12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/1

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 91/01)

Date of adoption of the decision	28.1.2008
Reference number of the aid	N 331/07
Member State	Germany
Region	Thüringen
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Richtlinie zur Förderung von innovativen, technologieorientierten Verbundprojekten, Netzwerken und Clustern (Verbundförderung)
Legal basis	Entwurf der Richtlinie zur Förderung von innovativen, technologieorientierten Verbundprojekten, Netzwerken und Clustern (Verbundförderung); Thüringer Landeshaushaltsordnung; Thüringer Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz
Type of measure	Aid scheme
Objective	Research and development, Regional development
Form of aid	Direct grant
Budget	Annual budget: EUR 19,5 million Overall budget: EUR 117 million
Intensity	100 %
Duration	Until 31.12.2013
Economic sectors	All sectors
Name and address of the granting authority	Thüringer Aufbaubank Gorkistraße 9 D-99084 Erfurt
Other information	—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision	31.1.2008
Reference number of the aid	N 356/07
Member State	Finland
Region	—
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Tuki t&k-hankkeisiin
Legal basis	Valtionavustuslaki, 688/2001; Laki yritystuen yleisistä ehdoista, 786/1997
Type of measure	Aid scheme
Objective	Research and development, Small and medium-sized enterprises, Regional development
Form of aid	Direct grant Soft loan
Budget	Annual budget: EUR 300 million Overall budget: EUR 1 800 million
Intensity	80 %
Duration	1.2.2008-31.12.2013
Economic sectors	All sectors
Name and address of the granting authority	Tekes PL 69 (Kyllikinportti 2) FI-00101 Helsinki
Other information	—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision	31.1.2008
Reference number of the aid	N 397/07
Member State	France
Region	—
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Aides de l'ADEME à la recherche, au développement et à l'innovation
Legal basis	Délibération du Conseil d'administration de l'ADEME: «Aides de l'ADEME à la recherche, au développement et à l'innovation»
Type of measure	Aid scheme
Objective	Research and development, Environmental protection
Form of aid	Direct grant
Budget	Annual budget: EUR 50 million Overall budget: EUR 300 million
Intensity	80 %
Duration	Until 31.12.2013
Economic sectors	All sectors
Name and address of the granting authority	Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Énergie (ADEME) F-49004 Angers cedex 01
Other information	—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision	31.1.2008
Reference number of the aid	N 532/07
Member State	Austria
Region	Tirol
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Richtlinie der Tiroler Zukunftsstiftung zur Förderung von Wissenschaft, Forschung und Entwicklung
Legal basis	Richtlinie der Tiroler Zukunftsstiftung zur Förderung von Wissenschaft, Forschung und Entwicklung
Type of measure	Aid scheme
Objective	Research and development, Regional development, Small and medium-sized enterprises
Form of aid	Direct grant
Budget	Annual budget: EUR 0,5-2,00 million Overall budget: EUR 9 million
Intensity	45 %
Duration	Until 31.12.2013
Economic sectors	All sectors
Name and address of the granting authority	Tiroler Zukunftsstiftung Kaiserjägerstraße 4a A-6020 Innsbruck
Other information	—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/4

---

Commission interpretative communication on the application of Community law on Public Procurement and Concessions to institutionalised PPP (IPPP)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 91/02)

1.   INTRODUCTION

In recent years, Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) have developed in many fields. The hallmark of this form of cooperation, which is generally geared to the longer term, is the role of the private partner, who is involved in the various phases of the project (planning, implementation and operation), who is intended to bear risks that are traditionally borne by the public sector and who often contributes to financing the project.

Under Community law, public authorities are free to pursue economic activities themselves or to assign them to third parties, such as mixed capital entities founded in the context of a PPP. However, if public bodies decide to involve third parties in economic activities and if this involvement qualifies as a public contract or a concession, the Community provisions for public procurement and concessions must be complied with. The aim of these provisions is to enable all interested economic operators to tender for public contracts and concessions on a fair and transparent basis in the spirit of the European internal market, thereby enhancing the quality of such projects and cutting their costs by means of increased competition (1).

The public consultation on the Green Paper on Public-Private Partnerships and Community law on public contracts and concessions (2) showed (3) that there was considerable need for clarification on the application of these rules to so-called ‘institutionalised’ PPP (IPPP). IPPP are understood by the Commission as a co-operation between public and private parties involving the establishment of a mixed capital entity which performs public contracts or concessions (4). The private input to the IPPP consists — apart from the contribution of capital or other assets — in the active participation in the operation of the contracts awarded to the public-private entity and/or the management of the public-private entity. Conversely, simple capital injections made by private investors into publicly owned companies, do not constitute IPPP and are therefore not covered by the present Communication.

The perceived lack of legal certainty in relation to the involvement of private partners for IPPP may undermine the success of such projects. The risk of establishing structures based on contracts which might subsequently turn out to be non-compliant with EC law may discourage public authorities or private parties from entering into IPPP at all.

The European Parliament, in its Resolution on Public-Private Partnerships of 26 October 2006 (5), acknowledged that practitioners want clarity about the application of procurement law to the creation of public-private undertakings in connection with the award of a contract or concession, and it called on the Commission to provide the relevant clarifications at the earliest opportunity.

The present Communication sheds light on the Commission's understanding of how the Community provisions on public procurement and concessions (6) are to be applied to the founding and operation of IPPP (7). The Communication aims at enhancing legal certainty and, in particular, assuaging repeatedly expressed concerns that applying Community law to the involvement of private partners into IPPP would make these arrangements unattractive or even impossible. The present Communication is part of the Commission's commitment to provide legal guidance in the area of services of general interest as set out in the Commission Communication on services of general interest, including social services of general interest (8) of 20 November 2007.

This Communication does not create any new legislative rules. It reflects the Commission's understanding of the EC Treaty, the Public Procurement Directives and the relevant case-law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). It should be noted that, in any event, the binding interpretation of Community law is ultimately the role of the ECJ.

2.   THE FOUNDING OF AN IPPP

2.1.   Principles

At Community level there are no specific rules governing the founding of IPPP. However, in the field of public procurement and concessions, the principle of equal treatment and the specific expressions of that principle, namely the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of nationality and Articles 43 EC on freedom of establishment and 49 EC on freedom to provide services, are to be applied in cases where a public authority entrusts the supply of economic activities to a third party (9). More specifically, the principles arising from Article 43 EC and Article 49 EC include not only non-discrimination and equality of treatment, but also transparency, mutual recognition and proportionality (10). For cases which are covered by the Directives on the coordination of procedures for the award of public contracts (11) (‘the Public Procurement Directives’), detailed provisions apply.

The fact that a private party and a contracting entity (12) co-operate within a public-private entity cannot serve as justification for the contracting entity not having to comply with the legal provisions on public contracts and concessions when assigning public contracts or concessions to this private party or to the respective public-private entity. In fact, the ECJ held (13) that the participation, even as a minority, of a private undertaking in the capital of a company in which the contracting entity in question is also a participant excludes in any event the possibility of an in-house relationship — to which, in principle, public procurement law does not apply — between that contracting entity and that company (14).

2.2.   The founding process

In practice, an IPPP is usually set up:

—

either by founding a new company, the capital of which is held jointly by the contracting entity and the private partner — or, in certain cases, by several contracting entities and/or several private partners — and awarding a public contract or a concession to this newly founded public-private entity,

—	or by the participation of a private partner in an existing publicly owned company which has obtained public contracts or concessions ‘in-house’ in the past.

Irrespective of how the IPPP is set up, Community law on public contracts and concessions requires a contracting entity to follow a fair and transparent procedure, either when selecting the private partner, who supplies goods, works or services through his participation in the IPPP (15), or when granting a public contract or a concession to the public-private entity (16). It is important to note that public authorities are not permitted ‘to resort to devices designed to conceal the award of public contracts or concessions to semi-public companies’ (17).

In any case, the Commission does not consider a double tendering procedure — one for selecting the private partner to the IPPP and another one for awarding public contracts or concessions to the public-private entity — to be practical.

One possible way of setting up an IPPP, which is, in the Commission's view, suitable for complying with the principles of Community law while at the same time avoiding a double tendering procedure, is as follows: The private partner of the IPPP is selected by means of a procedure, the subject of which is both the public contract or the concession (18) which is to be awarded to the future public-private entity, and the private partner's operational contribution to perform these task and/or his contribution to the management of the public-private entity. The selection of the private partner is accompanied by the founding of the IPPP and the award of the contract or concession to the public-private entity.

2.3.   The selection of private partners for IPPP

2.3.1.   Legal basis

If the task assigned to the public-private entity is a public contract fully covered by the Public Procurement Directives, the procedure for selecting the private partner is determined by these Directives. If the task is a works concession or a public contract that is only partially covered by the Directives, the fundamental principles derived from the EC Treaty apply in addition to the relevant provisions of the Directives. In case of services listed in Annex II B of Directive 2004/18/EC the fundamental principles of the EC Treaty as set out in Articles 43 and 49 apply if these contracts can be expected to be of certain interest to undertakings located in a different Member State to that of the relevant contracting entity (19). Finally, if it is a service concession or a public contract not covered by the Directives, the selection of the private partner has to comply with the principles of the EC Treaty.

The case law cited in this document refers in part to public contracts that are fully covered by the Public Procurement Directives. However, since this case law is often based on principles of the EC Treaty it may also be pertinent when applying Community law to other situations, such as concessions or to public contracts that are not, or not fully, covered by the Directives (20).

2.3.2.   Procurement Procedure

If the founding of an IPPP involves the award of a public contract fully covered by Directive 2004/18/EC to a public-private entity, the open and restricted procedures defined in that Directive may, due to the particular financial or legal complexity of such contracts, not offer sufficient flexibility. For cases like this, Directive 2004/18/EC introduced a new innovative procedure — the competitive dialogue (21) — the aim of which is not only to preserve competition between economic operators but also to take into account the contracting authorities' need to discuss all aspects of the contract with each candidate (22).

For the award of public contracts fully covered by Directive 2004/18/EC the negotiated procedure with publication of a contract notice can only be used in exceptional cases (23). Conversely, contracting entities could always resort to the negotiated procedure with publication of a contract notice when awarding concessions or public contracts other than those fully covered by Directive 2004/18/EC.

2.3.3.   Information about the project

If the public task connected with the setting up of an IPPP falls within the scope of the Public Procurement Directives, or of sector-specific Community rules providing for public procurement obligations (24), special requirements for publication must be complied with (25). With regard to other public contracts and to service concessions, the principles of transparency and equal treatment arising from the EC Treaty (26) require potential bidders to have equal access to suitable information about the intent of a contracting entity to set up a public-private entity and to award it a public contract or a concession. Suitable information can best be guaranteed by publicising a notice that is sufficiently accessible to potentially interested parties before the private partner is selected.

2.3.4.   Permitted selection and award criteria and transparency requirements for the criteria

In the Commission's view, Community law requires the contracting entity to publicise the selection and award criteria for identifying the private partner for the IPPP. The criteria used must comply with the principle of equal treatment. This applies both to public contracts fully covered by the Public Procurement Directives (27) and in the view of the Commission also to other public contracts and concessions. The choice of the tenderers or the candidates who will participate in the tendering procedure and the choice between the bids submitted must be made on the basis of these criteria, and the contracting entity needs to follow the procedural rules and basic requirements originally laid down (28).

The Public Procurement Directives specify objective requirements related to the personal capacity of the private partner, such as the personal situation of the candidate, his economic and financial standing, his suitability to pursue the professional activity in question and his technical and/or professional ability (29). Such criteria may also be used in the context of concessions and public contracts not fully covered by the Public Procurement Directives.

In the area of social services of general interest clarifications on possible selection and award criteria have been made in the Commission Staff Working Document ‘Frequently asked questions concerning the application of public procurement rules to social services of general interest’ (30).

2.3.5.   Specific elements of statutes and articles of association, the shareholder agreement and the public contract or concession

The principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination imply an obligation of transparency which consists in ensuring, for the benefit of any potential tenderer, a degree of advertising sufficient to enable the market to be opened up to competition (31). In the context of the founding of an IPPP, this obligation implies, in the view of the Commission, that the contracting entity should include in the contract notice or the contract documents basic information on the following: the public contracts and/or concessions which are to be awarded to the future public-private entity, the statutes and articles of association, the shareholder agreement and all other elements governing the contractual relationship between the contracting entity and the private partner on the one hand, and the contracting entity and the future public-private entity on the other hand. If the contracting entity applies the competitive dialogue or the negotiated procedure, some of this information may not need to be fixed in advance but could be left to be identified and defined during the dialogue or the negotiation with the candidates. The call for competition should include some information on the intended duration of the public contract or concession to be performed by the public-private entity.

In the Commission's opinion, the principle of transparency requires the disclosure in the tender documents of optional renewals or modifications of the public contract or concession initially awarded to the public-private entity and the disclosure of optional assignments of additional tasks. The tender documents should cover at least the number and conditions of these options. The information thus provided should be sufficiently detailed, in order to ensure fair and effective competition.

It is advisable that the contract between a contracting entity and the private partner determines from the outset what happens if the public-private entity does not receive public contracts in the future and/or public contracts which have already been awarded are not extended. In the view of the Commission the statutes and articles of association should be so formulated that it is possible to change the private partner in the future. As the private partner cannot automatically be excluded from participating in a renewed tender procedure, the contracting entity must pay in such a case particular attention to the obligation of transparency and equal treatment of all bidders.

3.   THE PHASE AFTER FOUNDING OF THE IPPP

The ECJ held that companies, the capital of which is open, at least in part, to private parties are precluded from being regarded as structures for the ‘in-house management’ of public services on behalf of the contracting entities which form part of them (32). This means that procurement rules, whether derived from the EC Treaty or from the Public Procurement Directives, must also be respected when awarding to the public-private entity public contracts or concessions, other than those public contracts and concessions that have already been subject to competition in the tender procedure for the founding of the IPPP in question. In other words, IPPP must remain within the scope of their initial object and can as a matter of principle not obtain any further public contracts or concessions without a procedure respecting Community law on public contracts and concessions.

However, as the IPPP is usually set up to provide a service over a fairly long period, it must be able to adjust to certain changes in the economic, legal or technical environment. Community provisions on public procurement and concessions do not rule out the possibility of taking into account these developments as long as the principles of equal treatment (33) and transparency (34) are upheld. Thus, should the contracting entity wish, for specific reasons, to be able to amend some conditions of the invitation to tender after the successful tenderer has been selected, it is required expressly to provide for that possibility, and for the relevant detailed rules, in the notice of invitation to tender or in the tender documents and to define the framework within which the procedure must be carried out, so that all the undertakings interested in taking part in the procurement procedure are aware of that possibility from the outset and are therefore on an equal footing when formulating their respective tenders (35).

Changes to essential terms of contracts not provided for in the initial tender documents require a new procurement procedure (36). The ECJ considers the terms of a contract as essential, particularly if it is a condition which, had it been included in the contract notice or the tender documents, would have made it possible for tenderers to submit a substantially different tender (37). Examples of such essential terms of a contract include the scope of the works undertaken or services performed by the contractor or the charges levied on the user of the service provided by the contractor.

It should be pointed out that, as far as public contracts fully covered by the Directives and works concessions are concerned, secondary legislation lays down the exceptional situations in which additional works or services not included in the project initially considered may be awarded directly, without a call for competition (38).

Under EC law, a public-private entity is — like any other economic operator — free to participate in public tenders (39). This also applies to tendering procedures which have become necessary as a result of a major amendment to or extension of those public contracts or concessions which the public-private entity was awarded in the past by the contracting entity that set it up. In such a case, the contracting entity must pay particular attention to the obligation of transparency and equal treatment of all bidders. Specific safeguards have to be taken to ensure a strict separation of those preparing the call for tenders and deciding on the award of the contract within the contracting entity, on the one hand, and those managing the IPPP, on the other hand, and that no confidential information is passed on from the contracting entity to the public-private entity.

---

(1)  The European Parliament noted in this connection that compliance with these rules ‘can be an effective mechanism for preventing inappropriate restrictions on competition by enabling, at the same time, the public authorities themselves to lay down and monitor conditions for ensuring quality, availability, social standards and compliance with environmental requirements’ (European Parliament Resolution on the Green Paper on Services of General Interest [P5_TA(2004)0018], paragraph 32).

(2)  COM(2004) 327 of 30 April 2004.

(3)  Communication on Public-Private Partnerships and Community Law on Public Procurement and Concessions, COM(2005) 569 of 15 November 2005, page 9.

(4)  The Member States use different terminology and schemes in this context (for instance Kooperationsmodell, Joint Ventures, Sociétés d'Economie Mixte).

(5)  P6_TA(2006)0462, paragraph 35.

(6)  ‘Public works concession’ is a contract of the same type as a public works contract except for the fact that the consideration for the works to be carried out consists either solely in the right to exploit the work or in this right together with payment; ‘Service concession’ is a contract of the same type as a public service contract except for the fact that the consideration for the provision of services consists either solely in the right to exploit the service or in this right together with payment (see Article 1 paragraph 2(3) and (4) of Directive 2004/18/EC (OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 114)).

(7)  The present Communication does not cover those public service contracts and service concessions to which Article 5 paragraphs 2 to 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1370/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on public passenger transport services by rail and by road and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) Nos 1191/69 and 1107/70 (OJ L 315, 3.12.2007, p. 1) apply.

(8)  COM(2007) 725 of 20 November 2007; see also the Commission Staff Working Document ‘Frequently asked questions concerning the application of public procurement rules to social services of general interest’ SEC(2007) 1514 accompanying the Communication of 20 November 2007.

(9)  Case C-458/03, Parking Brixen, ECR 2005, I-8612, paragraph 61.

(10)  Cf. Commission interpretative communication on concessions under Community law (OJ C 121, 29.4.2000, p. 6).

(11)  Directive 2004/18/EC, see footnote 6 above, and Directive 2004/17/EC (OJ L 134, 30.4.2004, p. 1).

(12)  In this Communication the term ‘contracting entity’ covers both contracting authorities within the meaning of Article 1(9) of Directive 2004/18/EC and contracting entities within the meaning of Article 2 of Directive 2004/17/EC.

(13)  Case C-26/03, Stadt Halle, ECR 2005, I-1, paragraph 49.

(14)  According to the ECJ (Case C-410/04, ANAV, ECR 2006, I-3303, paragraphs 30 et seq.) it is not only the actual participation of a private party in the capital of a publicly owned company that excludes the in-house status of a publicly owned company, but also a contracting entity's intent to open up the capital of its daughter company to private third parties in the future. Thus, public contracts or concessions could not be awarded ‘in-house’ to publicly owned companies the capital of which is intended to be opened to private parties in the course of the performance of the respective public contracts or concessions. Conversely, the theoretical possibility of a private party participating in the capital of a public authority's subsidiary does not, as the Commission sees it, in itself undermine the in-house relationship between the contracting entity and its company.

(15)  A fair and transparent selection of the private partner of an IPPP ensures that the objective of free and undistorted competition is met and the principle of equal treatment is complied with, in particular by avoiding undue advantages of the private undertaking with a capital presence in the IPPP over its competitors. Thus, the founding of an IPPP via a fair and transparent selection of the private partner of this public-private entity meets the respective concerns expressed by the ECJ in Case C-26/03, Stadt Halle, see footnote 13 above, paragraph 51.

(16)  Contracting entities are entitled to award public contracts covered by Directive 2004/17/EC directly to their affiliated undertakings as defined in Article 23 of this Directive.

(17)  Case C-29/04, Commission v Austria, ECR 2005, I-9705, paragraph 42.

(18)  If the IPPP in question is set up by the participation of a private partner in an existing publicly owned company, the subject of the selection procedure of the private partner for this IPPP could be the award of public contracts or concessions which were performed ‘in-house’ by the respective publicly owned company in the past.

(19)  Case C-507/03, Commission v Ireland [2007], paragraph 32, not yet published in the ECR.

(20)  See for guidance on the award of these contracts Commission interpretative communication on the Community law applicable to contract awards not or not fully subject to the provisions of the Public Procurement Directives (OJ C 179, 1.8.2006, p. 2). A number of Member States and the European Parliament have asked the Court of First Instance to annul that Communication. At the time of the adoption of the present Communication the case is still pending before the Court of First Instance.

(21)  See Article 29 of Directive 2004/18/EC.

(22)  See recital 31 of Directive 2004/18/EC.

(23)  See Articles 30 and 31 of Directive 2004/18/EC.

(24)  See for example Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes (OJ L 15, 23.1.1993, p. 33).

(25)  See Articles 41 et seq. of Directive 2004/17/EC and Articles 35, 36 and 58 of Directive 2004/18/EC.

(26)  Case C-324/98, Telaustria, ECR 2000, I-10745, paragraphs 60 and 61.

(27)  Case C-19/00, SIAC Constructions, ECR 2001, I-7725, paragraphs 41-45; Case C-31/87, Beentjes, ECR 1988, page 4635, paragraphs 29 et seq.

(28)  Even if the specifications provide for the possibility for candidates to make technical improvements to the solutions proposed by the contracting entity (and this will often be the case for IPPP), such modifications may not relate to the basic requirements of the project and must be delimited.

(29)  Articles 45 to 48 of Directive 2004/18/EC and Article 54 of Directive 2004/17/EC.

(30)  See footnote 8 above.

(31)  Case C-324/98, Telaustria, see footnote 26 above, paragraph 62; Case C-458/03, Parking Brixen, see footnote 9 above, paragraph 49.

(32)  Case C-231/03, Coname, ECR 2005, I-7287, paragraph 26; Case C-410/04, ANAV, see footnote 14 above, paragraph 32.

(33)  See, inter alia, Joined Cases C-285/99 and C-286/99, Lombardini and Mantovani, ECR 2001 I-9233, paragraph 37, and Case C-315/01, GAT, ECR 2003, I-6351, paragraph 73.

(34)  See, inter alia, Case C-92/00, HI, ECR 2002, I-5553, paragraph 45, and Case C-470/99, Universale-Bau and Others, ECR 2002, I-11617, paragraph 91.

(35)  Case C-496/99 P, Commission v CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA, ECR 2004, I 3801, paragraph 118.

(36)  Case C-337/98, Commission v France, ECR 2000, I-8377, paragraph 50.

(37)  Case C-496/99 P, Commission v CAS Succhi di Frutta SpA, see footnote 35 above, paragraphs 116 et seq.

(38)  Articles 31 and 61 of Directive 2004/18/EC and Article 40 paragraph 3(f) and (g) of Directive 2004/17/EC. In the view of the Commission, the relevant derogations may be applied to the award of contracts not covered by the Directives, such as service concessions as well (See Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in Case C-525/03, Commission v Italy, paragraphs 46 to 48). The Commission considers as a matter of principle that modifications of essential terms of service concessions not catered for in the tendering documents are acceptable only if they are made necessary by unforeseen circumstances, not attributed to any of the contracting parties, or if they are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (Article 46 EC Treaty).

(39)  Recital 4 to Directive 2004/18/EC requires Member States to ensure that the participation of a body governed by public law as a tenderer in a procedure for the award of a public contract does not cause any distortion of competition in relation to private tenderers.

---

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/10

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 91/03)

Date of adoption of the decision	30.1.2008
Reference number of the aid	N 365/07
Member State	Germany
Region	Sachsen-Anhalt
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Errichtung des Fraunhofer Centre for Silicon Photovoltaics
Legal basis	Landeshaushaltsordnung Sachsen-Anhalt
Type of measure	Individual aid
Objective	Research and development
Form of aid	Direct grant
Budget	Overall budget: EUR 60 million
Intensity	Measure does not constitute aid
Duration	1.1.2008-31.12.2010
Economic sectors	—
Name and address of the granting authority	Ministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit des Landes Sachsen-Anhalt Hasselbachstr. 4 D-39104 Magdeburg
Other information	—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision	10.1.2008
Reference number of the aid	N 374/07
Member State	Germany
Region	Niedersachsen
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Richtlinie über die Gewährung von Zuwendungen zur Förderung der Wiedernutzung brachliegender Industrie- und Gewerbeflächen (Brachflächen- und Altlasten-Förderrichtlinien)
Legal basis	Richtlinie über die Gewährung von Zuwendungen zur Förderung der Wiedernutzung brachliegender Industrie- und Gewerbeflächen (Brachflächen- und Altlasten-Förderrichtlinien)
Type of measure	Aid scheme
Objective	Environmental protection
Form of aid	Direct grant
Budget	Overall budget: EUR 23,1 million
Intensity	75 %
Duration	2007-2013
Economic sectors	All sectors
Name and address of the granting authority	Investitions- und Förderbank, Niedersachsen GmbH-Nbank Günther-Wagner-Allee 12-14 D-30177 Hannover
Other information	—

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/state_aids/

---

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4932 — Leoni/Valeo CSB)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 91/04)

On 17 December 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

—	from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

—	in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4932. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law (http://eur-lex.europa.eu).

---

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/13

---

List of appointments made by the Council

(January, February and March 2008) (Social field)

(2008/C 91/05)

Committee	End of term of office	Publication in OJ	Person replaced	Resignation/appointment	Member/alternate	Category	Country	Person appointed	Affiliation	Date of Council Decision
Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement of Workers	13.9.2008	C 242, 7.10.2006	Ms Myria ANDREOU	Resignation	Member	Government	Cyprus	Ms Agni PAPAGEORGIOU	Ministry of Interior	18.2.2008
Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement of Workers	13.9.2008	C 242, 7.10.2006	Mr Adolfo LOURO ALVES	Resignation	Member	Government	Portugal	Ms Ana Paula FERNANDES	Minstério do Trabalho e da Solidariedade Social	18.2.2008
Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement of Workers	13.9.2008	C 242, 7.10.2006	Ms Sinikka HYYPPÄ	Resignation	Member	Government	Finland	Ms Mirkka MYKKÄNEN	Ministry of the Interior	18.2.2008
Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement of Workers	13.9.2008	C 242, 7.10.2006	Mr Tuomo KURRI	Resignation	Alternate	Government	Finland	Ms Wivi-Ann WAGELLO-SJÖLUND	Ministry of the Interior	18.2.2008
Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement of Workers	13.9.2008	C 242, 7.10.2006	Mr Peter KOPPE	Resignation	Member	Workers	Netherlands	Ms Caroline RIETBERGEN	FNV	10.3.2008
Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement of Workers	13.9.2008	C 242, 7.10.2006	Mr Guy BAILEY	Appointment	Member	Employers	United Kingdom	—	CBI	10.3.2008
Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement of Workers	13.9.2008	C 242, 7.10.2006	Mr Ojārs BRAŽA	Resignation	Member	Workers	Latvia	Ms Zanda GRUNDBERGA	Free Trade Union Confederation of Latvia	17.3.2008
Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement of Workers	13.9.2008	C 242, 7.10.2006	Ms Marina PAŅKOVA	Resignation	Member	Employers	Latvia	Ms Ilona KIUKUCĀNE	Latvian Employers' Confederation	17.3.2008
Advisory Committee on Freedom of Movement of Workers	13.9.2008	C 242, 7.10.2006	Mr Eduards FILIPPOVS	Resignation	Alternate	Employers	Latvia	Ms Inese STEPIŅA	Latvian Employers' Confederation	17.3.2008
Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers	21.3.2009	C 92, 27.4.2007	Ms Eleni PAROUTI	Resignation	Member	Government	Cyprus	Mr Andreas KYRIAKIDES	Ministry of Health	18.2.2008
Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers	21.3.2009	C 92, 27.4.2007	Ms H. ZUNDERMAN	Resignation	Member	Government	Netherlands	Mr V. SANNES	Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid	18.2.2008
Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers	21.3.2009	C 92, 27.4.2007	Mr J.A.M.M. PIJNENBURG	Appointment	Alternate	Government	Netherlands	—	Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid	18.2.2008
Advisory Committee on Social Security for Migrant Workers	21.3.2009	C 92, 27.4.2007	Mr Tim QUIRKE	Resignation	Member	Government	Ireland	Ms Anne McMANUS	Department of Social and Family Affairs	17.3.2008
Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work	28.2.2010	L 64, 2.3.2007	Mr Ulrich BECKER	Resignation	Member	Government	Germany	Mr Michael KOLL	Bundesministerium für Arbeit und Soziales	18.2.2008
Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work	28.2.2010	L 64, 2.3.2007	Mr Malcolm DARVILL	Resignation	Member	Government	United Kingdom	Mr Stuart BRISTOW	Health and Safety Executive	18.2.2008
Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work	28.2.2010	L 64, 2.3.2007	Mr Jason BATT	Resignation	Alternate	Government	United Kingdom	Mr Robin FOSTER	Health and Safety Executive	18.2.2008
Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work	28.2.2010	L 64, 2.3.2007	Mr Claus Peter WEBER	Resignation	Alternate	Employers	Germany	Mr Harald KIHL	RAG AG	17.3.2008
Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work	28.2.2010	L 64, 2.3.2007	Ms Nina GLOBOČNIK	Resignation	Alternate	Employers	Slovenia	Ms Maja SKORUPAN	Independent legal advisor	17.3.2008
Governing Board of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions	30.11.2010	C 282, 24.11.2007	Mr Michal BONI	Resignation	Member	Employers	Poland	Ms Malgorzata RUSEWICZ	PKPP	18.2.2008
Governing Board of the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work	7.11.2010	C 271, 14.11.2007	Mr Malcolm DARVILL	Resignation	Alternate	Government	United Kingdom	Mr Stuart BRISTOW	Health and Safety Executive	18.2.2008
Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality	31.5.2010	C 128, 9.6.2007	Ms Barbara CASHEN	Appointment	Alternate	Government	Ireland	—	Gender Equality Division	12.2.2008
Management Board of the European Institute for Gender Equality	31.5.2010	C 128, 9.6.2007	Mr Jesper BRASK FISCHER	Resignation	Alternate	Government	Denmark	Mr Jakob JENSEN	Permanent Representation of Denmark	17.3.2008

---

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/17

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

11 April 2008

(2008/C 91/06)

1 euro=

	Currency	Exchange rate
USD	US dollar	1,5833
JPY	Japanese yen	159,83
DKK	Danish krone	7,4590
GBP	Pound sterling	0,80170
SEK	Swedish krona	9,4120
CHF	Swiss franc	1,5808
ISK	Iceland króna	116,46
NOK	Norwegian krone	7,9415
BGN	Bulgarian lev	1,9558
CZK	Czech koruna	25,025
EEK	Estonian kroon	15,6466
HUF	Hungarian forint	252,73
LTL	Lithuanian litas	3,4528
LVL	Latvian lats	0,6966
PLN	Polish zloty	3,4336
RON	Romanian leu	3,6290
SKK	Slovak koruna	32,414
TRY	Turkish lira	2,0680
AUD	Australian dollar	1,7024
CAD	Canadian dollar	1,6139
HKD	Hong Kong dollar	12,3320
NZD	New Zealand dollar	1,9913
SGD	Singapore dollar	2,1510
KRW	South Korean won	1 545,62
ZAR	South African rand	12,4255
CNY	Chinese yuan renminbi	11,0934
HRK	Croatian kuna	7,2626
IDR	Indonesian rupiah	14 539,44
MYR	Malaysian ringgit	4,9906
PHP	Philippine peso	65,549
RUB	Russian rouble	37,1340
THB	Thai baht	49,980
BRL	Brazilian real	2,6774
MXN	Mexican peso	16,6983

---

(1)  

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/18

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 68/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to training aid

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 91/07)

Reference number of the aid	XT 30/08
Member State	United Kingdom
Region	Yorkshire & Humber
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Training Aid support to Yorkshire and Humber enterprises
Legal basis	RDA ACT 1998
Type of measure	Aid scheme
Budget	Annual budget: GBP 7 million
Maximum aid intensity	In conformity with Article 4(2)-(7) of the Regulation
Date of implementation	1.3.2008
Duration	28.2.2011
Objective	General training
Economic sectors	All sectors eligible for training aid
Name and address of the granting authority	Yorkshire Forward Regional Development Agency 2 Victoria Place Leeds West Yorkshire LS11 5AE United Kingdom

Reference number of the aid	XT 32/08
Member State	Italy
Region	Liguria
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Azioni di formazione professionale — annualità 2007-2008 — rivolte ai lavoratori occupati delle imprese localizzate sul territorio regionale, inclusi i titolari di PMI, cofinanziate dal Fondo Sociale Europeo, così come previste in particolare nell'ambito degli Assi I, III e IV del Programma Operativo per l'Obiettivo 2 «Competitività regionale e occupazione» Fondo sociale europeo — Regione Liguria 2007-2013
Legal basis	Legge regionale n. 52 del 5 novembre 1993 e successive modifiche. Regolamento (CE) n. 1083/2006 del Consiglio, dell'11 luglio 2006, recante disposizioni generali sul Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale, sul Fondo sociale europeo e sul Fondo di coesione e che abroga il regolamento (CE) n. 1260/1999. Regolamento (CE) n. 1081/2006 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio, del 5 luglio 2006, relativo al Fondo sociale europeo e recante abrogazione del regolamento (CE) n. 1784/1999. Regolamento (CE) n. 1828/2006 della Commissione, dell'8 dicembre 2006, che stabilisce modalità di applicazione del regolamento (CE) n. 1083/2006 del Consiglio recante disposizioni generali sul Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale, sul Fondo sociale europeo e sul Fondo di coesione e del regolamento (CE) n. 1080/2006 del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio relativo al Fondo europeo di sviluppo regionale. Programma Operativo Obiettivo 2 «Competitività regionale e occupazione» della Regione Liguria, Fondo Sociale Europeo per il periodo 2007-2013 approvato dalla Commissione europea con decisione 2007/5474/CE del 7 novembre 2007. Disposizioni Attuative Fondo Sociale Europeo, P.O. Obiettivo 2 «Competitività regionale e occupazione», approvate con deliberazione della Giunta Regionale n. 1178 del 12 ottobre 2007. Decreto del dirigente n. 4100 del 19 dicembre 2007.
Type of measure	Aid scheme
Budget	Annual budget: EUR 13,75 million
Maximum aid intensity	In conformity with Article 4(2)-(7) of the Regulation
Date of implementation	27.2.2008
Duration	31.12.2008
Objective	General training; Specific training
Economic sectors	All sectors eligible for training aid
Name and address of the granting authority	Regione Liguria Settore: Sistema Regionale della Formazione e dell'Orientamento Via Fieschi, 15 I-16121 Genova

Reference number of the aid	XT 33/08
Member State	Slovakia
Region	1. Regióny Západné Slovensko (územie Trnavského, Nitrianskeho a Trenčianskeho kraja), Stredné Slovensko (územie Žilinského a Banskobystrického kraja) a Východné Slovensko (územie Košického a Prešovského kraja). 2. Región vymedzený územím Bratislavského kraja
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Schéma štátnej pomoci „Vzdelávanie a adaptabilita zamestnancov“
Legal basis	Legislatíva ES: — nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 68/2001 z 12. januára 2001 o uplatňovaní článkov 87 a 88 Zmluvy o založení ES o štátnej pomoci na vzdelávanie (Ú. v. ES L 10, 13.1.2001) v znení nariadenia Komisie (ES) č. 363/2004 z 25. februára 2004, ako aj v znení nariadenia Komisie (ES) č. 1976/2006 z 20. decembra 2006, — nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 70/2001 z 12. januára 2001 o aplikácii článkov 87 a 88 Zmluvy o založení ES na štátnu pomoc malým a stredným podnikom (Ú. v. ES L 10, 13.1.2001), — nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1083/2006, ktorým sa ustanovujú všeobecné ustanovenia o Európskom fonde regionálneho rozvoja, Európskom sociálnom fonde a Kohéznom fonde, — nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1081/2006 o Európskom sociálnom fonde. Legislatíva SR: — zákon č. 231/1999 o štátnej pomoci v znení neskorších predpisov, — zákon č. 453/2003 Z. z. o orgánoch štátnej správy v oblasti sociálnych vecí, rodiny a služieb zamestnanosti a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov, — zákonom č. 5/2004 Z. z. o službách zamestnanosti a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov
Type of measure	Aid scheme
Budget	Annual budget: SKK 3 135 million
Maximum aid intensity	In conformity with Article 4(2)-(7) of the Regulation
Date of implementation	29.2.2008
Duration	30.6.2008
Objective	General training; Specific training
Economic sectors	All sectors eligible for training aid
Name and address of the granting authority	Ministerstvo práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny SR Špitálska ul. 4-6 SK-816 43 Bratislava

Reference number of the aid	XT 34/08
Member State	Slovakia
Region	1. Regióny Západné Slovensko (územie Trnavského, Nitrianskeho a Trenčianskeho kraja), Stredné Slovensko (územie Žilinského a Banskobystrického kraja) a Východné Slovensko (územie Košického a Prešovského kraja). 2. Región vymedzený územím Bratislavského kraja
Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)	Schéma štátnej pomoci na vzdelávanie doplnená podľa dodatku č. 2 k pôvodnej schéme XT 76/04, ktorá sa týmto mení
Legal basis	Legislatíva ES: — nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 68/2001 z 12. januára 2001 o uplatňovaní článkov 87 a 88 Zmluvy o založení ES o štátnej pomoci na vzdelávanie (Ú. v. ES L 10, 13.1.2001) v znení nariadenia Komisie (ES) č. 363/2004 z 25. februára 2004, ako aj v znení nariadenia Komisie (ES) č. 1976/2006 z 20. decembra 2006, — nariadenie Komisie (ES) č. 70/2001 z 12. januára 2001 o aplikácii článkov 87 a 88 Zmluvy o založení ES na štátnu pomoc malým a stredným podnikom (Ú. v. ES L 10, 13.1.2001), — nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1083/2006, ktorým sa ustanovujú všeobecné ustanovenia o Európskom fonde regionálneho rozvoja, Európskom sociálnom fonde a Kohéznom fonde, — nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1081/2006 o Európskom sociálnom fonde. Legislatíva SR: — zákon č. 231/1999 o štátnej pomoci v znení neskorších predpisov, — zákon č. 453/2003 Z. z. o orgánoch štátnej správy v oblasti sociálnych vecí, rodiny a služieb zamestnanosti a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov, — zákon č. 5/2004 Z. z. o službách zamestnanosti a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov v znení neskorších predpisov
Type of measure	Aid scheme
Budget	Annual budget: SKK 33 million
Maximum aid intensity	In conformity with Article 4(2)-(7) of the Regulation
Date of implementation	1.2.2008
Duration	30.6.2008
Objective	General training; Specific training
Economic sectors	All sectors eligible for training aid
Name and address of the granting authority	Ministerstvo práce, sociálnych vecí a rodiny SR Špitálska ul. 4-6 SK-816 43 Bratislava

---

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/22

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 91/08)

Aid No	XS 37/08
Member State	Spain
Region	Castilla y León
Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid	Subvenciones para la adquisición de maquinaria para valorización energética de biomasa.
Legal basis	Orden MAM/1861/2006, de 20 de noviembre, por la que se establecen las bases reguladoras de la concesión de subvenciones para la adquisición de maquinaria para la valorización energética de Biomasa Forestal. Orden MAM/1967/2007, de 29 de noviembre, por la que se convocan subvenciones para la adquisición de maquinaria para valorización energética de biomasa forestal (código reay med 012) — bocyl 7.12.2007
Annual expenditure planned or overall amount of aid granted to the company	Annual overall amount	Annual overall amount	EUR 1 million
		Loans guaranteed
	Individual aid	Overall aid amount
		Loans guaranteed
Maximum aid intensity	In conformity with Articles 4(2)-(6) and 5 of the Regulation		Yes
Date of implementation	29.12.2007
Duration of scheme or individual aid award	Until 15.9.2008
Objective of aid	Aid to SMEs		Yes
Economic sectors concerned	Limited to specific sectors		Yes
	Other industrial sectors (only SMEs in the forestry sector will be eligible for aid)		Yes
Name and address of the granting authority	Consejería de Medio Ambiente
	Rigoberto Cortejoso, 14 E-47014 Valladolid
Large individual aid grants	In conformity with Article 6 of the Regulation		Yes

---

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/23

---

Publication of decisions by Member States to grant or revoke operating licenses pursuant to Article 13(4) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92 on licensing of air carriers (1)  (2)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2008/C 91/09)

Operating licences granted

Category A:   Operating licences without the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

AUSTRIA

Name of air carrier	Address of air carrier	Permitted to carry	Decision effective since
Transped Aviation GmbH	Gewerbepark 1 A-6300 Wörgl	Passengers, mail, cargo	23.1.2008
Amerer Air GesmbH	Flughafenstr. 22 A-4063 Hörsching	Passengers, mail, cargo	15.1.2008
JetAlliance Flugbetriebs GmbH	Waldstraße 14 A-2522 Oberwaltersdorf	Passengers, mail, cargo	29.1.2008
Mjet GmbH	Tegetthoffstraße 7 A-1010 Wien	Passengers, mail, cargo	6.2.2008
DJT Aviation GmbH & Co. KG	Flyrtagweg 5 A-8043 Graz	Passengers, mail, cargo	27.2.2008

Category B:   Operating licences including the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

GERMANY

Name of air carrier	Address of air carrier	Permitted to carry	Decision effective since
Usedomer Gluggesellschaft mbH	Am Flugplatz D-17449 Peenemünde	Passengers, mail, cargo	14.8.2007
AFIT GmbH Advanced Flight Instruction and Theory	Grosshesseloher Str. 5 D-82049 Pullach	Passengers, mail, cargo	23.2.2008

AUSTRIA

Name of air carrier	Address of air carrier	Permitted to carry	Decision effective since
Pink Aviation Services Luftverkehrsunternehmen	Endersstraße 79/4 A-1238 Wien	Passengers, mail, cargo	17.1.2008

SPAIN

Name of air carrier	Address of air carrier	Permitted to carry	Decision effective since
Orionair, S.L.	c/Encinas del Paular, 6 E-28224 Pozuelo de Alarcón	Passengers, mail, cargo	7.3.2008
Taxi Fly Group, S.A.	Avda. Diagonal, 468, 6o A E-08006 Barcelona	Passengers, mail, cargo	13.3.2008

GREECE

Name of air carrier	Address of air carrier	Permitted to carry	Decision effective since
Life Line Aviation Ltd	3, Doukissis Plakentias Str. GR-15234 Athens	Passengers, mail, cargo	25.1.2008

Operating licences revoked

Category B:   Operating licences including the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

GERMANY

Name of air carrier	Address of air carrier	Permitted to carry	Decision effective since
Excellent Air AG	Hüttruper Heide 71-81 D-48268 Greven	Passengers, mail, cargo	7.2.2008

AUSTRIA

Name of air carrier	Address of air carrier	Permitted to carry	Decision effective since
DJT Aviation GmbH & Co. KG	Flyrtagweg 5 A-8043 Graz	Passengers, mail, cargo	27.2.2008

Change of name of license holder

Category A:   Operating licences without the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

AUSTRIA

New name of air carrier	Address of air carrier	Permitted to carry	Decision effective since
Amerer Air GesmbH	Flughafenstr. 22 (Flughafenstr. 1) A-4063 Hörsching	Passengers, mail, cargo	23.1.2008
Majestic Executive Aviation AG (Transped Aviation GmbH — Kat B)	Landstraßer Hauptstraße 140 A-1030 Wien	Passengers, mail, cargo	23.1.2008
Mjet GmbH (Mjet Aviation GmbH)	Tegetthoffstraße 7 A-1010 Wien	Passengers, mail, cargo	6.2.2008

Category B:   Operating licences including the restriction of Article 5(7)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2407/92

GERMANY

New name of air carrier	Address of air carrier	Permitted to carry	Decision effective since
ACH Hamburg Fluggesellschaft mbH & Co KG Stuttgart (ACH Hamburg Fluggesellschaft mbH & Co)	Bilser Str. 9 D-22297 Hamburg	Passengers, mail, cargo	20.2.2008
Heli Transair International GmbH (Heli Transair GmbH)	Flugplatz D-63329 Egelsbach	Passengers, mail, cargo	23.3.2008

---

(1)  OJ L 240, 24.8.1992, p. 1.

(2)  Communicated to the European Commission before 31 August 2005.

---

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 91/26

---

Publication of an application pursuant to Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs

(2008/C 91/10)

This publication confers the right to object to the application pursuant to Article 7 of Council Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 (1). Statements of objection must reach the Commission within six months from the date of this publication.

SUMMARY

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 510/2006

‘STEIRISCHER KREN’

EC No AT/PGI/005/0249/04.09.2002

PDO ( ) PGI ( X )

This summary sets out the main elements of the product specification for information purposes.

1.   Responsible department in the Member State:

Name:	Österreichisches Patentamt
Address:	Dresdner Straße 87 A-1200 Wien
Tel.	(43-1) 53 42 40
Fax	(43-1) 53 42 45 35
E-mail:	info@patentamt.at

2.   Group:

Name:	Landesverband Steirischer Gemüsebauern
Address:	Hamerlinggasse 3 A-8010 Graz
Tel.	(43-316) 80 50 16 11
Fax	(43-316) 80 50 16 20
E-mail:	garten@lk-stmk.at
Composition:	Producers/processors ( X ) Other ( )

3.   Type of product:

Class 1.6: Vegetables, fresh or processed

4.   Specification:

(Summary of requirements under Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006)

4.1.   Name: ‘Steirischer Kren’

4.2.   Description: ‘Steirischer Kren’ is a plant of the family Brassicaceae = Cruciferae (Latin name: Amoracia rusticana), synonymous with ‘Meerrettich’ in German. The cultivated horseradish roots are used as the fresh product, as are the slender lateral roots in some cases (specially in processing).

Description of unprocessed ‘Steirischer Kren’:

‘Steirischer Kren’ has a typical appearance characterised by smooth, even main roots with only slightly bent heads and a small number of fine roots. The average overall length of the main roots is 25 to 30 cm (although it is also sold cut into pieces) and their diameter is approximately 3 cm.

‘Steirischer Kren’ is mainly valued for its pungent, fiery taste, which is often highlighted in various tasting sessions and descriptions. It is also characterised by robust growth and the fact that it does not tend towards bitterness.

Description of the processed horseradish:

‘Steirischer Kren’ is either preserved — freshly grated — as part of a natural, gentle process which makes it comparable with freshly grated horseradish in terms of appearance and taste, or it is grated and additives are added to improve consistency (creaminess) and preservability. In both cases, it is offered in different types of container (tubes, tins, jars, etc.). Exclusive use of ‘Steirischer Kren’ guarantees the high level of pungency and fieriness. In addition to the main horseradish roots, the slender lateral roots are also used in processing.

4.3.   Geographical area: ‘Steirischer Kren’ is traditionally grown in southern Styria, in the districts of Radkersburg, Feldbach, Leibnitz, Deutschlandsberg, Voitsberg, Graz and surrounding area, Weiz, Hartberg and Fürstenfeld (along a line Hartberg-Weiz-Graz-Voitsberg). This region is delimited by the Wechselbundesstraße (currently called the B 54) and the Packerbundesstraße (currently called the B 70).

4.4.   Proof of origin: The Styrian Vegetable Growers' Association (Landesverband steirischer Gemüsebauern) keeps a producers' register with a list of Styrian horseradish growers. Only producers listed in the register may offer ‘Steirischer Kren’ PGI as an unprocessed raw material or deliver it under that name to companies for marketing or processing. To this end, the Styrian Vegetable Growers' Association and client companies have jointly created a ‘Horseradish PGI’ working group. Clear labelling on the product enables the origin to be traced by means of cultivation contracts and land registers in IACS multiple applications. The origin of ‘Steirischer Kren’ can be identified at all times by means of producers' records (land registers, harvest and sales records).

The sourcing of the root cuttings (selected lateral roots for cultivating horseradish) must be demonstrated when cultivation is extended or taken up. Only root cuttings from registered producers of ‘Steirischer Kren’ PGI may be used. A study conducted by the Austrian Research Center on distinguishing ‘Steirischer Kren’ from foreign horseradish samples using isotope investigation resulted in good identification of ‘Steirischer Kren’ compared to reference samples of different origin. In future cases of doubt, this method will enable Styrian origin to be confirmed or discounted quickly and reliably.

4.5.   Method of production:

Type of production:

In spring, the root cuttings (selected lateral roots) are planted in the prepared field in rows 70 cm apart. This work is done using planting machines which plant the horseradish root cuttings almost horizontally, 10 to 15 cm apart (in other producing countries, the root cuttings are also planted vertically).

To prevent the formation of unwanted multiple-head roots, from June onwards the root-cutting heads are exposed and all lateral shoots broken off to leave only the strongest shoot. Later on, the roots are again exposed and the lateral shoots and roots broken or cut off to leave just the lowest root crown. In wet years this work is repeated after about one month. This is still the case today, involving laborious work by hand. These steps make it possible to harvest smooth, even roots with slightly bent heads in late autumn (November) or early spring (February/March). This produces the typical appearance of ‘Steirischer Kren’.

Harvesting is done using an uprooter (a counter-rotating oscillating drum harvester), which involves digging up the horseradish roots and depositing them on the surface. The harvested horseradish roots are cleaned and, for marketing fresh, usually wrapped in foil or sometimes cut into pieces. To provide a continual market supply, the horseradish roots can be stored uncleaned at a temperature of – 2 °C.

The cultivated area in Styria is currently approximately 300 ha. Annual production is approximatly 3 000-4 000 tonnes.

Processed ‘Steirischer Kren’ is prepared as follows:

Processing takes place using both the main horseradish roots and the thinner lateral roots, but in all cases using only (100 %) selected, inspected and hand-picked raw material from the specified production region. Raw material which is not processed straight away can be stored in chill rooms at – 2 °C.

Gentle processes are used to clean, wash and sort by hand the horseradish roots in order to eliminate those with poor qualities. The horseradish roots are then freshly grated and either enriched using additives which improve consistency and preservability (vinegar, oil, citric acid, sulphur), thereby enabling the ‘Steirischer Kren’ to retain its special aroma and pungency — or the freshly grated horseradish is preserved using a natural, gentle process (addition of E 223, preservative), making it comparable for a few months with freshly grated horseradish. Finally, the sterile filling of jars, tubes or tubs takes place.

4.6.   Link:

History and reputation of ‘Steirischer Kren’:

The good reputation of ‘Steirischer Kren’ has been well known for as long as approximately 140 years. Farm cultivation of horseradish in Styria developed from 1940 onwards, beginning in the district of Radkersburg. Since 1967, contractual cultivation has been organised by the Styrian Vegetable Growers' Association. This has been instrumental in developing ‘Steirischer Kren’ for export also. For over 40 years, ‘Steirischer Kren’ has also been preserved in economically significant quantities.

Styrian farmers have also played a key role in the development of cultivation and harvest methods in this agricultural sector. In 1976, for example, a method was patented for packing horseradish roots. A special uprooter was also developed in Styria for harvesting horseradish, and a Styrian company was even awarded the ‘Fast Forward Award’ — Styria's greatest technology prize — for its method of preserving freshly grated horseradish.

Numerous media reports confirm both the popularity of ‘Steirischer Kren’ and the economic importance of horseradish cultivation and horseradish processing for the region. Unprocessed horseradish is traditionally prized in the Styrian horseradish-growing region mainly as an accompaniment to various pub snacks.

Climate and soil conditions:

The Illyrian climate in southern Styria is characterised by high air humidity, relatively high precipitation and high temperatures in the growing season. The average annual temperature is 9,5 °C; average annual precipitation is 880 mm. The medium-heavy soils (brown earth and a high proportion of clay) in the horseradish-growing region have good drainage and thus create ideal growing conditions.

Vegetative reproduction over decades (root-cutting selection) has interacted with these influences in southern Styria to produce ‘Steirischer Kren’ with its excellent taste properties and characteristic appearance — the latter alone enabling experts to distinguish it from horseradish roots of different origin. Consumers prize and specifically ask for it mainly because of its pungent fiery taste.

Processed horseradish:

The use of ‘Steirischer Kren’, with its distinctive properties, also enables processed products of different origin to be distinguished, since pungency and fieriness are retained as a result of gentle processes.

4.7.   Inspection body:

Name:	Amt der Steiermärkischen Landesregierung, Fachabteilung 8 B
Address:	Paulustorgasse A-48010 Graz
Tel.	(43-316) 877 35 28
Fax	(43-316) 877 55 89
E-mail:	susanne.reissner@stmk.gv.at

4.8.   Labelling: —

---

(1)  OJ L 93, 31.3.2006, p. 12.

---