financiranja.

25.

Poleg tega ni jasno, kako bo načrt prestrukturiranja omogočil družbi ponovno vzpostavitev dolgoročne rentabilnosti. Čeprav informacije o načrtu kažejo, da bi več notranjih ukrepov lahko preusmerilo družbo, in da vsebuje napovedi, po katerih je ponovna vzpostavitev rentabilnosti mogoča, Komisija ni prejela dovolj podatkov, da bi lahko presodila v zvezi s predpostavkami glede prihodnje donosnosti. Komisija zlasti nima dovolj podatkov, ki bi utemeljevali predpostavljeno gibanje prodaje.

26.

Komisija tudi dvomi, da je prejemnik zagotovil dovolj lastnih sredstev. Načrt in pojasnila, ki jih je dala Slovenija, kažejo samo, da bo družba prispevala lastna sredstva za prestrukturiranje, pri tem pa ne navaja, kako bodo lastna sredstva ustvarjena. Glede na to, da družba nima prostih denarnih sredstev in da naj ne bi bila sposobna pridobiti sredstev od svojih vlagateljev, je videti, da to kaže na uporabo prihodnjega denarnega toka. Ker pa se nanaša na prihodnje prispevke, to ni sprejemljiv ukrep za lastni prispevek (7). Komisija pričakuje natančna pojasnila glede izvora in časa teh sredstev.

27.	Komisija tudi ni opazila nobenih izravnalnih ukrepov, ki bi jih zagotovila družba, čeprav je videti, da na trgu lesne in pohištvene industrije ni težav zaradi strukturnih presežnih zmogljivosti. Komisija bi potrebovala podrobno analizo trga in nadaljnje informacije v tej zvezi.

28.	Komisija ni prepričana, ali družba izpolnjuje pogoj ‚enkrat in zadnjič‘ iz točke 48 smernic in naprej. Družba je v zadnjih desetih letih nedvomno prejela obsežno pomoč za reševanje in prestrukturiranje.

29.

Komisija meni, da bi se moral v tem primeru uporabiti pogoj ‚enkrat in zadnjič‘, kljub temu, da je bila pomoč za reševanje in prestrukturiranja odobrena, preden je Slovenija pristopila k Evropski uniji. To pa zato, ker bo Komisija pri presoji uporabe tega pogoja obravnavala samo dejansko stanje, in sicer ali je bilo podjetje v zadnjih desetih letih v težavah in je imelo možnost te težave premagati. Zato Komisija, če Slovenija v tem primeru ne more dokazati obstoja izjemnih okoliščin, na primer, da leta 1999 ni imela delujočega tržnega gospodarstva (8), domneva, da sedanja pomoč za prestrukturiranje ne izpolnjuje pogoja ‚enkrat in zadnjič‘.

30.	Komisija potrebuje tudi več informacij o vseh drugih pomočeh, dodeljenih v letu 2004, saj bi se lahko tudi te štele kot pomoč za reševanje in prestrukturiranje, glede na to, da je malo verjetno, da bi bila taka pomoč odobrena podjetju v težavah.

IV. SKLEPNE UGOTOVITVE

31.

Ta odločitev se obravnava kot odločitev o začetku uradnega postopka preiskave v smislu člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES in Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999. Komisija, v skladu s postopkom iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES, zahteva, da Slovenija v enem mesecu od datuma prejema tega dopisa predloži svoje pripombe in pošlje vse informacije, ki bi lahko pomagale pri presoji pomoči.

32.	Komisija zahteva, da Slovenija takoj pošlje kopijo tega dopisa možnemu prejemniku pomoči.

33.	Komisija bi želela opomniti Slovenijo, da ima člen 88(3) Pogodbe ES odložilni učinek, in opozoriti na člen 14 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999, ki določa, da se lahko vsa nezakonita pomoč izterja od prejemnika.

34.

Komisija opozarja Slovenijo, da bo zainteresirane stranke obvestila z objavo tega dopisa in njegovega povzetka v Uradnem listu Evropske unije. Z objavo obvestila v Dodatku EGP k Uradnemu listu Evropske unije bo obvestila tudi zainteresirane stranke v državah Efte, ki so podpisnice Sporazuma EGP, Nadzornemu organu EFTA pa bo poslala izvod tega dopisa. Vse zainteresirane stranke bodo pozvane, da oddajo svoje pripombe v enem mesecu od datuma objave tega obvestila.’

(1) Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, OJ C 288, 9.10.1999, p. 2.

(2) Glede na to, da je na začetku leta 2006 1 EUR = 240 slovenskih tolarjev (SIT).

(3) Zajeto z obveznostjo varovnaja poslovne skrivnosti.

(4) Predviden je pravni okvir za presojo shem pomoči in posameznih pomoči, izvedenih v novi državi članici pred datumom pristopa k EU, ki se uporablja tudi po pristopu (tako imenovani začasni mehanizem).

(5) Podrobnosti so v odločitvi Komisije v zadevi C-3/2005 FSO, UL C 100 z dne 26.4.2005, str. 2, od točke 38 naprej.

(6) Smernice Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah, UL C 288, 9.10.1999, str. 2.

(7) Odločitve Komisije v zadevi C-19/2000 TGI, UL L 62, 5.3.2002, str. 30, točka 106 in zadevi C-30/1998 Wildauer Kurbelwelle, UL L 287, 14.11.2000, str. 51 točka, 52.

(8) Glej odločitve Komisije v zadevah N 584/04 Vingriai, UL C 187, 30.7.2005, str. 15 točka 19 glede Latvije.

18.8.2006

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/26

STATE AID — SLOVENIA

State aid No C 19/2006 (ex NN 29/2006) — Alleged state aid to Javor Pivka

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

(2006/C 194/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

State aid Greffe

Office: SPA3, 6/5

B-1049 Brussels

Fax No: (32-2) 296 12 42

TEXT OF SUMMARY

I. PROCEDURE

On 27 May 2004 the Slovenian Government adopted a resolution that certain financial measures should be allocated to the Slovenian company Javor Pivka Lesna Industrija d.d. (hereinafter ‘Javor Pivka’). This was not notified to the Commission on the grounds that it had been approved by the Slovenian State aid Monitoring Commission on 20 April 2004, i.e. prior to accession. However, given the Commission's practice that the relevant criterion is the legally binding act by which the competent national authority undertakes to grant state aid, the measures in question would constitute new aid, and should thus be notified on the basis of Article 88 EC Treaty and assessed under Article 87 EC Treaty.

II. DESCRIPTION OF THE AID

2.	Javor Pivka is a Slovenian manufacturer of semi-finished wood products such as shuttering panels, plywood and fine veneer as well as of furniture such as chairs and tables. It experienced financial constraints in 2003.

The company therefore has devised a restructuring plan for a period of 5 years (2004 — 2008) indicating a redirection of the firms activities as well as industrial and employment restructuring. To this end, the company receives a loan guarantee from the State of around EUR 4.6 million for technological restructuring, a State grant of around EUR 1.6 million for redundancy payments and retraining measures and a private loan of EUR 1.65 million for financial restructuring.

III. ASSESSMENT

The Commission is first not sure whether the company showed the usual signs of a company in difficulty, given that its sales increased until 2003, and inventories have still decreased in 2002. Second, it is not entirely clear how the restructuring plan would enable the company to restore its long term viability. Third, the Commission has doubts whether the company was providing a significant own contribution for the restructuring, because any alleged contribution from own funds seems not plausible in the light of the fact that the company did not have any free liquidity and was not able to obtain financing from its investors. Finally, the Commission is not sure whether the fact that no compensatory measures were provided is acceptable in the present case.

In accordance with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, all unlawful aid can be subject to recovery from the recipient.

TEXT OF LETTER

‘1.	Komisija želi obvestiti Slovenijo, da je po preučitvi informacij o zgoraj navedeni pomoči, ki jih je prejela od slovenskih organov, sklenila začeti postopek iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES.

I. POSTOPEK

2.	Dne 1. decembra 2004 je Komisija prejela pritožbo glede domnevne pomoči slovenskemu lesnopredelovalnemu podjetju Javor Pivka lesna industrija d.d. (v nadaljnjem besedilu ‚Javor Pivka‘).

4.	Slovenski organi so v pismu z dne 8. junija 2005 Komisiji sporočili, da so bili ukrepi odobreni pred pristopom in da niso bili vključeni v tako imenovani začasni postopek, ker je bila ekonomska izpostavljenost državne pomoči natančno znana pred postopkom.

Iz sklepa, ki ga je predložila Slovenija, je razvidno, da je razne ukrepe državnega financiranja odobrila medresorska strokovna komisija dne 6. aprila 2004. Pozneje so družbe dne 9. aprila 2004 zaprosile komisijo za spremljanje državnih pomoči za soglasje, ki je bilo izdano dne 20. aprila 2004. Komisija za spremljanje državnih pomoči je odločila, da so ukrepi državna pomoč, ki je skladna z zakonom o spremljanju državnih pomoči.

Šele 27. maja 2004 pa je vlada sprejela resolucijo, da bi bilo treba družbi dodeliti državno pomoč na način, ki ga določajo resolucije pristojne medresorske strokovne komisije. V pismu z dne 2. februarja 2006 je Slovenija potrdila, da ‚je bila pomoč odobrena družbi Javor Pivka […] s sklepom vlade v času, ko je bila Slovenija že polnopravna članica EU‘.

II. PODROBEN OPIS POMOČI

Družba Javor Pivka je proizvajalec lesenih polizdelkov, kot so opažne plošče, vezane plošče in furnir, ter pohištva, kot so mize in stoli. Družba je na območju Pivke v Sloveniji, leta 2003 pa je imela okoli 800 zaposlenih. Javor Pivka je ena od družb, ki v slovenskem lesnem in pohištvenem sektorju zaposlujejo največ delavcev.

8.	Družba je v lasti več fizičnih oseb in investicijskih skladov, od katerih nihče ne presega 25-odstotnega deleža. Z izjemo Kapitalske družbe d.d., ki ima v lasti okoli 5 odstotkov, so institucionalni lastniki zasebni. Pred kratkim so jo dokapitalizirale njene matične družbe.

9.	Družba ima več odvisnih družb; nekatere izmed njih tržijo proizvode v večjih slovenskih mestih, nekatere družbe, prevzete januarja 2003, pa izvajajo programe predelave in obdelave lesa.

10.

Glavni finančni in operativni pokazatelji kažejo, da se je finančno poslovanje družbe leta 2003 poslabšalo. Družba je izgubila velik delež svojega registriranega osnovnega kapitala, ki je znašal 1,195 milijarde SIT [okoli 5 milijonov EUR (2)], aprila 2004 pa le še 0,7 milijarde SIT. Poleg tega so bili od leta 2001 poslovni rezultati družbe negativni, njen prosti denarni tok pa se je zmanjšal. Vendar pa so se njene zaloge leta 2002 zmanjšale, povečale pa so se le leta 2003. Podobno se je leta 2002 prodaja povečala, leta 2003 pa zmanjšala.

11.	Aprila 2004 je družba Javor Pivka ministrstvu za gospodarstvo predložila načrt prestrukturiranja za obdobje od 2004 do 2008.

12.

Družba svoje sedanje razmere razlaga s padcem gospodarske rasti na glavnih izvoznih trgih (zlasti v Nemčiji in ZDA), kjer prodaja 70 odstotkov svoje proizvodnje. Poleg tega ima zastarele proizvodne zmogljivosti. Organizacijska struktura ji ni omogočila uskladiti proizvodnje s povpraševanjem. Zato so bili proizvodni stroški visoki. Družba ni bila sposobna proizvajati izdelkov v višjem cenovnem razredu. Zaradi nezadostne likvidnosti pa so se kopičile obveznosti in finančna bremena.

13.

Glavna poglavja prestrukturiranja družbe Javor Pivka je mogoče povzeti:

—	Družba Javor Pivka bo spremenila prodajno strategijo tako, da se bo preusmerila s trgov EU in severnoameriških trgov zlasti na vzhodnoevropski in ruski trg. Stroške v višini 496 milijonov SIT bo krila iz ‚lastnih sredstev‘.

—

Prestrukturiranje industrije bo trajalo tri leta in bo izboljšalo proizvodno učinkovitost ter zmanjšalo stroške obratovanja. Stroške v višini 2,099 milijarde SIT bo deloma krila iz lastnih sredstev, deloma pa s posojilom v znesku 1.100 milijonov SIT (4,6 milijona EUR), zavarovanim z državnim jamstvom.

—

Izvedla bo prestrukturiranje zaposlenih, vključno z zmanjšanjem števila zaposlenih za 108 delavcev, za preostalih 693 delavcev pa bo izvedla posebno in splošno usposabljanje. Stroške v višini 602 milijona SIT bo deloma krila z lastnimi sredstvi, deloma pa s subvencijo v znesku 382 milijonov SIT (1,6 milijona EUR).

—	Cilj finančnega prestrukturiranja je reprogramiranje obstoječih in tekočih dolgoročnih finančnih obveznosti, predvideno pa je s pomočjo lastnih sredstev ali s pomočjo lastnikov ali bank. Videti je, da bo družba prejela posojilo v višini 400 milijonov SIT (1,65 milijona EUR).

14.	Na podlagi prestrukturiranja se bo presežek iz poslovanja v letu 2004 povečal do 6 odstotkov in leta 2008 dosegel 12,7 odstotkov. Dobiček iz poslovanja v primerjavi z lastniškim kapitalom se bo v letu 2007 povečal na 14 odstotkov.

15.	Komisija za spremljanje državnih pomoči je določila izravnalni ukrep, da družba v obdobju prestrukturiranja ne sme prejeti nobene druge državne pomoči.

16.	Slovenija je Komisijo obvestila, da je družba Javor Pivka v letu 2004 od države prejela nepovratna sredstva v višini […] (3) SIT ([…] EUR) za varčevanje z energijo.

III. PRESOJA POMOČI

1. Obstoj državne pomoči

17.

18.

Komisija opaža, da je pomoč dodeljena iz državnih sredstev posameznemu podjetju. Ker trgovina z lesnimi izdelki med Slovenijo in drugimi državami članicami obstaja, bi lahko ukrep izboljšal položaj prejemnika v primerjavi z njegovimi konkurenti v Sloveniji in v EU, kar pomeni, da pomoč izkrivlja konkurenco in vpliva na trgovino med državami članicami. Zato Komisija meni, da sedanje jamstvo in subvencija družbi Javor Pivka pomenita državno pomoč v skladu s členom 87(1) Pogodbe ES.

2. Obstoj nove državne pomoči

19.

Slovenski organi so sprva dvomili, da je Komisija pristojna za presojo pomoči na podlagi člena 88 Pogodbe ES, glede na to, da je bila pomoč izplačana pred pristopom. Komisija je bila soočena z vprašanjem, ali sme presojati državno pomoč, dodeljeno tik pred pristopom, v smislu Priloge IV.3 Akta o pristopu. (4) Komisija je pojasnila, da je ustrezni kriterij, s katerim se ugotovi, ali je bila pomoč izvedena pred pristopom, pravno zavezujoča listina, s katero se pristojni nacionalni organi obvežejo, da bodo odobrili pomoč. (5) Odsotnost takega sklepa pred pristopom pomeni, da ukrep ni bil odobren pred pristopom in pomeni novo pomoč, katere skladnost s skupnim trgom Komisija presoja na podlagi člena 88 Pogodbe ES.

20.

3. Združljivost pomoči

21.

Slovenija je navedla, da gre za pomoč za prestrukturiranje, ki bi morala izpolnjevati merila iz smernic Skupnosti o pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah (v nadaljnjem besedilu ‚smernice o pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje‘) glede združljivosti s skupnim trgom na podlagi člena 87(3) Pogodbe ES. Če je družba resnično v težavah, se ne uporablja nobena druga izjema iz člena 87(2) ali (3) Pogodbe ES. Ker je bila pomoč dodeljena maja 2004, jo je treba presojati na podlagi smernic o pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje iz leta 1999. (6)

22.

Komisija dvomi, da je družba Javor Pivka upravičena do pomoči za prestrukturiranje. Sprašuje se, ali ne bi mogla pridobiti finančne podpore od skupine, kateri pripada. Če so bili lastniki družbe očitno sposobni zagotoviti finančne vložke v zadnjih letih, zakaj tega niso mogli storiti tudi leta 2004?

23.

Poleg tega je jasno, da družba ne kaže kapitalske izgube na podlagi točke 5 smernic, zato Komisija dvomi, da ima družba vse običajne znake podjetja v težavah na podlagi točke 6 smernic. Res je, da je imela družba nenehne izgube v letih 2002 in 2003 ter da se ji je zmanjšal denarni tok. Po drugi strani pa se je prodaja večala do leta 2003, zaloge pa so se leta 2002 še zmanjšale, kakor je navedeno v točki (10). Zato Komisija ni prepričana, ali je slabo poslovanje družbe izjemen dogodek, in ne stalna težnja. Leto 2003 je bilo slabo poslovno leto za številne družbe v EU. Komisiji ni jasno, zakaj vlagatelji ne bi mogli premostiti teh težav preprosto z zunanjim financiranjem.

24.

Poleg tega ni jasno, kako bo načrt prestrukturiranja družbi omogočil ponovno vzpostavitev dolgoročne rentabilnosti. Čeprav informacije o načrtu kažejo, da bi več notranjih ukrepov lahko preusmerilo družbo, in da vsebuje napovedi, po katerih je ponovna vzpostavitev rentabilnosti mogoča, pa Komisija ni prejela dovolj podatkov, da bi presodila predpostavke glede prihodnje donosnosti. Komisija zlasti nima dovolj podatkov, ki bi utemeljevali predpostavljeno gibanje prodaje.

25.

Komisija tudi dvomi, ali je prejemnik zagotovil dovolj lastnih sredstev. Načrt in pojasnila, ki jih je dala Slovenija, kažejo samo, da bo družba prispevala lastna sredstva za prestrukturiranje, pri tem pa ne navaja, kako bodo lastna sredstva ustvarjena. Glede na to, da družba nima prostih denarnih sredstev in da naj ne bi bila sposobna pridobiti sredstev od svojih vlagateljev, je videti, da to kaže na uporabo prihodnjega denarnega toka. Ker pa se nanaša na prihodnje prispevke, to ni sprejemljiv ukrep za lastni prispevek. (7) Komisija pričakuje natančna pojasnila glede izvora in časa teh sredstev.

26.	Komisija tudi ni opazila nobenih izravnalnih ukrepov, ki bi jih zagotovila družba, čeprav je videti, da na trgu lesne in pohištvene industrije ni težav zaradi strukturnih presežnih zmogljivosti. Komisija bi potrebovala podrobno analizo trga in nadaljnje informacije v tej zvezi.

27.	Komisija potrebuje tudi več informacij o vseh drugih pomočeh, dodeljenih v letu 2004, saj bi se lahko tudi te štele kot pomoč za reševanje in prestrukturiranje, glede na to, da je malo verjetno, da bi bila okoljska pomoč odobrena podjetju v težavah.

IV. SKLEPNE UGOTOVITVE

28.

Ta odločitev se obravnava kot odločitev o začetku uradnega postopka preiskave v smislu člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES in Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999. Komisija v skladu s postopkom iz člena 88(2) Pogodbe ES zahteva, da Slovenija v enem mesecu od datuma prejema tega dopisa predloži svoje pripombe in pošlje vse informacije, ki bi lahko pomagale pri presoji pomoči.

29.	Komisija zahteva, da Slovenija takoj pošlje kopijo tega dopisa možnemu prejemniku pomoči.

30.	Komisija bi želela opomniti Slovenijo, da ima člen 88(3) Pogodbe ES odložilni učinek, in opozoriti na člen 14 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999, ki določa, da se lahko vsa nezakonita pomoč izterja od prejemnika.

31.

(1) Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, OJ C 288, 9.10.1999, p. 2.

(2) Glede na to, da je na začetku leta 2006 1 EUR = 240 slovenskih tolarjev (SIT).

(3) Zajeto z obveznostjo varovnaja poslovne skrivnosti.

(5) Podrobnosti so v odločitvi Komisije v zadevi C-3/2005 FSO, UL C 100 z dne 26. 4. 2005, str. 2, od točke 38 naprej.

(6) Smernice Skupnosti o državni pomoči za reševanje in prestrukturiranje podjetij v težavah, UL C 288, 9.10.1999, str. 2.

(7) Odločitve Komisije v zadevi C-19/2000 TGI, UL L 62, 5.3.2002, str. 30, točka 106 in zadevi C-30/1998 Wildauer Kurbelwelle, UL L 287, 14.11.2000, str. 51 točka, 52.

18.8.2006

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/30

STATE AID — THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

State aid No C 21/2006 (ex N 635/2005) — Regional aid to shipyard Slovenské lodenice Komárno

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

(2006/C 194/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By means of the letter dated 07.06.2006 reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the Commission notified the Slovak Republic of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the above-mentioned aid measure.

Interested parties may submit their comments on the aid measure in respect of which the Commission is initiating the procedure within one month of the date of publication of this summary and the following letter, to:

European Commission

Directorate-General Competition

State aid Greffe

B-1049 Brussels

Fax No: (32-2) 296 12 42

These comments will be communicated to the Slovak Republic. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

TEXT OF SUMMARY

PROCEDURE

The notification of the aid measure was registered on 14 December 2005. Slovakia submitted additional information by two letters, registered on 31 January 2006 and 4 April 2006.

DESCRIPTION

The beneficiary is the Slovak shipbuilding company Slovenské lodenice Komárno, joint stock company (‘SLK’) situated on the river Danube in a region eligible for regional aid under Article 87(3)a) EC Treaty. SLK is a large company.

SLK intends to undertake between 2006 and 2008 an investment with the aim of extending its shipbuilding capacity and modernise its production. The total costs of the investment amount to SKK 80 325 658, the present value calculated by the Slovak authorities being SKK 76 100 000.

The investment project is composed of nine parts named DP 01 to DP 09. The chief component of the investment project is the extension of the production space by transforming one of the non-used old rails crossing the yard's property into a new production line for assembling and outfitting (subproject DP 01). This investment will enable SLK to produce two more ships a year or increase its production capacity by 16 % in terms of cGT. The remaining subprojects consist in adjustments of other production facilities to the increased capacity needs and in the modernisation of the yard.

The project will lead to an increase of technical capacity of the yard by 16 % and to an increase in productivity. As a result of the investment, 120-130 direct production jobs, 20-30 ancillary jobs and 50-60 indirect jobs will be created in the region.

The notified aid measure consists in a write-off by the Social security agency of penalty payments. This penalty accrued for non-payment by SLK of its social security contributions between 31 October 2003 and 31 March 2004. The debt to be written off amounts to SKK 17 117 957. The aid intensity is 22.49 %.

ASSESSMENT

The aid falls to be assessed in the light of the Framework on State aid to Shipbuilding (‘Shipbuilding framework’). The Shipbuilding framework allows the granting of regional aid for investments in upgrading or modernising existing yards with the objective of improving the productivity of existing installations. The aid intensity may not exceed 22.5 % in Article 87(3)(a) regions.

The Commission doubts that the conditions of the Shipbuilding framework are fulfilled. The Commission has doubts that part of the investments concerning the equipment of an old non-used rail in the yard's property to become a production facility, the purchase of a horizontal boring tool to replace a formerly rented boring tool as well as concerning the establishing a new aluminium welding workshop, a task which was before subcontracted, can be considered as investments into existing installations. It therefore has doubts on the eligibility of these costs for regional aid.

In addition, the Commission has doubts whether the capacity increase of SLK would be compatible with the Shipbuilding framework and the common market.

TEXT OF LETTER

‘Komisia oznamuje Slovenskej republike, že po preskúmaní informácií o uvedenej pomoci, ktoré poskytli Vaše orgány, sa rozhodla začať konanie stanovené v článku 88 ods. 2 Zmluvy o ES.

I. KONANIE

(1)

Listom z 9. decembra 2005, zaregistrovanom 14. decembra 2005, Slovensko oznámilo Komisii svoj úmysel poskytnúť regionálnu investičnú pomoc spoločnosti Slovenské lodenice Komárno. Komisia požiadala o informácie listom z 23. decembra 2005, na ktorý Slovensko odpovedalo listom z 26. januára 2006, zaregistrovaným 31. januára 2006. Komisia požiadala o ďalšie informácie listom z 27. februára 2006, na ktorý Slovensko odpovedalo listom z 23. marca 2006, zaregistrovaným 4. apríla 2006.

II. OPIS

(2)

Príjemcom je slovenská lodiarska spoločnosť Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. so sídlom na rieke Dunaj v regióne oprávnenom získať regionálnu pomoc podľa článku 87 ods. 3 písm. a) Zmluvy o ES. Je to akciová spoločnosť, ktorá bola založená v roku 2000. Jej akcionármi sú štát (30 %) a Euram Bank AG Viedeň (70 %). Euram Bank AG Viedeň sa stala väčšinovým akcionárom prostredníctvom dvoch kapitálových injekcií v roku 2003. Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. je veľkým podnikom s obratom 1 424 mld. Sk (1) (v roku 2004) a 910 zamestnancami (v roku 2005). Po čiastočnej privatizácii v roku 2003 spoločnosť strojnásobila produkciu (pokiaľ ide o kompenzovanú hrubú tonáž (CGT) za rok) a v roku 2004 dosiahla zisk 26 mil. Sk. Spoločnosť Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. nie je vo finančných ťažkostiach.

(3)

Spoločnosť Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. stavia malé námorné lode s maximálnou nosnosťou 6 000 dwt na prepravu kontajnerov a na prepravu suchých nákladov. Lodenice DAMEN v Holandsku a Flensburg v Nemecku, ktoré stavajú lode s nosnosťou 4 000 až 20 000 dwt, majú podľa Slovenska vedúce postavenie na trhu. V súčasnosti sa aj poľská lodenica Stocznia Polnocna špecializuje na stavbu kontajnerových lodí. Spoločnosť Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. nevykonáva opravy ani konverzie námorných plavidiel. Celá produkcia spoločnosti je orientovaná do členských štátov Európskej únie.

(4)

Spoločnosť má v úmysle v rokoch 2006 až 2008 realizovať investičný projekt s názvom Modernizácia technologickej základne Slovenských lodeníc Komárno, a.s. Cieľom projektu je rozšíriť stavebnú kapacitu spoločnosti Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. a modernizovať výrobu. Investičný projekt pozostáva z deviatich dielčích projektov nazvaných DP 01 až DP 09, ktoré sú stručne opísané takto:

—

DP 01 – Rozšírenie výrobných plôch: jedna zo starých odstavených koľají vo vlastníctve lodenice sa vybaví zariadením, aby slúžila ako prevádzkyschopné pracovisko; v tejto súvislosti musí lodenica vybudovať koľajnice pre lodnú posuvňu, energetické rozvody a žeriavovú dráhu a zakúpiť žeriav s nosnosťou do 50 ton. Táto časť lodenice ešte nebola použitá na výrobu. Náklady predstavujú 39 825 658 Sk.

—	DP 02 – Automatizovaný systém predúpravy hutného materiálu: nákup a realizácia komorového tryskača valčekového dopravníka. Lodenica doteraz využívala menej výkonný komorový tryskač. Výška nákladov dosahuje 17 500 000 Sk.

—

DP 03 – Vybudovanie energetického hospodárstva na odstavených koľajach č. 4 a č. 5: koľaje č. 4 a č. 5 sa využívajú pri dokončovacích prácach na lodných objektoch pred ich presunom do doku; lodenica vybuduje šesť nových odberných miest (na acetylén, kyslík, stlačený vzduch a elektrickú energiu) na modernizáciu tohto zariadenia a zvýšenie spracovateľskej kapacity. Výška nákladov dosahuje 6 500 000 Sk.

—

DP 04 – Vybudovanie energetických rozvodov pre ťažké mólo pri dokončovacích prácach výrobného procesu: na móle sa vybudujú nové rozvody a osem odberných miest (pre acetylén, kyslík, stlačený vzduch a elektrickú energiu). Cieľom je nahradiť súčasný pomalý a nákladný systém, v ktorom sa elektrická energia odoberá z fliaš. Výška nákladov dosahuje 3 500 000 Sk.

—	DP 05 – Horizontálna vyvrtávačka: nákup horizontálnej vyvrtávačky. Toto zariadenie sa doteraz prenajímalo. Výška nákladov dosahuje 6 000 000 Sk.

—	DP 06 – Pracovisko na delenie materiálu strihaním: nákup hydraulických tabuľových nožníc. Doteraz sa používala alternatívna, menej efektívna technológia. Výška nákladov dosahuje 2 000 000 Sk.

—

DP 07 – Zlepšenie kvality kontroly: kontrolné merania pri výrobe lodného telesa, kontrola kvality vykonaných prác rôznych profesií, nákup prenosného priemyselného röntgenového prístroja, prístroja na meranie náterov a materiálov, ultrazvukového hrúbkomera na plechy a sondy. Výška nákladov dosahuje 2 000 000 Sk.

—	DP 08 – Riešenie manipulačnej techniky: plošinový vozík, vysokozdvižný vozík, nabíjač trakčných olovených batérií. Výška nákladov dosahuje 2 000 000 Sk.

—	DP 09 – Pracoviská na zváranie hliníka a nerezu: elektrozámočnícke pracovisko, potrubáreň (pracovisko pre zváranie nerezových rúr). Uvedené dve pracoviská sú v súčasnosti predmetom subdodávok. Výška nákladov dosahuje 1 000 000 Sk.

(5)

Celkové náklady dosahujú výšku 80 325 658 Sk, ktorá zodpovedá oprávneným nákladom na regionálnu investičnú pomoc. Náklady pozostávajú z výdavkov na nákup strojov a zariadení. Súčas %). V jednotlivých rokoch sú náklady distribuované takto:

Tabuľka č. 1 – Súčasná hodnota oprávnených nákladov

Rok	Oprávnené náklady	Súčasná hodnota oprávnených nákladov
2006	31 164 000	31 164 000
2007	37 295 658	34 677 506
2008	11 866 000	10 258 494
Spolu	80 325 658	76 100 000

(6)

Hlavnou zložkou investičného projektu je dielčí projekt DP 01. Táto investícia umožní spoločnosti Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. vyrábať ročne o dve lode viac. Ďalšie dielčie projekty pozostávajú z úprav výrobných zariadení na potreby zvýšenej kapacity a z modernizácie lodenice. Podľa slovenských orgánov sú dielčie projekty DP 02 – DP 09 samostatnými projektmi, ktoré bude spoločnosť Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. realizovať aj v prípade, ak sa dielčí projekt DP 01 nebude realizovať. Príjemca vyhlásil, že investície využije v období najmenej piatich rokov. Spoločnosť Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. požiadala o poskytnutie pomoci listom z 10. októbra 2005.

(7)

Podľa slovenských orgánov bude investičný projekt viesť k zvýšeniu technologickej kapacity lodenice o 16 % z 24 000 CGT (kompenzovaná hrubá tonáž) na 28 500 CGT v roku 2009, čo zodpovedá zvýšeniu o dve lode ročne. Ďalším prínosom realizácie projektu bude skrátenie výrobného cyklu, úspora nákladov a zvýšenie kvality. Produktivita lodenice sa v roku 2009 zvýši zo súčasných 67 normohodín/CGT na 58 normohodín/CGT pri zohľadnení činností vykonávaných v rámci subdodávky. Výsledkom investície bude vytvorenie 120 – 130 pracovných miest v robotníckych profesiách, 20 – 30 pracovných miest v pomocných profesiách a nepriamych pracovných miest v regióne s mierou nezamestnanosti 14 %.

(8)

Notifikované opatrenie pozostáva z odpísania penále Sociálnou poisťovňou. Uvedené penále vzniklo nezaplatením príspevkov sociálneho zabezpečenia spoločnosťou Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. v období od 31. októbra 2003 do 31. marca 2004. Výška pohľadávky na odpísanie predstavuje 17 117 957 Sk. Sociálna poisťovňa odpustí penále v roku 2006, keď by sa tiež mala začať investícia, po schválení Komisiou. Súčasná hodnota pomoci tak predstavuje 17 117 957 Sk, čo zodpovedá intenzite pomoci vo výške 22,49 % oprávnených nákladov.

(9)	Ďalšie zdroje financovania sú vlastné zdroje spoločnosti Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. (19 025 000 Sk) a pôžička zo súkromnej banky (39 957 043 Sk).

III. HODNOTENIE

3.1. Štátna pomoc podľa článku 87 ods. 1 Zmluvy o ES

(10)

V súlade s článkom 87, ods. 1 Zmluvy o ES akákoľvek pomoc poskytnutá členským štátom alebo zo štátnych prostriedkov v akejkoľvek forme, ktorá narúša hospodársku súťaž alebo môže narušiť hospodársku súťaž zvýhodnením určitých spoločností alebo výrobu určitých druhov tovaru, je nezlučiteľná so spoločným trhom. Podľa zavedenej judikatúry európskych súdov je kritérium ovplyvňovania obchodu splnené, ak firma príjemcu vykonáva hospodársku činnosť zahŕňajúcu obchod medzi členskými štátmi.

(11)

Odpísanie pohľadávky realizuje Sociálna poisťovňa, ktorá je ústredným orgánom spravujúcim systém sociálneho zabezpečenia. Finančné opatrenie tak vyplýva zo štátnych zdrojov a vzťahuje sa na štát. Sociálna poisťovňa môže podľa vlastného uváženia odpustiť penále v plnej výške alebo čiastočne ‚v odôvodnených prípadoch”. Kritérium selektívnosti opatrenia je týmto splnené. Opatrenie prináša spoločnosti Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. výhody, ktoré by spoločnosť na trhu nezískala. Spoločnosť Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. vyrába námorné lode. Uvedeným opatrením sa môže ohroziť hospodárska súťaž a ovplyvniť obchod medzi členskými štátmi, pretože pri týchto produktoch jestvuje obchod medzi členskými štátmi. tieto produkty predávajú. Hoci spoločnosť Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. prevádzkuje na sektorovom trhu s malými loďami do 6 000 dwt, je prinajmenšom v potenciálnej hospodárskej súťaži s menšími poľskými lodenicami, holandskou lodenicou DAMEN a nemeckou lodenicou Flensburg. V dôsledku toho predstavuje finančné opatrenie štátnu pomoc v zmysle článku 87 ods. 1 Zmluvy o ES a musí sa hodnotiť zodpovedajúcim spôsobom.

(12)

Komisia poznamenáva, že nebude zisťovať, či samotné nevymáhanie príspevkov sociálneho zabezpečenia v období od 31. októbra 2003 do 31. marca 2004 nepredstavovalo štátnu pomoc v zmysle článku 87 ods. 1 Zmluvy o ES. K tomuto opatreniu došlo pred vstupom do EÚ a toto opatrenie nemá účinky po vstupe, Komisia preto nie je oprávnená ho hodnotiť. Komisia poznamenáva, že spoločnosť Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. zaplatila všetky príspevky sociálneho zabezpečenia z obdobia od 31. októbra 2003 do 31. marca 2004, čo bola nevyhnutná podmienka na odpísanie penále.

3.2. Výnimka podľa článku 87 ods. 2 a 3 Zmluvy o ES

(13)	V článku 87 ods. 2 a 3 Zmluvy o ES sa uvádzajú výnimky zo všeobecnej nezlučiteľnosti štátnej pomoci, ako sa uvádza v odseku 1 tohto článku.

(14)

Na hodnotenie pomoci pre stavbu lodí Komisia vydala rámec pre štátnu pomoc pre stavbu lodí (‚rámec pre stavbu lodí’) (2). Podľa rámca pre stavbu lodí znamená stavba lodí stavbu samohybných námorných komerčných plavidiel v Spoločenstve. Činnosti spoločnosti Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. spadajú pod uvedenú definíciu a z toho dôvodu je pomoc pre túto spoločnosť potrebné hodnotiť na základe rámca pre stavbu lodí.

(15)

V bode 26 rámca pre stavbu lodí sa ustanovuje, že regionálnu pomoc pre stavbu lodí, opravu lodí alebo konverziu lodí je možné pokladať za zlučiteľnú so spoločným trhom len vtedy, ak sa pomoc poskytuje na investície do modernizácie existujúcich lodeníc, ktoré nie sú spojené s finančnou reštrukturalizáciou príslušnej lodenice (príslušných lodeníc), s cieľom zvýšiť produktivitu existujúcich zariadení.

(16)

Intenzita pomoci nemôže prekročiť 22,5 % v regiónoch uvedených v článku 87 ods. 3 písm. a) Zmluvy o ES alebo príslušnú maximálnu regionálnu hranicu pomoci, podľa toho, ktorá hodnota je nižšia. Pomoc musí byť ďalej ohraničená na výdavky oprávnené na podporu, ako sa uvádza v uplatňovaných smerniciach Spoločenstva o regionálnej pomoci (‚regionálne usmernenia’) (3).

(17)

Aby bola investícia oprávnená na pomoc podľa rámca pre stavbu lodí v kombinácii s regionálnymi usmerneniami, musí spĺňať tieto kumulatívne požiadavky:

a)	byť obmedzená na modernizáciu a vylepšenie lodenice s cieľom zvýšiť produktivitu zariadení lodenice;

b)	byť obmedzená na existujúce lodenice a existujúce zariadenia;

c)	byť obmedzená na investície do fixných aktív: pôda, budovy a stroje/zariadenia;

d)	nepredstavovať len výmenu odpísaných aktív;

e)	nebyť prepojená s finančnou reštrukturalizáciou a

f)	byť obmedzená na náklady nákupu aktív na základe trhových podmienok.

(18)

Komisia má pochybnosti, či je možné všetky náklady notifikovaného investičného projektu považovať za oprávnené na regionálnu pomoc. Komisia má konkrétne pochybnosti o tom, či niektoré z komponentov (dielčie projekty DP 01, DP 05 a DP 09) majú za cieľ zvýšenie produktivity existujúcich zariadení a či sú z toho dôvodu splnené požiadavky uvedené v odseku 17 písm. a) a b).

(19)

Jediným cieľom dielčieho projektu DP 01, ktorý predstavuje polovicu investičných nákladov, je jednoznačne rozšíriť výrobnú kapacitu lodenice. Dielčí projekt DP 01 pozostáva z rozšírenia lodenice vybudovaním nového pracoviska na mieste, ktoré sa doteraz na výrobu nepoužívalo. Preto má Komisia pochybnosti, či je vybudovanie takéhoto zariadenia možné považovať za opatrenie určené na zvýšenie produktivity existujúcich zariadení.

(20)

Dielčí projekt DP 05 pozostáva z nákupu horizontálnej vyvrtávačky, ktorú spoločnosť Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. doteraz prenajímala. Komisia sa domnieva, že tento dielčí projekt nenahradzuje existujúce zariadenie novým, výkonnejším zariadením. Preto zrejme nejde o investíciu do modernizácie s cieľom zvýšenia produktivity existujúceho zariadenia, ale len o výmenu prenajatého zariadenia za zariadenie vo vlastníctve spoločnosti.

(21)

Napokon dielčí projekt DP 09 pozostáva zo zriadenia nového pracoviska na zváranie hliníka a nového pracoviska na zváranie nerezu. Táto časť výroby bola doteraz predmetom subdodávok. Komisia má pochybnosti, či, tak ako v prípade dielčieho projektu DP 05, sa dielčí projekt DP 09 skutočne týka investícií do modernizácie s cieľom zvýšenia produktivity existujúceho zariadenia. Komisia v tomto štádiu zvažuje, či investícia nepredstavuje len výmenu prenajatého zariadenia za zariadenie vo vlastníctve spoločnosti, ktorá nevedie k zvýšeniu produktivity.

(22)

V regionálnych usmerneniach sa počiatočná investícia definuje ako investícia na zriadenie nového podniku, rozširovanie existujúceho podniku alebo racionalizácia, diverzifikácia alebo modernizácia existujúceho podniku (bod 4.4 regionálnych usmernení). Podľa rámca pre stavbu lodí ako lex specialis k regionálnym usmerneniam sa oprávnené výdavky obmedzujú na projekty modernizácie. Z tohto dôvodu je konkrétne pomoc na zriadenie nového výrobného zariadenia v sektore stavby lodí vylúčená z oprávnenosti. Komisia má pochybnosti, či dielčie projekty DP 01, DP 05 a DP 09 zodpovedajú požiadavke ustanovenej v odseku 26 rámca pre stavbu lodí, aby sa investície vzťahovali len na modernizáciu a vylepšenie existujúcich lodeníc zameranú na zvýšenie produktivity existujúcich zariadení.

(23)

Komisia ďalej v tomto štádiu dospela k záveru, že časť investícií zvýši kapacitu spoločnosti Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. a má pochybnosti, či by uvedené zvýšenie kapacity bolo zlučiteľné s rámcom pre stavbu lodí. Komisia má pochybnosti, či sú dielčie projekty DP 01, DP 02 a DP 03 oprávnené na regionálnu pomoc, pretože vedú k zvýšeniu technologickej kapacity spoločnosti Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s.

(24)

Pokiaľ ide o dielčí projekt DP 01, základným cieľom tejto investície je vytvorenie novej výrobnej kapacity. Dielčí projekt DP 02 pozostáva z nákupu nového komorového tryskača, ktorý je súčasťou zariadenia s názvom Automatizovaný systém predúpravy hutného materiálu. Investíciou sa zvýši kapacita tohto zariadenia, ale tiež jeho účinnosť, pretože bude viesť k úsporám materiálu a energie a bude mať environmentálny prínos. Dielčí projekt DP 03 pozostáva z vybudovania nových energetických terminálov na existujúcich odstavených koľajach s cieľom zvýšiť ich kapacitu. Podľa slovenských orgánov ďalšie dielčie projekty nemajú vplyv na výrobnú kapacitu spoločnosti Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s., keď sa posudzujú osobitne.

(25)

Podľa bodu 3 písm. a) úvodu rámca pre stavbu lodí, určité špecifické faktory ovplyvňujúce sektor stavby lodí by sa mali odraziť v politike Komisie o kontrole štátnej pomoci. Takéto špecifické faktory podľa rámca o stavbe lodi sú inter alia periodicky opakujúca sa nadmerná kapacita, stlačené ceny a deformácie obchodu na svetovom trhu stavby lodí. Komisia uvádza, že priemysel stavby lodí má cyklický charakter, kde obdobia rastu sú pravidelne nasledované obdobiami poklesu ekonomickej aktivity. Súčasná situácia na svetovom trhu je charakterizovaná vysokou úrovňou nových objednávok, vyšších cien a malou alebo žiadnou voľnou kapacitou. Primerane by sa však mali zohľadniť aj predpovede uvádzajúce rastúce nadmerné kapacity v najbližších rokoch, a to najmä ako výsledok investícií v Číne a ďalších ázijských krajinách.

(26)	Komisia vo svojej doterajšej praxi mohla pri schvaľovaní regionálnej investičnej pomoci v sektore stavby lodí dospieť k pozitívnemu záveru, že príslušné investície neviedli k zvyšovaniu kapacít (4).

(27)

Komisia sa v tomto štádiu domnieva, že by mala analyzovať vplyv investície, ktorá sa má vykonať s pomocou štátu, na kapacitnú situáciu príslušnej lodenice. Pri posudzovaní zlučiteľnosti predmetnej pomoci s rámcom pre stavbu lodí musí Komisia pozorne prehodnotiť rozsah, v ktorom takéto potenciálne zvýšenie kapacity môže viesť k narušeniu hospodárskej súťaže na trhu.

(28)

Na druhej strane Komisia tiež musí starostlivo prehodnotiť účinky tohto konkrétneho projektu na regionálny rozvoj (oddiel 2 regionálnych usmernení). Komisia v tomto štádiu uvádza, že projekt zrejme prispieva k regionálnemu rozvoju tým, že vytvára početné pracovné príležitosti v regióne s mierou nezamestnanosti 14 %. Investícia bude zachovaná na mieste najmenej počas 5 rokov.

(29)

Komisia uvádza, že na základe informácií, ktoré sú v tomto štádiu dostupné, zostávajúce dielčie projekty zrejme spĺňajú kritéria oprávnenosti uvedené v odseku 17 písm. a) a b). Komisia podobne uvádza, že všetky notifikované dielčie projekty zrejme spĺňajú kritéria oprávnenosti uvedené v odseku 17 písm. c) až f).

(30)	Vzhľadom na pochybnosti Komisie v súvislosti s oprávnenosťou časti investičného projektu na regionálnu pomoc má Komisia takisto pochybnosti o tom, či je dodržaná maximálna intenzita pomoci vo výške 22,5 % z oprávnených nákladov, ako je stanovené v rámci pre výstavbu lodí.

(31)	Spoločnosť Slovenské lodenice Komárno, a.s. požiadala o štátnu pomoc pred začatím prác na projekte a prispieva viac než 25 % na financovanie projektu, v súlade s bodom 4.2 regionálnych usmernení.

IV. ROZHODNUTIE

(32)	Na základe uvedených dôvodov má Komisia pochybnosti, či je plánovaná pomoc zlúčiteľná so spoločným trhom.

(33)

Na základe uvedených úvah a konajúc v súlade s postupom ustanoveným v článku 88 ods. 2 Zmluvy o ES Komisia žiada Slovenskú republiku, aby do jedného mesiaca od doručenia tohto listu predložila svoje pripomienky a poskytla všetky informácie, ktoré môžu pomôcť pri hodnotení pomoci. Žiada, aby slovenské orgány bezodkladne predložili kópiu tohto listu potenciálnemu príjemcovi pomoci.

(34)

Komisia pripomína, že zainteresované strany bude informovať uverejnením tohto listu a jeho zhrnutia v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie. Komisia bude tiež informovať zainteresované strany v krajinách EZVO, ktoré sú signatármi dohody o EHP, uverejnením oznamu v prílohe EHP k Úradnému vestníku Európskej únie, ako aj Dozorný orgán EZVO zaslaním kópie tohto listu. Všetky tieto zainteresované strany Komisia takto vyzve, aby predložili svoje pripomienky do jedného mesiaca od dátumu tohto uverejnenia.’

(1) Ostatná centrálna sadzba uverejnená Národnou bankou Slovenska (november 2005) je 1 Euro = 38,4550 Sk.

(2) Ú. v. EÚ C 317, 30.12.2003, s. 1.

(3) Ú. v. ES C 74, 10.3.1998, s. 9.

(4) Pozri napríklad C 23/2001 Flender Werft Lübeck, Ú. v. ES L 203, 1.8.2000, s. 60, N 306/2002 spoločnosť Flensburger Schiffbaugesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Nemecko), Ú. v. ES C 277, 14.11.2002, s. 2, N 383/2002 spoločnosť Neorion Shipyards, Ú. v. EÚ C 6, 10.1.2004, s. 21, N 617/2003 spoločnosť Lamda Shipyard, Ú. v. EÚ C 24, 29.1.2005, s. 5.

		ISSN 1725-2423
Official Journal of the European Union		C 194

English edition	Information and Notices	Volume 49 18 August 2006

Notice No	Contents	page
	I Information
	Commission
2006/C 194/1	Euro exchange rates	1

2006/C 194/2	Community guidelines on state aid to promote risk capital investments in small and medium-sized enterprises ( 1 )	2

2006/C 194/3	State aid — Slovenia — State aid No C 20/2006 (ex NN 30/2006) — Alleged state aid to Novoles Straža — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty ( 1 )	22

2006/C 194/4	State aid — Slovenia — State aid No C 19/2006 (ex NN 29/2006) — Alleged state aid to Javor Pivka — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty ( 1 )	26

2006/C 194/5	State aid — The Slovak Republic — State aid No C 21/2006 (ex N 635/2005) — Regional aid to shipyard Slovenské lodenice Komárno — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty ( 1 )	30

2006/C 194/6	State aid — Germany — State aid C 25/2006 (ex E 1/2006) — Guidelines on national regional aid for 2007-2013 — Non acceptance by the Member State of appropriate measures — Opening of the formal investigation procedure pursuant to Article 88 (2) EC Treaty — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty ( 1 )	35

2006/C 194/7	Notice regarding the adaptation in line with inflation of certain amounts laid down in the Life and Non-Life Insurance Directives	38

2006/C 194/8	Reorganisation measures — Decision on a reorganisation measure in respect of Faro Compagnia di Assicurazioni e Riassicurazioni s.p.a. (Publication made in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 2001/17/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the reorganisation and winding-up of insurance undertakings)	39

2006/C 194/9	Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case No. COMP/M.4207 — Campina/Fonterra Co-operative Group/JV) ( 1 )	40

	III Notices
	Commission
2006/C 194/0	Call for Proposals — DG EAC No 45/06 — Award of grants for the establishment and development of platforms and measures to promote and support the mobility of apprentices and other young people in initial vocational training (IVT)	41

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,2879
JPY	Japanese yen	148,56
DKK	Danish krone	7,4616
GBP	Pound sterling	0,67910
SEK	Swedish krona	9,1940
CHF	Swiss franc	1,5779
ISK	Iceland króna	88,64
NOK	Norwegian krone	8,0780
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CYP	Cyprus pound	0,5759
CZK	Czech koruna	28,024
EEK	Estonian kroon	15,6466
HUF	Hungarian forint	274,05
LTL	Lithuanian litas	3,4528
LVL	Latvian lats	0,6959
MTL	Maltese lira	0,4293
PLN	Polish zloty	3,8718
RON	Romanian leu	3,5204
SIT	Slovenian tolar	239,63
SKK	Slovak koruna	37,415
TRY	Turkish lira	1,8546
AUD	Australian dollar	1,6808
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,4384
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	10,0140
NZD	New Zealand dollar	2,0072
SGD	Singapore dollar	2,0242
KRW	South Korean won	1 237,54
ZAR	South African rand	8,7175
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	10,2628
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,2845
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	11 710,23
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,729
PHP	Philippine peso	65,799
RUB	Russian rouble	34,4050
THB	Thai baht	48,444