HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"L 153/16
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.6.2012
DECISIONS
COMMISSION DECISION
of 19 October 2011
regarding State aid schemes implemented by Greece in the Kastoria, Evia, Florina, Kilkis, Rodopi,
Evros, Xanthi and Dodecanese Prefectures, and the islands of Lesbos, Samos and Chios (debt
restructuring)
(Nos C 23/04 (ex NN 153/03), C 20/05 (ex NN 70/04) and C 50/05 (ex NN 20/05))
(notified under document C(2011) 7252)
(Only the Greek text is authentic)
(Text with EEA relevance)
(2012/307/EU)
THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
(3) By
letter
dated
4
August
2003,
registered
as
received
on
6 August 2003, the Permanent Representation of Greece
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
to the European Union forwarded to the Commission the
Union, and in particular Article 108(2), first subparagraph
information requested in its letter of 27 May 2003.
thereof,
(4) After
examination
of
the
information,
it
was
found
that
Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic
the aid had been granted without the approval of the
Area, and in particular Article 62(1)(a) thereof,
Commission. Accordingly, the Commission decided to
open a non-notified aid dossier, registered under
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments
number NN 153/03.
pursuant to Article 108(2), first subparagraph of the Treaty ( 1 )
and having regard to those comments,
(5) By
letter
dated
21
June
2004
( 4 ), the Commission
Whereas:
informed Greece of its decision to open the procedure
provided for in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (C 23/04)
(hereinafter, ‘opening of the first procedure’).
I. PROCEDURE
Aid concerning the Kastoria and Evia Prefectures ( 2 ) —
(6) The
Commission’s
decision
to
open
the
procedure
was
C 23/04
published in the Official Journal of the European Union ( 5 ).
The Commission invited interested parties to submit their
(1) Having
received
information
indicating
that
aid
had
been
comments on the aid in question.
granted in 1993 and over the subsequent years to firms

in the Kastoria and Evia Prefectures in the context of debt
re-negotiation, the Commission asked the Greek auth
(7) The
Commission
did
not
receive
any
comments
from
orities in a letter dated 27 May 2003 to submit within
interested third parties.
four weeks the text of the legal basis for this operation,
together with any other information necessary for an
examination under Articles 87 and 88 of the EC
(8) By
letter
dated
13
July
2004,
registered
as
received
on
Treaty (
19 July 2004, the Permanent Representation of Greece to

3 ).
the European Union requested a one-month extension of
the period granted to the Greek authorities to submit
(2) By
letter
dated
10
July
2003,
registered
as
received
on
17 July 2003, the Greek Permanent Representation to
their response to the opening of the first procedure.
the European Union forwarded to the Commission a
letter from the Greek authorities requesting a one-
(9) By
fax
dated
6
August
2004,
the
Commission
granted
month extension of the period referred to in recital 1.
the extension requested.
( 1 ) OJ C 52, 2.3.2005, p. 9 for Case C-23/04; OJ C 176, 16.7.2005,
(10) By
letter
dated
9
August
2004,
registered
as
received
on
p. 13 for Case C-20/05; OJ C 63, 16.3.2006, p. 2 for Case C-50/05.
( 2 ) Ministerial Decision No 69836/B1461, as amended by Decisions
10 August 2004, the Permanent Representation of
Nos 2035824/5887, 2045909/7431/0025, 2071670/11297 and
Greece to the European Union forwarded to the
72742/B1723.
Commission the response from the Greek authorities to
( 3 ) With effect from 1 December 2009, Articles 87 and 88 of the EC
the opening of the first procedure.
Treaty have been replaced by Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union; the reference to the
European Community has been replaced by a reference to the
( 4 ) Letter SG-Greffe (2004) D/202445.
European Union.
( 5 ) OJ C 52, 2.3.2005, p. 9.

---

EN
14.6.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/17
Aid concerning the Florina and Kilkis Prefectures ( 6 ) —
Aid concerning the Rodopi, Evros, Xanthi and the
C 20/05
Dodecanese Prefectures, as well as the islands of
Lesbos, Samos and Chios ( 9 ) — C 50/05
(11) During the examination of the information submitted by
the Greek authorities in their letter of 4 August 2003, it
(22) During
the
examination
of
the
information
submitted
by
was found that, in addition to the Kastoria and Evia
the Greek authorities by letter dated 1 July 2004, it was
Prefectures, the aid in question also concerned the
found that aid had also been granted in Prefectures other
Florina and Kilkis Prefectures. Accordingly, the
than those concerned by the openings of the first two
Commission requested additional information on the
procedures. Accordingly, the Commission requested
latter aid schemes from the Greek authorities by fax
additional information on these aid measures from the
dated 22 April 2004.
Greek authorities by fax dated 12 November 2004.
(12) By
letter
dated
26
May
2004,
the
Permanent
Represen
(23) By
letter
dated
13
December
2004,
registered
as
received
tation of Greece to the European Union requested a one-
on 15 December 2004, the Permanent Representation of
month extension of the period granted to the Greek
Greece to the European Union requested that the
authorities to submit the additional information
European Commission grant a one-month extension of
mentioned above.
the period granted to the Greek authorities to submit the
additional information referred to above.
(13) By
fax
dated
7
June
2004,
the
Commission
granted
the
extension requested.
(24) By
fax
dated
6
January
2005,
the
Commission
granted
(14) By
letter
dated
1
July
2004,
registered
as
received
on
the
the extension requested.
same day, the Permanent Representation of Greece to the
European Union forwarded to the Commission the
(25) By
letter
dated
27
January
2005,
registered
as
received
information requested in its fax of 22 April 2004.
on 1 February 2005, the Permanent Representation of
Greece to the European Union forwarded to the
(15) After
examination
of
the
information,
it
was
found
that
Commission the information requested in its letter of
the aid had been granted without the approval of the
12 November 2004.
Commission. Accordingly, the Commission decided to
open a non-notified aid dossier, registered under
(26) After
examination
of
the
information,
it
was
found
that
number NN 70/04.
the aid had been granted without the approval of the
Commission. Accordingly, the Commission decided to
(16) By letter dated 9 June 2005
( 7 ), the Commission
open a non-notified aid dossier, registered under
informed Greece of its decision to open the procedure
number NN 20/05.
provided for under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with
regard to the aid measures granted in the Florina and
Kilkis Prefectures (C 20/05) (hereinafter, ‘the opening of
(27) By
letter
dated
22
December
2005
( 10 ), the Commission
the second procedure’).
informed Greece of its decision to open the procedure
provided for under Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty with
(17) The
Commission’s
decision
to
open
the
procedure
was
regard to the aid granted in the Rodopi, Evia, Xanthi and
published in the Official Journal of the European Union (
the Dodecanese Prefectures, and the islands of Lesbos,

8 ).
The Commission invited the interested parties to submit
Samos and Chios (C 50/05) (hereinafter, ‘the opening
their comments on the aid in question.
of the third procedure’).
(18) The
Commission
did
not
receive
any
comments
from
( 9 ) Joint Decision No 1648/B.22/13.1.94; Decision No 2003341/
interested third parties.
683/0025/17.2.94; Joint Decision No 14237/B.664/6.4.1994;
Decision No 2022973/3968/0025/18.5.1994; Joint Decision No
235/B.21/4.1.1995; Joint Decision No 44678/B.1145/3.7.1995;
(19) By
letter
dated
24
June
2005,
registered
as
received
on
Decision No 2043231/6673/0025/11.7.95; Joint Decision No
28 June 2005, the Permanent Representation of Greece
14946/B.566/30.4.1996; Decision No 2030175/4446/0025/
to the European Union requested a two-month extension
10.6.1996; Joint Decision 44446/B.1613/24.12.1996; Decision
of the period granted to the Greek authorities to submit
No 2087184/49/0025/11.7.1997; Decision No 11362/B.472/
their response to the opening of the second procedure.
7.4.1997; Decision No 32576/B.1282/9.10.1997; Decision No

2016123/2133/0025/6.3.1998; Decision No 40412/B.1677/
9.12.1997; Decision No 2090373/11216/0025/1.6.1998;
(20) By
fax
dated
13
July
2005,
the
Commission
granted
the
Decision No 42998/B.2026/15.12.1998; Decision No 44247/
extension requested.
B.2108/23.12.1998; Decision No 19954/B.957/7.6.1999;
Decision No 2/42929/0025/7.10.1999; Decision No 10123/
B.507/17.3.1999; Decision No 2/21857/0025/7.10.1999;
(21) By
letter
dated
18
August
2005,
registered
as
received
on
Decision No 6244/B.270/18.2.2000; Decision No 2/14774/0025/
24 August 2005, the Permanent Representation of
31.5.2000; Decision No 35913/B.2043/24.10.2000; Decision No
Greece to the European Union forwarded to the
2/82257/0025/18.12.2000; Decision No 43407/B.2428/
Commission the response from the Greek authorities to
19.12.2000; Decision No 2/7555/0025/25.5.2001; Decision No
the opening of the second procedure.
33951/B.1498/10.10.2001; Decision No 2/61352/0025/
2001/31.1.2002; Decision No 42567/B.1770/4.12.2001; Decision
No 75113/B.2455/11.11.2003; Decision No 2/64046/0025/
( 6 ) Ministerial Decision No 66336/B1398 of 14 September 1993 as
2003/28.1.2004; Decision No 2041901/16.5.1989; 2078809/
amended.
10.10.1989; Decision No 9034/B.289/10.2.2003; Decision No
( 7 ) Letter SG-Greffe (2005) D/202557.
80295/B.2631/28.11.2003; Decision No 37497/B.1232/2.6.2003.
( 8 ) OJ C 176, 16.7.2005, p. 13.
( 10 ) Letter SG-Greffe (2005) D/207656.

---

L 153/18
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.6.2012
(28) The
Commission’s
decision
to
open
the
procedure
was
amortisation) with interest calculated every six months at
published in the Official Journal of the European Union ( 11 ).
the rate applied for the restructuring at the time (the rate
The Commission invited the interested parties to submit
applicable to the new loan is the rate applied for the
their comments on the aid in question.
latest 12-month Treasury bonds issued prior to the
start of each interest-calculation period in respect of
the loan, increased by two percentage points, with a
(29) The
Commission
did
not
receive
any
comments
from
reduction of ten percentage points during the first five
interested third parties.
years charged against the account set up pursuant to Law
No 128/75 ( 12 ).
(30) By
letter
dated
23
January
2006,
registered
as
received
on 25 January 2006, the Permanent Representation of
(38) Alternatively,
the
firms
mentioned
above
may
receive
for
Greece to the European Union requested a three-month
five years an interest reduction of ten percentage points
extension of the period granted to the Greek authorities
in respect of their outstanding debts in drachma or
to submit their response to the opening of the third
foreign currencies at 30 June 1993 and linked to
procedure.
investments in fixed or working capital.
(39) The
firms
must
be
viable
after
the
restructuring
(which
(31) By
fax
dated
3
February
2006,
the
Commission
granted
implies that their situation was to some extent difficult);
the extension requested.
this criterion was verified by the banks.
(32) By
letter
dated
10
May
2006,
registered
as
received
on
(40) Ministerial
Decisions
No
2035824/5887
of
1
June
1994,
11 May 2006, the Permanent Representation of Greece
2045909/7431/0025 of 26 August 1994,
to the European Union forwarded to the Commission the
2071670/11297 of 9 November 1994 and
response from the Greek authorities to the opening of
72742/B1723 of 8 December 1994 modulate the grace
the third procedure.
periods and interest reductions linked to the new loans

and cover the latter by means of a State guarantee.
(33) After
re-examining
all
the
legal
bases
submitted,
the
Aid for firms in the Florina and Kilkis Prefectures
Commission requested, by fax dated 12 January 2011,
that the Greek authorities provide further clarifications
(41) Ministerial
Decision
No
66336/B1398
of
14
September
on the aid in question within one month.
1993 provides for the same aid measures and conditions
as described under recital 37. It also provides for the
granting of a State guarantee on the principal and
(34) By
e-mail
dated
7
February
2011,
the
Permanent
Repre
interest of the restructured debt of industrial and craft
sentation of Greece to the European Union asked the
firms in the Florina and Kilkis Prefectures, as well as the
Commission to extend the deadline referred to above
coverage by the State of the arrears interest applicable at
by a further 40 working days.
31 December 1992 in respect of loans granted for the
working or investment capital of those firms, within the
budgetary limits pursuant to Law No 128/75.
(35) By
fax
dated
17
February
2011,
the
Commission
granted
an extension of 20 working days.
(42) Decision
No
66336/B1398
of
14
September
1993
was
amended by Decision No 30755/B1199 of 21 July 1994,
(36) By e-mails dated 15 March 2011 and 29 March 2011,
Decision No 60029/B1541 of 23 September 1994,
the Permanent Representation of Greece to the European
Decision No 72742/B1723 of 8 December 1994,
Union forwarded the clarifications referred to above to
Decision No 236/B22 of 4 January 1995, Decision No
the Commission.
8014/B285 of 28 February 1995, Decision No
44678/B1145 of 3 July 1995, Decision No
44446/B1613 of 24 December 1996, Decision No
II. DESCRIPTION
40410/B1678 of 9 December 1997, Decision No
10995/B546 of 24 March 1999, Decision No
Aid concerning the Kastoria and Evia Prefectures
12169/B736 of 22 March 2000 and Decision No
35913/B2043 of 24 October 2000. These various
(37) Ministerial
Decision
No
69836/B1461
of
30
September
Decisions amend the duration of the loans, the grace
1993 provides for the conversion of total debts, whether
periods and interest rate reductions linked to the new
due or not, at 30 June 1993 resulting from loans of all
loans, and also extend the period after which outstanding
types (for working capital and fixed capital) in drachma
instalments become payable.
or foreign currencies granted to industrial and craft firms
established and operating, irrespective of the location of
their registered headquarters, in the Kastoria and Evia
( 12 ) Open at the Bank of Greece, this account is funded by levies on
loans granted by commercial banks. Any overdraft in respect of the
Prefectures, as well as from bank guarantees in
account is charged to the State (according to the information
drachma or foreign currencies issued on behalf of the
available to the Commission, the account has long been
said firms, into a new loan repayable over 10 years in
overdrawn and is, therefore, funded by the State). In Case C-
equal six-monthly total payments (principal plus interest)
57/86 Hellenic Republic v Commission [1988] ECR, p. 2855, the
or in equal six-monthly principal payments (simple
Court of Justice of the European Communities (now the Court of
Justice of the European Union) found that the management and
transactions of the Bank of Greece were subject to direct State
( 11 ) OJ C 63, 16.3.2006, p. 2.
control.

---

EN
14.6.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/19
(43) The
firms
must
be
viable
after
the
restructuring
(which
(47) Decision
No
2003341/683/0025/17.2.94
confers
a
State
implies that their situation was to some extent difficult);
guarantee for working capital loans granted from 1 April
this criterion was verified by the banks.
1993 onwards to industrial, craft and mining firms,
industrial livestock firms, hotel firms and shipping
firms established, irrespective of where their registered
Aid concerning the Rodopi, Evros, Xanthi and the
headquarters are located, in the Xanthi, Rodopi and
Dodecanese Prefectures, and the islands of Lesbos,
Evros Prefectures, up to a total amount of GRD
Samos and Chios
100 000 000 (EUR 293 470) per firm, as well as for
debts (capital and interest) resulting from the restruc
(44) Ministerial
Decision
No
1648/B.22/13.1.1994
provides
turing outstanding at 31 December 1993 of debts
as follows:
resulting from old loans granted in accordance with the
provisions of Joint Decision No 1648/G.G.54/
(a) for new working capital loans granted from 1 April
B.22/13.1.94.
1993 onwards to industrial, craft and mining firms,
industrial livestock firms, hotel firms and shipping
firms, established irrespective of the location of
(48) A
number
of
amendments
were
made
to
Decision
No
their registered headquarters, in the Prefectures of
2003341/683/0025/17.2.94 by means of the following
Xanthi, Rodopi and Evros, an interest reduction of
Decisions: Nos 2022973/3968/0025/18.5.94, 2043231/
10 (ten) percentage points charged against the
6673/0025/11.7.95, 2030175/4446/0025/10.6.1996,
account set up pursuant to Law No 128/75, up to
2087184/49/0025/11.7.97, 2016123/2133/0025/
a rate of 20 % of the firm’s turnover for the previous
6.3.1998, 2090373/11216/0025/1.6.98 ( 16 ), 2/21857/
year or 50 % of orders for the year in progress, in
0025/7.10.1999, 2/14774/0025/31.5.2000, 2/82257/
respect of interest booked from 1 April 1993 to
0025/18.12.2000, 2/7555/0025/25.5.2001, 2/61352/
31 March 1996, with a State guarantee up to a
0025/31.1.2002 and 2/64046/0025/2003/28.1.2004.
total amount of GRD 100 000 000 (EUR 293 470);
All these texts confer the State guarantee in case of
application of the measures provided for by the
different Decisions amending Ministerial Decision No
(b) the total debts, whether due or not, at 31 December
1648/B.22/13.1.1994 (cf. recital 46).
1993 resulting from loans for working capital and
fixed capital granted to industrial, craft and mining
firms, industrial livestock firms, hotel firms and
(49) On
the aforementioned list, Ministerial Decision No
shipping firms in the Thrace Region will be
2/82257/0025/18.12.2000 stipulates that, in order for
converted into a new loan, repayable over 10 years
its provisions to be applicable, firms must be viable in
in equal six-monthly total payments (principal plus
the absolute (and not after the restructuring, as is the
interest), from the account set up pursuant to law No
case with regard to the other Ministerial Decisions
128/75, with a State guarantee;
referred to in this Decision), which presupposes the
absence of a state of difficulty.
(c) inclusion in the restructured debt of arrears interest
due at 31 December 1992 in respect of loans for
fixed or working capital.
(50) Ministerial
Decision
No
2041901/16.5.1989
grants
an
interest reduction of three percentage points, charged
against the joint account set up pursuant to Law No
(45) The
firms
must
be
viable
after
the
restructuring
(which
128/75, on outstanding balances payable in respect of
implies that their situation was to some extent difficult);
working capital loans granted from 1 April 1989
this criterion was verified by the banks.
onwards to trade and craft firms with their registered
headquarters in the Evros, Lesbos, Samos, Chios and
Dodecanese Prefectures.
(46) A
number
of
amendments
were
made
to
Ministerial
Decision No 1648/B.22/13.1.1994 by means of the
following Ministerial Decisions: Nos 14237/B.664/
(51) Decision No 2078809/10.10.89 grants an interest
6.4.1994, 235/B.21/4.1.1995, 44678/B.1145/3.7.1995,
reduction of three percentage points, charged against
14946/B.566/30.4.1996, 44446/B.1613/24.12.1996,
the joint account set up pursuant to Law No 128/75,
32576/B.1282/9.10.1997 ( 13 ), 11362/B.472/7.4.1997,
on outstanding balances payable in respect of working
40412/B.1677/9.12.1997 ( 14 ), 42998/B.2026/ capital loans issued from 1 April 1989 onwards to trade
15.12.1998, 19954/B.957/7.6.1999, 10123/B.507/
and craft firms with their registered headquarters in the
17.3.1999, 6244/B.270/18.2.2000 and 35913/B.2043/
Rodopi, Xanthi and Samos Prefectures.
24.10.2000 ( 15 ). All these texts modulate the technical
parameters such as interest reductions, grace periods,
duration of loans and duration of periods after which
(52) Ministerial
Decisions Nos 9034/B.289/10.2.2003 and
outstanding instalments become payable.
37497/B.1232/2.6.2003 extend the provisions of the
Decisions referred to under recitals 50 and 51 by spec
( 13 ) Amended by Decision No 43407/B.2428/19.12.2000, in turn
ifying the scope and certain technical parameters relating
amended by Decision No 33951/B.1498/10.10.2001, in turn
to the interest reductions provided for.
amended by Decision No 75113/B.2455/11.11.2003.
( 14 ) Amended by Decision No 44247/B.2108/23.12.1998.
( 15 ) Amended by Decision No 42567/B.1770/4.12.2001.
( 16 ) In turn amended by Decision No 2/42929/0025/7.10.1999.

---

L 153/20
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.6.2012
III. REASONS FOR INITIATING THE INVESTIGATION
(b) Justification of the opening of the second procedure
PROCEDURE
(55) The
second
procedure
was
opened
for
the
following
(53) With regard to the aid schemes in question, the
reasons:
Commission had doubts as regards not only the
absence of State aid, but also the compatibility of the
(a) when asked to provide explanations in relation to the
aid, which in the opinion of the Commission actually
aid in question, the Greek authorities stated that,
exists, with the internal market.
although they did not know the exact number of
(a) Justification of opening of the first procedure
beneficiaries, the amounts of aid in question
probably fell under the de minimis rule; however,
(54) The
first
procedure
was
opened
for
the
following
reasons:
quite apart from the fact that the de minimis rule
did not apply to the agricultural sector until
(a) when asked to provide explanations in relation to the
1 January 2005, the Commission did not have any
aid in question, the Greek authorities stated that the
data which would have allowed it to ascertain the
Ministerial Decisions constituting the legal basis for
extent to which the amounts received by agricultural
the aid measures were not notified because they
firms in application of Ministerial Decision No
considered that the aid which they implemented did
66336/B.1398 could have fallen under the scope of
not constitute State aid within the meaning of
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 of
Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty; they also stated that,
6 October 2004 on the application of Articles 87
although they did not know the exact number of
and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the
beneficiaries, the amounts of the aid measures in
agriculture sector ( 17 ), which introduced a de minimis
question likely fell under the de minimis rule;
rule in the agricultural sector;
(b) since the de minimis rule was not applicable in the
agricultural sector at the time when the aid measures
(b) given that these Decisions were intended to assist
was granted and that the Decisions constituting the
firms in difficulty, the aid had to be analysed in the
legal basis of the aid measures in question were
light of the various rules applicable to the rescuing
intended to assist firms experiencing liquidity
and restructuring of firms in difficulty since the entry
problems, the Commission considered that the aid
into force of the first of the above Decisions, that is
should be analysed in the light of the different
to say, since 21 September 1993; however, the
rules applicable to the rescuing and restructuring of
information available did not make it possible to
firms in difficulty from the entry into force of the
determine to what extent these rules had been
first of the aforementioned Decisions; however, the
followed;
information available did not make it possible to
ascertain to what extent these rules had been
(c) again with regard to the agricultural sector, the
followed;
information available did not make it possible to
(c) again with regard to the agricultural sector, the
determine whether the State guarantee had been
information available did not make it possible to
granted in accordance with the various rules
determine whether the State guarantee had been
applicable to State aid in the form of guarantees
granted in accordance with the various rules
from 21 September 1993;
applicable to State aid in the form of guarantees
from the entry into force of the first of the afore
(d) in the industrial and craft sectors, the de minimis rule
mentioned Decisions;
did, of course, apply, but as the Greek authorities did
not know the number of beneficiaries of the
(d) in the industrial and craft sectors, the de minimis rule
measures introduced by these Decisions and as the
did, of course, apply, but as the Greek authorities did
aid ceilings are calculated for a three-year period, not
not know the number of beneficiaries of the
for a one-off measure, it was impossible to tell
measures introduced by these Ministerial Decisions
whether the aid provided for by the Decisions in
and as the de minimis aid ceilings are calculated for
question could in fact fall under the de minimis
a three-year period, not for a one-off measure, it was
rule; in this context, the aid measures also had to
impossible to tell whether the aid provided for by the
be analysed on the basis of the rules on the
Decisions in question could in fact fall under the de
rescuing and restructuring of firms in difficulty
minimis rule; in this context, the aid measures also
which had been applicable since 21 September
had to be analysed on the basis of the rules on the
1993; however, the information available did not
rescuing and restructuring of firms in difficulty which
make it possible to ascertain to what extent these
had been applicable since the entry into force of the
rules had been followed;
first of the Decisions referred to; however, the
information available did not make it possible to
ascertain to what extent these rules had been
(e) in these sectors, the information available did not
followed;
make it possible to determine whether the State
guarantee had been granted in accordance with the
(e) with regard to these sectors, the information available
various rules applicable to State aid in the form of
did not make it possible to determine whether the
guarantees from 21 September 1993.
State guarantee had been granted in accordance with
the different rules applicable to State aid in the form
( 17 ) OJ L 325, 28.10.2004, p. 4. Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 was
of guarantees applicable from the entry into force of
repealed and replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) No
the first of the aforementioned Decisions.
1535/2007 on 1 January 2008.

---

EN
14.6.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/21
(c) Justification of the opening of the third procedure
(e) in the maritime transport sector, no de minimis rule
applied; the aid measures therefore had to be
(56) The third procedure was opened for the following
analysed on the basis of the rules that had applied
reasons:
since the entry into force of the first of the above
Decisions to the rescuing and restructuring of firms
in difficulty; however, the information available did
not make it possible to ascertain to what extent these
(a) as had been the case for the opening of the first and
rules have been followed;
second procedures, the Greek authorities indicated in
the information they provided that the amounts in
question likely fell under the de minimis rule;
however, quite apart from the fact that the de
(f) in none of the above sectors did the information
minimis rule did not apply to the agricultural sector
available make it possible to determine whether the
until 1 January 2005, the Commission did not have
State guarantee was given in accordance with the
any data which would have allowed it to ascertain
various rules that had applied since the first of the
the extent to which the amounts received by agri
above Decisions entered into force to State aid in the
cultural firms in application of the Decisions consti
form of guarantees;
tuting the legal basis of the aid scheme in question
could have fallen under the scope of Regulation (EC)
No 1860/2004;
(g) Decision No 2041901/16.5.1989 and those referred
to under recitals 51 and 52 above provided for aid in
Prefectures other than Rodopi, Evros and Xanthi and
(b) given that these Ministerial Decisions were intended
it was not possible to ascertain whether the system of
to assist firms in difficulty, the aid had to be analysed
aid they introduced was an extension of that applied
in the light of the various rules which had applied to
in the above three Prefectures or was a separate
the rescuing and restructuring of firms in difficulty
system; whatever the case, it was not possible to
since the entry into force of the first of the above
ascertain, on the basis of the information available,
Decisions; however, the information available did not
whether the rules on State aid (rules on regional aid
make it possible to determine to what extent these
or the de minimis rule) had been followed;
rules had been followed;
(h) if the Ministerial Decisions referred to under point (g)
(c) in the industrial, hotel and craft sectors, the de
had constituted an extension of the system of aid
minimis rule did, of course, apply, but as the Greek
applied in the Rodopi, Xanthi and Evros Prefectures,
authorities did not indicate the number of bene
it was not possible to determine whether the planned
ficiaries of the aid and as the de minimis aid ceilings
aid measures could fall under the de minimis rule or
are calculated for a three-year period, not for a one-
be considered compatible with the provisions
off measure, it was impossible to tell whether the aid
governing the granting of aid for rescuing and
provided for by the Decisions in question could in
restructuring firms in difficulty;
fact fall under the de minimis rule; in this context, the
aid measures also had to be analysed on the basis of
the rules on the rescuing and restructuring of firms
in difficulty which had been applicable since the
(i) if the Ministerial Decisions referred to under point (g)
entry into force of the first of the Decisions
had constituted an independent aid system, it was
referred to; however, the information available did
necessary, in the absence of details in this regard in
not make it possible to ascertain to what extent
their provisions, to examine the compatibility of its
these rules had been followed;
application to healthy firms and firms in difficulty;
the analysis resulted in the following conclusions:
(d) in the coal and shipping sectors, the de minimis rule
(i) for firms in difficulty, it was not possible to
had only applied since the entry into force of
determine whether the planned aid measures
Commission Regulation (EC) No 69/2001 of
could fall under the de minimis rule or be
12 January 2001 on the application of Articles 87
considered compatible with the provisions
and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis ( 18 ) aid;
governing the granting of aid for rescuing and
however, for the reasons given under point (c), the
restructuring firms in difficulty,
aid measures also had to be analysed on the basis of
the various rules applicable to the rescuing and
restructuring of firms in difficulty from the entry
into force of the first of the above Decisions;
(ii) for healthy firms, it was not possible to
however, the information available did not make it
determine whether the working capital
possible to ascertain to what extent these rules had
constituted by means of a loan together with
been followed;
the interest reduction granted had served to
finance eligible investments within the meaning
( 18 ) OJ L 10, 13.1.2001, p. 30.
of Union rules on regional aid.

---

L 153/22
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.6.2012
IV. OBSERVATIONS OF THE GREEK AUTHORITIES ON
Fund (EAGGF) ( 21 ); these Regulations were applied
THE FORMAL OPENING OF THE PROCEDURE
by means of the implementation of operational
programmes under the second and third
(a) Observations of the Greek authorities on the
Community Support Frameworks; firms which had
opening of the first procedure
made investments and received aid from the
Ministry of Rural Development and Food to this
(57) In
their
letter
of
9
August
2004,
the
Greek
authorities
end were not eligible for debt restructuring, since
made the following statements:
this had not been provided for; the de minimis rule
(a) the consolidation of the loans is an administrative
was not applied either since, in order to obtain a
instrument not resulting in high costs for the public
subsidy, operators had to have carried out work and
authorities;
borne the cost;
(b) the calculation of interest per six-month period has
(i) the
reference
to
the de minimis rule served exclusively
already been upheld in the case-law of the national
to illustrate the fact that most of the aid measures
Supreme Court, which declared quarterly
granted were below the de minimis ceiling, without
compounding to be illegal and abusive, and
specific reference to the agricultural sector;
responsible for imposing an excessive burden on
(j) the
criterion
of
‘viability
after
restructuring’
has
no
debtors;
bearing on the overall assessment of the viability of
(c) the granting of the State guarantee cannot be
the firm prepared by the credit body, since eligibility
considered as aid since its use is contingent on
for restructuring is determined immediately after the
particularly stringent measures for the principal
viability study;
debtor;
(k) the restructuring concerned old loans and did not
(d) during the reference period, interest rates in Greece
constitute financing for new investments;
were much higher than the average rates in the rest
(l) as regards the overall grant equivalent for the
of the Union and remained thus despite the reduc
restructuring, the vast majority of the aid measures
tions; there was therefore no distortion of
constituted small amounts, the areas for which the
competition, not least since the beneficiary firms
measures were intended (Kastoria and Evia) were all
had to be viable; moreover, the reductions were
less-favoured areas within the meaning of Council
financed by a special account, separate from the
Directive 75/268/EEC of 28 April 1975 on
State budget;
mountain and hill farming in certain less-favoured
(e) the granting of periods of grace cannot be
areas ( 22 ), and the country as a whole falls under
considered as an aid measure, given that the debt
Objective 1;
and interest remain: this merely constitutes restruc
(m) the interest rate applied to new loans was that which
turing of repayment over time, justified on the
applied to the latest issue of Greek Treasury bonds;
grounds of the economic situation;
the reduction does not concern the entire duration
(f) Ministerial
Decision
No
72742/B1723
(cf.
recital
42
of the restructured loan, but only the first critical
above) did not give rise to any additional costs in
years; the difference between the rates was not
relation to those introduced by the original Decision
very high (1 to 2 points);
which constitutes the basis of the scheme in
(n) the scheme existed from 30 June 1993 to 30 June
question;
2003.
(g) the release of securities by means of Ministerial
(b) Observations of the Greek authorities on the
Decision No 2071670/11297 cannot be considered
opening of the second procedure
an aid measure in respect of firms, since they are

adapted to the level of the restructured loans;
(58) By
letter
of
18
August
2005,
the
Greek
authorities
set
moreover, the guarantee from the Greek State does
out the following arguments, most of which had already
not cover all types of charges imposed on lenders by
been presented in their reply to the first opening of the
the banks;
procedure (cf. previous recital):
(h) Ministerial Decision No 69836/B1451 and its
(a) the consolidation of the loans is an administrative
amendments concerned processing firms in general
instrument which does not result in high costs for
and did not refer specifically to processing firms in
the public authorities (the authorities add here that
the agriculture sector, which were covered by
the intention of this instrument is not the selective
Council Regulations (EEC) No 866/90 of 29 March
granting of aid);
1990 on improving the processing and marketing
conditions for agricultural products ( 19 ), (EC) No
(b) the calculation of interest per six-month period has
951/97 of 20 May 1997 on improving the
already been upheld in the case-law of the national
processing and marketing conditions for agricultural
Supreme Court, which declared quarterly
products ( 20 ) and (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May
compounding to be illegal and abusive, and
1999 on support for rural development from the
responsible for imposing an excessive burden on
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
debtors;
( 19 ) OJ L 91, 6.4.1990, p. 1.
( 21 ) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 80.
( 20 ) OJ L 142, 2.6.1997, p. 22.
( 22 ) OJ L 128, 19.5.1975, p. 1.

---

EN
14.6.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/23
(c) during the reference period, interest rates in Greece
firms; moreover, over the period 1995-2004, meat
were much higher than in the rest of the Union and
production in the Evros, Rodopi and Xanthi
remained thus despite the reductions applied;
Prefectures only accounted for a small proportion
of agricultural production in the Prefectures in
(d) the granting of the State guarantee cannot be
question, and, although the gross domestic product
considered as aid since, even if it is used, it is
(GDP) of these Prefectures rose over that period (both
contingent on particularly stringent conditions for
in absolute terms and per capita), it remained well
the principal debtor;
below the national average;
(e) the arrears interest and the interest-rate reductions
(d) Ministerial Decisions Nos 2041901/16.5.1989 and
were financed by a special account (account set up
2078809/1989, which provide for interest reductions
pursuant to Law No 128/75), separate from the State
in respect of working capital loans for firms in
budget;
Lesbos, Samos, Chios and the Dodecanese Prefec
(f) the granting of periods of grace cannot be considered
tures, also stipulate that the firms must be viable
as an aid measure, given that the debt and interest
before and after the restructuring of their debts;
remain: this merely constitutes restructuring of
repayment over time, justified on the grounds of
(e) the competent authorities in Greece were asked to
the economic situation;
collect data on the beneficiaries and the aid actually
granted, but said they were unable;
(g) the provisions of Ministerial Decision 66336/
B.1398/1993 and its amendments provided for the
(f) the interest-rate reductions are financed by an
possibility of aid for firms established in the Florina
account set up pursuant to Law No 128/75 which
and Kilkis Prefectures without high costs for the
does not constitute a State resource, since it is an
public authorities and on the condition that the
account intended primarily for the redistribution of
firms in question were considered viable; they did
funds.
not therefore distort competition within the
meaning of Article 87 of the EC Treaty; moreover,
(d) Letters from the Greek authorities of 15 and
it should be recalled that the Florina and Kilkis
29 March 2011
Prefectures share borders with the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia and that, during the reference
(60) By
letters
dated
15
and
29
March
2011,
the
Greek
auth
period (1990s), they suffered greatly as a result of the
orities firstly stated the expiry dates for the initial Minis
war and instability in the region;
terial Decisions governing the schemes in question. The
dates are as follows:
(h) lastly, the aforementioned Decision refers to
industrial and craft firms; according to the Greek
(a) 30 June 2003 for Decision No 69836/B1461
authorities, no agricultural firms are concerned by
(Kastoria and Evia Prefectures);
these provisions.
(b) 30 June 2000 for Decision No 66336/B/398/
(c) Observations of the Greek authorities on the
14-9-1993 (Florina and Kilkis Prefectures);
opening of the third procedure
(c) 31 December 2005 for Decision No
(59) By letter of 10 May 2006, the Greek authorities
1648/B.22/13.1.94 (Xanthi, Rodopi and Evros Prefec
submitted the following arguments:
tures);
(a) the Prefectures concerned by the Decisions in
question were experiencing a difficult economic
(d) 31 December 2004 for Decision No 2041901/
situation characterised by low levels of economic
16-5-1989 (Rodopi, Evros, Xanthi and Dodecanese
activity and a higher unemployment rate than in
Prefectures; islands of Lesbos, Samos and Chios).
the rest of the country; this situation was
compounded by the state of war in neighbouring
(61) The
Greek
authorities
then
indicated
that
the
criterion
countries (for example, Kosovo); competition could
regarding the viability of the firms after the restructuring
not therefore be distorted and the aid measures
did not constitute the only factor considered; rather,
granted in the form of debt restructuring and
there was an overall assessment of the viability of the
reductions could therefore benefit from the dero
firms before and after restructuring.
gation provided for in Article 87(3)(a) and (c) of
the EC Treaty;
(62) The letters also contain tables indicating the grant
equivalent of the aid measures in question received by
(b) the aid measures were focused on resolving problems
each beneficiary firm, with the objective of illustrating
such as the lack of dynamism of local markets, the
the percentage of firms for which the aid measures
contraction of the labour market and falling demand,
could fall under a de minimis scheme. The Greek auth
as well as long-term economic development;
orities indicate, however, that, with regard to the aid
measures granted under Ministerial Decisions
(c) with regard to the Commission’s argument that the
2041901/16-5-1989 (Xanthi, Rodopi and Evros,
conditions of Community trade could be distorted
Samos, Lesbos, Chios and the Dodecanese Prefectures)
given the high level of competition in the agricultural
and 1648/B.22/13.1.94 (Xanthi, Rodopi and Evros), the
sector, only Decision 1648/B22/13.1.1994, among
data available relates to the period 2004-07 only. The
all those examined, concerns industrial livestock
data provided in respect of aid measures granted under

---

L 153/24
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.6.2012
Ministerial Decision No 69836/B1461 (Kastoria and Evia
quite apart from the fact that the de minimis rule was not
Prefectures) relate to the period 1993-1998 and in
applicable in all the sectors concerned over the validity
respect of that granted under Ministerial Decision No
period of the Ministerial Decisions constituting the legal
66336/B/398/14-9-1993 (Florina and Kilkis Prefectures)
basis of the schemes in question (this was indeed one of
relate to the period 1993-2001. These data were
the reasons for the opening of the procedures in ques
requested from the credit institutions, some of which
tion), the data is incomplete, as acknowledged by the
did not reply. The Greek authorities consider, however,
Greek authorities themselves (cf. recital 62). Moreover,
that the data collected are close to the total amount of
the amounts of de minimis aid vary between the sectors
aid granted, since the banks which did reply are the main
(they are not the same in the industrial and agricultural
lenders to the Prefectures in question. According to the
sectors) and the tables provided suggest that the Greek
Greek authorities, analysis of the data demonstrates that
authorities were not sufficiently aware of this difference.
the aid in question falls below the de minimis ceiling in
Lastly, the Commission notes that, despite the Greek
73,55 % to 99,46 % of cases, depending on the three-
authorities’ claims that agricultural production,
year period and the Decision considered.
processing and marketing firms were not eligible for
the aid schemes in question, the tables mentioned
above clearly demonstrate that some firms in those
sectors did receive aid considered to fall under a de
minimis scheme even though they clearly exceed the
(63) Lastly, the Greek authorities state that agricultural
product production, processing and marketing firms
permissible ceiling.
were not eligible for the aid and that the expression
‘mining firms’ actually designates marble and stone
extraction firms.
(66) The
Commission
recalls
that,
any
individual
aid
granted
under an aid scheme that at the time it was granted
satisfied the conditions laid down in an applicable de
minimis regulation is deemed not to constitute State aid
V. EVALUATION
within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
V.I. EXISTENCE OF AID
(64) In
accordance
with
Article
107(1)
of
the
Treaty,
any
aid
granted by a Member State or through State resources in
(67) When
the
Greek
authorities
first
granted
the
aid
measures
any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to
in question in the agricultural sector, no Union
distort competition by favouring certain undertakings
provisions existed on de minimis aid.
or the production of certain goods is, in so far as it
affects trade between Member States, incompatible with
the internal market. In absolute terms, the aid measures
in question correspond to this definition in the sense that
(68) The
first
provisions
adopted
in
this
respect
were
those
of
they are granted by the State or through State resources,
Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004 ( 25 ).
are intended for certain firms (firms in the agriculture,
craft, industrial, hotel, extraction — cf. recital 63 — and
shipping sectors in the aforementioned Prefectures) and
favour those firms by means of measures such as restruc
(69) In
accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004,
turing their loans, reducing the size of instalments by
which relates to both primary agricultural production
extending the repayment period, interest-rate reductions
and the processing and marketing of agricultural
and the granting of guarantees, and may affect trade (
products, aid not exceeding a ceiling of EUR 3 000 per

23 )
and distort competition (
beneficiary over any period of three years does not affect

24 ).
trade between Member States, does not distort or
threaten to distort competition and therefore does not
fall under Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
(65) The Greek authorities sought to demonstrate that the aid
measures in question could fall under a de minimis
scheme and did not therefore constitute State aid
(70) Pursuant
to
Article
5
of
Regulation
(EC)
No
1860/2004,
within the meaning of Article 107(1) TFEU. However,
the same applies in respect of aid granted before the
entry into force of that Regulation, subject to compliance
( 23 ) Any aid measure conferring an advantage on a firm in a sector
with the conditions laid down in Articles 1 and 3
which is open to trade (such as the agricultural or industrial sectors)
thereof.
or liable to attract consumers from other Member States (such as
the hotel sector) has an impact on commercial flows. In the agri
cultural sector, Greece’s share in intra-Community trade stood at
EUR 13,684 billion in imports and EUR 19,31 billion in exports.
( 24 ) According to the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European
(71) On
1
January
2008,
Regulation
(EC)
No
1860/2004
was
Union, the very fact that the competitive situation of the firm is
replaced by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007
improved by granting an advantage which it would not have been
of 20 December 2007 on the application of Articles 87
able to obtain under normal market conditions and from which
and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the sector
other competitive firms do not benefit is sufficient to demonstrate a
distortion of competition (Case 730/79, Philip Morris v Commission
[1980] ECR 2671, Greek Special Edition 1980/III, p. 13).
( 25 ) See footnote 17.

---

EN
14.6.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/25
of agricultural production ( 26 ), which raises the amount
fiscal years if, at the time of granting it was in
of de minimis aid to EUR 7 500 per beneficiary over a
accordance with the provisions of Regulation (EC)
period of three fiscal years, irrespective of the form of the
No 1998/2006.
aid or the objective pursued, within the limits of the
maximum amount per Member State corresponding to
0,75 % of annual output.
(77) The
Commission
recalls,
however,
that
firms
in
difficulty
are not eligible for the provisions of Regulations (EC) No
1998/2006 and (EC) No 1535/2007.
(72) Article
6(1)
of
Regulation
(EC)
No
1535/2007
stipulates
that ‘this Regulation shall apply to aid granted before
1 January 2008 to undertakings in the sector of agri
(78) In sectors other than the agricultural sector (that is to
cultural production, provided that such aid fulfils all the
say, in this case, the different sectors mentioned in this
conditions laid down in Articles 1 to 4, except for the
Decision, with the exception of the shipping sector,
reference requirement clearly set out in this Regulation in
which will be addressed in recitals 80 and 81 below ( 28 )),
the first subparagraph of Article 4(1)’. The Regulation
the de minimis rule set out in the Commission’s
only applies to primary agricultural production, however.
Communication of 20 May 1992 — Community
guidelines on State aid for small and medium-sized enter
prises ( 29 ) (hereinafter, ‘the 1992 Guidelines’) was
(73) With
regard
to
the
processing
and
marketing
of
agri
applicable at the time when the aid measures in
cultural products, the de minimis rule applicable with
question were granted. The Communication stipulated
effect from 1 January 2007 is set out in Commission
that ‘one-off payments of aid of up to ECU 50 000, in
Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006 of 15 December 2006
respect of a given type of expenditure and schemes under
on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to
which the amount of aid a given firm may receive in
de minimis aid (
respect of a given type of expenditure over a three-year

27 ).
period is limited to that figure, will no longer be
considered notifiable under Article 93(3) [of the EC
Treaty] (
(74) Article
2(2)
of
Regulation
(EC)
No
1998/2006
sets
at

30 ), provided that it is an express condition of
the award or scheme that any further aid the same firm
EUR 200 000 per beneficiary over a period of three
may receive in respect of the same type of expenditure
fiscal years the amount up to which aid does not affect
from other sources or under other schemes does not take
trade between Member States, does not distort or
the total aid the firm receives above the ECU 50 000
threaten to distort competition and does not therefore
limit.’ This rule was subsequently amended in the 1996
fall under Article 107(1) of the Treaty.
Commission notice on the de minimis rule for State
aid ( 31 ) (hereinafter ‘the 1996 Notice’), which set the
amount of de minimis aid at ECU 100 000 for the
(75) Article
5(1)
of
Regulation
(EC)
No
1998/2006
stipulates
same period, and thereafter in Regulation (EC) No
that ‘the Regulation shall apply to aid granted before its
69/2001, which set the amount at EUR 100 000 for
entry into force to undertakings active in the transport
the same period.
sector and undertakings active in the processing and
marketing of agricultural products if the aid fulfils all
the conditions laid down in Articles 1 and 2….’.
(79) On account of the expiry dates for the schemes analysed
(the last being 31 December 2005) and the non-retro
active applicability of the regulations in respect of the
(76) Consequently,
the
Commission will
not consider
aid
sectors mentioned under recital 78, the Commission
granted under the Ministerial Decisions analysed as
will not consider as State aid aid granted under the
State aid if it does not exceed the following levels per
Decisions analysed which does not exceed the
beneficiary:
following amounts per beneficiary:
(a) in the case of primary agricultural production: EUR
(a) ECU 50 000 per three-year period between
3 000 per three-year period, if, at the time of
19 August 1992 and 5 March 1996, if, at the time
granting, the aid was in accordance with the
of granting, the aid was in accordance with the
provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1860/2004, or
provisions of the 1992 Guidelines;
EUR 7 500 per period of three fiscal years if, at the
time of granting it was in accordance with the
provisions of Regulation (EC) No 1535/2007;
(b) ECU/EUR 100 000 per three-year period between
6 March 1996 and 1 February 2001, if, at the time
of granting, the aid was in accordance with the
(b) in the case of the processing and marketing of agri
relevant provisions of the 1996 Notice;
cultural products: EUR 3 000 per three-year period,
if, at the time of granting, the aid was in accordance
( 28 ) The maritime transport sector cannot fall under the de minimis rule
with the provisions of Regulation (EC) No
in this case, as it is excluded from all texts governing de minimis aid,
1860/2004, or EUR 200 000 per period of three
with the exception of Regulation (EC) No 1998/2006, but that
Regulation does not apply to firms in difficulty.
( 29 ) OJ C 213, 19.8.1992, p. 2.
( 26 ) OJ L 337, 21.12.2007, p. 35.
( 30 ) Now Article 108(3) of the Treaty.
( 27 ) OJ L 379, 28.12.2006, p. 5.
( 31 ) OJ C 68, 6.3.1996, p. 9.

---

L 153/26
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.6.2012
(c) EUR 100 000 per three-year period between
tation has been submitted by the Greek authorities
2 February 2001 and 31 December 2005, if, at the
demonstrating the applicability of this scenario in
time of granting, the aid was in accordance with the
this case;
relevant provisions of Regulation (EC) No 69/2001.
(c) with regard to competition, the granting of grace
periods (cf. recitals 57(e) and 58(f)) does not
(80) Lastly,
in
the
shipbuilding
sector,
the de minimis rule has
constitute simply a restructuring of repayment over
only been applicable since the entry into force of Regu
time, since it reduces the repayment burden at a
lation (EC) No 69/2001.
specific time and therefore provides temporary
financial relief for the beneficiary;
(81) Consequently,
the
Commission
will
not
consider
as
State
(d) even if, as the Greek authorities state, the account set
aid aid granted under the Ministerial Decisions analysed
up pursuant to Law No 128/75 used to finance
which do not exceed EUR 100 000 per beneficiary and
interest-rate reductions (cf. recitals 57(d), 58(e) and
per three-year period over the period 2 February 2001-
59(f)) does not form part of the budget of the Greek
30 June 2007, if, at the time of granting, the aid was in
State, it nevertheless constitutes a State resource ( 33 );
accordance with the relevant provisions of Regulation
(EC) No 69/2001.
(e) the granting of an interest-rate reduction in respect of
loans confers an advantage on the beneficiary firms,
even if interest rates are high in the country in
(82) The other arguments put forward by the Greek auth
question;
orities to justify the absence of State aid cannot be
accepted by the Commission for the following reasons,
(f) the release of securities provided for the purposes of
valid in every case in which those arguments were cited:
obtaining the guarantee (cf. recital 57(g)), while it
may not involve any direct expenditure for the
Greek State in accordance with Ministerial Decision
(a) by claiming that the loan consolidation does not
No 2071670/11297, comprises an element of aid
result in high costs for the public authorities (cf.
since, in providing this possibility, the State not
recitals 57(a) and 58(a) in particular), the Greek auth
only offers beneficiary firms the opportunity to
orities recognise that the operation imposes a cost on
obtain capital, but also waives one of the
the State, or in other words uses State resources;
prerequisites for the obtention of its guarantee;
(g) the fact that interest rates were high in Greece (cf.
(b) until the entry into force of the Notice on the appli
recital 57(d)) does not imply the absence of aid, in
cation of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State
the sense that, irrespective of the economic context
aid in the form of guarantees (
in which the restructuring with reductions was

32 ) (hereinafter ‘the
2000 Notice’), all guarantees were considered to
carried out, the granting of the aid in itself had the
include an element of State aid (cf. recital 105(a));
effect of relieving the beneficiaries of a burden which
the 2000 Notice states that a guarantee may be
they would normally have had to bear in the exercise
deemed not to constitute State aid within the
of their activity.
meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty where the
beneficiaries are not borrowers in financial difficulty
(83) In the light of all these elements, the Commission can
and would in principle be able to obtain a loan on
only conclude that aid measures which do not fall within
market conditions from the financial markets without
the scope of and comply with the prerequisites for the
any intervention by the State, the guarantee is linked
granting of de minimis aid defined under recitals 68 to 81
to a specific financial transaction, is for a fixed
do indeed fall within the scope of Article 107(1) of the
maximum amount, does not cover more than 80 %
Treaty.
of the outstanding loan or other financial obligation
(except for bonds and similar instruments) and is not
open-ended, the terms of the scheme are based on a
V.II. COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID
realistic assessment of the risk so that the premiums
paid by the beneficiary enterprises make it, in all
(84) However, in the situations provided for in Article 107(2)
and (3) of the Treaty, certain types of aid may, by way of
probability, self-financing, the scheme provides for
derogation, be deemed compatible with the internal
the terms on which future guarantees are granted
market.
and the overall financing of the scheme to be

reviewed at least once a year, and the premiums
cover both the normal risks associated with
(85) In the case under consideration, it is necessary to
granting the guarantee and the administrative costs
examine, in the context of each procedure opened,
of the scheme, including, where the State provides
which exemption might apply in each of the sectors
the initial capital for the start-up of the scheme, a
concerned (whilst differentiating between the agricultural
normal return on that capital; however, no documen
and other sectors).
( 32 ) OJ C 71, 11.3.2000, p. 14.
( 33 ) See footnote 11.

---

EN
14.6.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/27
V.II.1. AID TO THE PREFECTURES OF KASTORIA AND EVIA,
(i) Rules applicable to rescue and restructuring aid to
ADDRESSED WHEN THE FIRST PROCEDURE WAS
firms in difficulty during the period in question
OPENED
I. From 1 October 1993 to 31 December 1997
(a) Agricultural sector
(90) Aid to firms in difficulty is subject to a number of rules.
(86) In view of the nature of the aid granted, the only
At the time of entry into force of Ministerial Decision No
exemption which may be relied on to demonstrate its
69836/B1461, it was Commission policy to consider this
compatibility with the internal market is that provided
type of aid in the agricultural sector to be operating aid
for in Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty pursuant to which
which could be considered compatible with the internal
aid to facilitate the development of certain economic
market only if the following three conditions were
activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid
satisfied:
does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent
contrary to the common interest, may be considered to
be compatible with the common market.
(a) such aid had to concern financial charges on loans
taken out to finance investments that had already
been made;
(87) Since
the
aid
in
question
is
non-notified
aid,
it
is
essential
in order for this exemption to apply that it complies with
the rules on State aid in place at the time the aid was
(b) the overall grant equivalent of any aid granted when
granted. According to information provided by the Greek
the loan was taken out and the aid in question could
authorities, the scheme in question ran from 30 June
not exceed the percentage generally authorised by the
1993 to 30 June 2003. The compatibility of the
Commission, i.e.:
scheme in question with the internal market will
therefore be examined in the light of the rules on State
aid applicable during this period.
(i) for investments in primary agricultural
production: 35 % or 75 % in less-favoured areas
within the meaning of Directive 75/268/EEC;
(88) One of the reasons on which the Commission’s decision
to initiate the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of
the Treaty was based is that the aid was apparently
(ii) for investments in the processing and marketing
intended for firms in difficulty. In this regard, the
of agricultural products: 55 % or 75 % in
Greek authorities indicated in their letter of 9 August
Objective 1 regions for projects complying with
2004 that the ‘viability after restructuring’ criterion had
the sectoral programmes or one of the objectives
absolutely no bearing on the overall assessment of the
of Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 ( 34 )
firm’s viability carried out by the credit institution, since
and 35 % (or 50 % in Objective 1 regions) for
the decision regarding eligibility for restructuring was
other projects not excluded on the basis of the
made immediately after the viability study was carried
selection criteria under point 2 of the Annex to
out. This argument was reiterated in the letters of 15
Commission Decision 90/342/EEC of 7 June
and 29 March 2011 (see recital 61).
1990 on the selection criteria to be adopted for

investments for improving the processing and
marketing conditions for agricultural and
forestry products ( 35 ) (or Commission Decision
94/173/EC ( 36 ) which replaced it);
(89) The
Commission
considers
that
this
explanation
does
not
enable it to exclude the possibility that aid was granted
to firms in difficulty, because even if the decision
(c) the aid in question could be paid only following
regarding eligibility for restructuring was made
changes in the rates for the new loans taken out,
immediately after the viability study had been carried
so as to take account of variations in the interest
out as the Greek authorities claim, the study itself
rates (in such cases, the amount of aid had to be
focused on the viability prospects of the beneficiaries
less than or equal to the difference in interest rates
post-restructuring. This implies that it is possible that
on the new loans) or had to concern agricultural
applicants could have been in difficulty at the time of
holdings providing guarantees of viability, particularly
the study but may nevertheless have been admitted to the
in the event that the financial burdens resulting from
scheme because the institution carrying out the study
the existing loans were such as to threaten the
predicted a potential return to viability after debt restruc
viability of the holdings or put them at risk of bank
turing (the Commission had also highlighted this
ruptcy.
evidence in point 23 of its decision to initiate the
procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty
because reference was made in the preamble to Minis
( 34 ) OJ L 91, 6.4.1990, p. 1. Regulation (EEC) No 866/90 was repealed
terial Decision No 2045909/7931/0025 to the need to
and replaced by Council Regulation (EC) No 951/97 (OJ L 142,
2.6.1997, p. 22).
support firms experiencing cash-flow problems in the
( 35 ) OJ L 163, 29.6.1990, p. 71.
Prefectures of Kastoria and Evia).
( 36 ) OJ L 79, 23.3.1994, p. 29.

---

L 153/28
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.6.2012
(91) In
their
letter
of
9
August
2004,
the
Greek
authorities
that it is possible that the operation of the scheme in
argued that Decision No 69836/B1451 and its
question could, as a result of the cumulation of aid, have
subsequent amendments concerned processing firms in
resulted in this intensity being exceeded.
general and made no specific reference to agricultural
processing firms covered by Regulations (EEC) No
866/90, (EC) No 951/97 and (EC) No 1257/1999, that
all of Greece is an Objective 1 region, and that the firms
(97) With
regard
to
the
restructuring
of
working
capital
loans,
which had invested and had therefore received aid from
the scheme could not have been applied in compliance
the Ministry of Rural Development and Food were unable
with all the conditions set out in recital 90, as the first
to benefit from debt restructuring as this had not been
condition (point (a)) explicitly states that loans must be
provided for. Furthermore, they added that, with regard
linked to investments.
to the overall grant-equivalent of the restructuring, only
small amounts of aid had been granted in most cases,
and that the restructuring related to previous loans and
II. From 1 January 1998 to 30 June 2000
thus investments which had already been made.
(98) In
1997, the
conditions set
out
in recital
90 were
replaced by the provisions of Communication from the
Commission — Community guidelines on State aid for
(92) Above
all,
the
explanations
offered
by
the
Greek
auth
rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty (hereinafter
orities are not sufficient to permit the Commission to
‘the 1997 Guidelines’) ( 37 ). Point 4.4 of the aforemen
rule out the possibility that certain agricultural processing
tioned Guidelines stipulates that: ‘As regards the agri
firms received aid under Ministerial Decision No
cultural sector, these Guidelines will enter into force on
69836/B1451 and its subsequent amendments because
1 January 1998 for new State aids. For existing ones,
the fact no specific reference was made to the aforemen
entry into force will be on the same date or, in the
tioned firms does not necessarily indicate that they did
event that the Commission has opened the procedure
not belong to the generic category of processing firms
pursuant to Article 93(2) of the [EC] Treaty against
(industrial firms) falling within the scope of the Decision.
one more or more Member States in this context, once
the Commission has adopted a final decision vis-à-vis the
Member State(s) concerned pursuant to Article 93(2) of
the [EC] Treaty.’
(93) In
terms
of
compliance
with
the
conditions
referred
to
in
recital 90, the Commission finds that Decision No
69836/B1451 and its subsequent amendments
concerned the restructuring of either investment or
(99) The
1997
Guidelines,
entirely
new
for
the
agricultural
working capital loans.
sector provided for, inter alia:
(94) With
regard
to
the
restructuring
of
investment
loans,
on
(a) rescue aid: liquidity measures, warranted on the
the basis of the information provided by the Greek auth
grounds of serious social difficulties and consisting
orities, the Commission finds that the condition referred
of loan guarantees or loans bearing normal
to in recital 90(a) has been satisfied, because these loans
commercial interest rates, restricted to the amount
concerned investments which had already been made.
needed to keep a firm in business (for example,
covering wage and salary costs and routine supplies),
paid only for the time needed to devise the necessary
and feasible recovery measures, and having no undue
(95) Moreover, the Commission finds that the second alter
adverse effects on the industrial and agricultural situ
native condition referred to in recital 90(c) has been
ations in other Member States;
complied with, since beneficiary firms must be deemed
viable after restructuring on the basis of an assessment
by the financial institutions.
(b) restructuring aid: the granting of aid linked to a
restructuring plan entailing a capacity reduction or
irreversible closure of production capacity where
(96) However,
the
information
at
the
Commission’s
disposal
there is structural excess capacity in the sector (the
is not sufficient to establish beyond doubt that the
capacity reduction must be supplementary to any
condition referred to in recital 90(b) has been complied
applicable in the absence of restructuring aid), the
with, because the Greek authorities explained in their
only exemption to this being in cases where the
letter of 9 August 2004 that enterprises engaged in
totality of decisions taken in favour of all bene
processing and marketing agricultural products were
ficiaries over any consecutive 12-month period does
covered by, inter alia, the provisions of Regulations
not involve a quantity of product which exceeds a
(EEC) No 866/90 and (EC) No 951/97 and that these
certain percentage of the total annual production of
Regulations were applied in compliance with the
that product in that country (3 % for measures
provisions thereof, which implies that aid could already
targeted on a particular category of products or
have been granted at the maximum intensity provided
operators and 1,5 % for non-targeted measures).
for in the aforementioned Regulations (75
% for
Objective 1 regions, which applies to all of Greece) and
( 37 ) OJ C 283, 19.9.1997, p. 2.

---

EN
14.6.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/29
(100) The Member States were permitted to ask for these agri
(104) In their letter of 9 August 2004, the Greek authorities
cultural provisions to be applied instead of those in the
failed to provide any information which might enable the
1997 Guidelines for sectors other than agriculture
Commission to establish that the aid scheme had been
(stringent conditions applied to these sectors, particularly
adapted in order to comply with these provisions and
in respect of the restructuring plan and the beneficiary’s
that the aid granted during the period in question was
contribution to restructuring — see recitals 109 to 121
therefore granted in accordance with the relevant
of section (b) below, ‘Non-agricultural sector’).
conditions laid down in the 1999 Guidelines, in other
words following the submission of a restructuring plan
entailing closure of capacity in the case of structural
excess capacity, applying the limited exemption referred
to in recital 103 where necessary, and based on the ‘one
(101) In their letter of 9 August 2004 the Greek authorities
time, last time’ principle.
failed to provide any information which might enable the
Commission to establish that the aid scheme had been
adapted in order to comply with these provisions and
that the aid granted during the period in question was
(ii) Guarantees
therefore granted in accordance with the relevant
conditions laid down in the 1997 Guidelines, meaning
(105) Another factor in the Commission’s decision to initiate
either the conditions described under recital 99(b) above
the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the Treaty
or the conditions laid down for the sectors other than
is the issue of the compatibility of any aid granted in the
agriculture (submission of a restructuring plan to restore
form of guarantees. The Greek authorities made a
viability on the basis of realistic assumptions within a
number of observations in their letter of 9 August
reasonable time-scale, mitigation of the effects on
2004 (see recital 57(c) and (g)). However, the
competitors, due regard for the ‘one time, last time’ prin
Commission finds it necessary to comment on these
ciple, capacity reduction in the case of structural excess
observations as follows:
capacity in the sector concerned and aid in proportion to
the restructuring costs and benefit that also the social
costs of restructuring).
(a) with regard to point (c), the fact that the granting of
guarantees is subject to strict conditions does not in
itself exclude the existence of State aid — on the
contrary, the rules which applied during the life-
III. From 1 July 2000 until 30 June 2003
span of the scheme in question, as set out in the
letters to the Member States ref. SG(89) D/4328 of
(102) The 1997 Guidelines were replaced on 9 October 1999
5 April 1989 and SG(89) D/12772 of 12 October
with the Community Guidelines on State aid for rescuing
1989 and in point 38 of the Commission communi
and restructuring firms in difficulty (hereinafter ‘the 1999
cation to the Member States on the application of
Guidelines’) ( 38 ). Point 6.3 of the 1999 Guidelines states
Articles 92 and 93 of the EEC Treaty and of Article 5
that ‘Member States must adapt their existing rescue and
of Commission Directive 80/723/EEC to public
restructuring aid schemes which are to remain in
undertakings in the manufacturing sector ( 39 ), clearly
operation after 30 June 2000 in order to bring them
state that ‘… all guarantees given by the State directly
into line with [the] Guidelines … after that date.’
or by way of delegation through financial institutions
Moreover, ‘to enable the Commission to monitor the
[fall] within the scope of Article 92(1) of the EEC
adaptation process, Member States must let it have a
Treaty,’ and impose the application of conditions
list of all such schemes before 31 December 1999.
which may include the firm being declared
They must subsequently, and in any event before
bankrupt. Whilst it is true that the abovementioned
30 June 2000, provide it with sufficient information to
letters were replaced in 2000 by the Commission
enable it to check that the schemes have indeed been
Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of
modified in accordance with [the] Guidelines.’
the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees,
which laid down conditions enabling the existence of
State aid to be excluded, none of the information
provided in the letter from the Greek authorities of
9 August 2004 demonstrates that the guarantees
(103) The 1999 guidelines also included a specific section on
granted met any of these conditions;
restructuring firms in difficulty in the agricultural sector.
As compared with the 1997 Guidelines, this section
provided a definition of structural excess capacity in
the sector, limited the exemption referred to in recital
(b) even if the Greek authorities had supplied
99(b) to firms in the primary sector (with the result
information intended to demonstrate that the guar
that the sub-sector of the processing and marketing of
antees granted fulfilled the conditions for excluding
agricultural products automatically faced a capacity
State aid, the Commission would not have been able
reduction requirement) and introduced the ‘one time,
to accept the justification as, to cite but one example,
last time’ condition which meant that restructuring aid
the exemption only applies if the beneficiary firms
could only be granted once.
are not in financial difficulty;
( 38 ) OJ C 288, 9.10.1999, p. 2.
( 39 ) OJ C 307, 13.11.1993, p. 3.

---

L 153/30
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.6.2012
(c) as regards point (g), the fact that the guarantee does
during which longer-term solutions to a company’s
not cover certain charges in no way demonstrates
difficulties can be worked out, they should not frustrate
that all the conditions under which the aid inherent
any necessary reductions in capacity and should therefore
in the granting of a guarantee can be considered
be limited to cases where they are required to cope with
compatible with the internal market have been
acute social problems.
fulfilled; moreover, it must be acknowledged that
none of the other information provided by the
Greek authorities in their letter of 9 August 2004
(112) Point 227 of the Report states that rescue aid can be
demonstrates that the conditions have been met.
warranted pursuant to the Treaty when linked to restruc
turing aimed to restore the firm and/or regions
concerned to long-term viability and when applied
(106) That being clear, the Commission therefore considers
specifically enough to a given region or industry to
that the guarantees constituted, during the life-span of
allow its effects to be assessed.
the scheme in question, part of a package of instruments
for granting aid to firms in difficulty and that as a result
their compatibility is linked to the restructuring process
(113) Point 228 of the Report further clarifies the Commis
as a whole, for which, as sufficiently indicated in the
sion’s position in respect of rescue aid and defines
analysis in recitals 94 to 104, the Greek authorities
restructuring aid.
have not provided sufficient information to remove the
doubts expressed by the Commission when it initiated
the procedure provided for under Article 108(2) of the
(114) Rescue aid must:
Treaty (these findings in respect of guarantees apply
equally to the three procedures referred to in this
Decision and to all the sectors mentioned, with the
(a) consist of liquidity in the form of loan guarantees or
exception of the guarantees provided for in Ministerial
loans bearing the normal commercial interest rates;
Decision No 2/82257/0025 of 18 December 2000,
which, in view of the viability criterion used —
viability prior to debt restructuring — will be examined
(b) be restricted to the amount needed to keep a firm in
separately).
business, to cover wage and salary costs and routine
supplies;
(107) None of the other arguments put forward by the Greek
authorities in their letter of 9 August 2004 (the rate of
(c) be paid only for the time needed (generally six
interest applied, the issue of the existence or otherwise of
months) to draw up the necessary and feasible
additional expenditure arising from Ministerial Decisions
recovery measures;
which formed an integral part of the legal basis of the
scheme, frequency with which interest is calculated)
contain any substance which alters the Commission’s
(d) be warranted on the grounds of serious social
position as outlined above.
difficulties and keeping the firm in operation must
not have any adverse effects on the industrial
situation in other Member States.
(108) Since the information provided by the Greek authorities
does not remove the doubts expressed by the
Commission when it initiated the procedure laid down
(115) Restructuring aid must also be strictly conditional on the
in Article 108(2) of the Treaty, the Commission can only
implementation of a sound restructuring and/or
conclude that the scheme in question is incompatible
conversion programme and duly and effectively serve
with the common market.
to restore the viability of the production concerned, the
intensity and amount of aid must be restricted to the
strict minimum for supporting the firm during the
(b) Non-agricultural sector
inevitable transitional period before such a programme
takes effect, and the period involved must therefore be
(109) As in the case of the agricultural sector, the Commission
limited and the assistance gradually reduced.
must examine the aid in question in the light of the rules
applicable to aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in
difficulty.
(116) These conditions were replaced by the 1994 Community
guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring
firms in difficulty ( 40 ), which entered into force on
(110) At the time of entry into force of Ministerial Decree No
23 December 1994 (hereinafter ‘the 1994 Guidelines’),
69836/B1461, i.e. 1 October 1993, the rules in question
and subsequently by the 1997 Guidelines, which entered
were set out in the Eighth Report on Competition Policy,
into force on 1 January 1998, and then by the 1999
and in particular under points 177, 227 and 228 of the
Guidelines, which applied from 1 July onwards taking
latter.
into account the adjustment period extended to
Member States with regard to aid schemes (see recitals
98 and 102).
(111) Point 177 of the Report states that while rescue measures
may be needed in order to provide a breathing space
( 40 ) OJ C 368, 23.12.1994, p. 12.

---

EN
14.6.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/31
(117) The 1994 Guidelines confirm Commission policy in
V.II.2. AID TO FIRMS IN THE PREFECTURES OF FLORINA
respect of rescue aid (see recital 114) and define in
AND KILKIS, ADDRESSED WHEN THE SECOND
more detail the content and implications of the restruc
PROCEDURE WAS OPENED
turing plans to be submitted (prospect of the restoration
of viability on the basis of realistic assumptions within a
(a) Agricultural sector
reasonable time-scale, mitigation of the effects on
competitors, due regard for the ‘one time, last time’ prin
(122) In their letter of 18 August 2005, the Greek authorities
ciple, capacity reduction in the case of structural excess
argued that the basic Decision governing the granting of
capacity in the sector in question and aid in proportion
aid (Ministerial Decision No 66336/B.1398/1993)
to the restructuring costs and benefit that also covers the
concerned industrial and craft enterprises and that none
social costs of restructuring).
of the provisions thereof concerned agricultural firms.
(123) The Commission notes this information and considers it
unnecessary, therefore, to examine the scheme in
(118) In the non-agricultural sectors, the 1997 Guidelines,
question in the light of the rules applicable to State aid
which were a result of the regular review of Commission
to the agricultural sector at the time the aid was granted.
policy on rescuing and restructuring of firms in difficulty,
reiterate the content of the 1994 Guidelines.
(b) Non-agricultural sector
(124) The Commission, which considered at the time the
(119) The 1999 Guidelines apply stricter conditions to the
procedure was initiated that the scheme was aimed at
granting of rescue aid by introducing a set time-frame
firms in difficulty because Ministerial Decision No
for submitting the restructuring plan. In terms of restruc
66336/B.1398/1993 stipulated that the firms must be
turing, the Guidelines are far more restrictive in respect
viable after restructuring (which in itself did not
of SMEs and provide for the possibility of compulsory
exclude the possibility that the firms were in difficulty
capacity reduction even in the absence of structural
when admitted to the aid scheme), must analyse the
excess capacity in the sector.
compatibility of the aid in question in the light of the
rules on rescue and restructuring aid to firms in difficulty
in place at the time the aid was granted.
(120) Since the explanations provided by the Greek authorities
in their letter of 9 August 2004 apply equally to the
(125) The rules on rescue and restructuring aid to firms in
agricultural and non-agricultural sectors, the Commission
difficulty in place at the time the aid in question was
can only conclude, as it has done in the case of the
granted were, in chronological order, the provisions set
agricultural sector, that none of the information
out in points 177, 227 and 228 of the Eighth Report on
provided by the Greek authorities enables the
Competition Policy, the 1994 Guidelines and the 1997
Commission to establish that the various conditions
Guidelines.
laid down in the 1994, 1997 and 1999 Guidelines
were fulfilled (to cite but one example, there is nothing
to suggest that the beneficiary firms submitted a restruc
(126) Regarding compliance with the provisions of points 177,
turing plan including the necessary compensatory
227 and 228 of the Eighth Report on Competition
measures). This finding applies equally to compliance
Policy and the 1994, 1997 and 1999 Guidelines, the
with the provisions set out in the Eighth Report on
explanations offered by the Greek authorities in their
Competition Policy.
letter of 18 August 2005 are identical to those put
forward to justify the granting of aid in the Prefectures
of Kastoria and Evia (the arguments of the Greek auth
orities detailed in recital 57(a) to (f) are the same as those
(121) In the absence of evidence of compliance with the above
set out in recital 56(a) to (e)). The Commission’s analysis
mentioned provisions, the Commission is unable to find
in recitals 110 to 121 therefore applies equally to the
that the aid was granted following the submission of a
case in question, meaning that the doubts expressed by
restructuring plan which included all the elements
the Commission when it initiated the procedure provided
required by the various rules referred to above (in
for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty have not been
particular, the prospect of the restoration of viability
removed and that the Commission can only conclude
on the basis of realistic assumptions within a reasonable
that the scheme in question is incompatible with the
time-scale, mitigation of the effects on competitors, due
common market.
regard for the ‘one time, last time’ principle, capacity
reduction and aid in proportion to the restructuring
costs and benefit that also covers the social costs of
(127) In their letter of 18 August 2005, the Greek authorities
restructuring). The doubts that the Commission
also sought to justify the aid in question on the grounds
expressed when it initiated the procedure laid down in
that the Prefectures of Florina and Kilkis border on the
Article 108(2) of the Treaty therefore persist and the
former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and that the
Commission can only conclude that the scheme in
local firms suffered greatly as a result of the instability
question is incompatible with the common market.
and the state of war in that region.

---

L 153/32
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.6.2012
(128) This reference to exceptional occurrences might have
the relevant extraction activities concerned marble and
permitted the application of Article 107(2)(b) of the
stone, which means the firms involved fall within the
Treaty under which aid to make good the damage
scope of the analysis of the industrial sector.
caused by natural disasters or exceptional occurrences
is compatible with the internal market. However, the
Greek authorities have not supplied any evidence of the
difficulties they claim the firms in the two Prefectures
(a) Agricultural sector
experienced or establishing a causal link between those
difficulties and the instability in the region caused by
(132) The Commission must examine the scheme in the light
events in Yugoslavia. Furthermore, the Commission
of the rules applicable to State aid for rescuing and
does not have any information which suggests that the
restructuring firms in difficulty when the aid was granted.
events referred to by the Greek authorities could have
had the effects described throughout the life-span of the
scheme. Finally, the Commission wonders why the
(133) With regard to the agricultural sector, the rules in
scheme applied only to certain sectors of the economy
question have been set out in recitals 90, and 98 to
in the two Prefectures whereas the events referred to
103. Given that the scheme in question expired on
would logically have affected all local firms, irrespective
31 December 2005, the 2004 Community Guidelines
of sector.
on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in
difficulty ( 41 ) (hereinafter: ‘2004 Guidelines’) should be
added to the list of applicable regulations; the 2004
Guidelines came into force on 10 October 2004
(129) In view of these factors, the Commission cannot see how
tightening the conditions established in the 1999
Article 107(2)(b) of the Treaty could be applied to the
Guidelines (notably by reaffirming that the contribution
aid scheme in question. Therefore, the Commission can
of the beneficiary to the restructuring must be real and
only conclude, once again, that the scheme in question is
free from aid). Moreover, in view of the nature of the
incompatible with the common market.
beneficiaries (industrial livestock firms and dairy farms),
there are grounds for considering that the scheme could
have covered both primary production (livestock
breeding alone) and processing/marketing (such as
V.II.3. AID IN THE PREFECTURES OF RODOPI, EVROS,
farms with a on-site processing line).
XANTHI, LESBOS, SAMOS, CHIOS AND THE DODEC
ANESE, ADDRESSED WHEN THE THIRD PROCEDURE
WAS OPENED
(134) In terms of compliance with the conditions themselves,
(130) In view of the fact that the Commission had indicated in
the Commission finds that Ministerial Decision No
the decision to initiate the procedure that, based on the
1648/B22 of 13 January 1994 and its subsequent
information available, it would be unable to determine
amendments provided for the restructuring of loans
whether the two Ministerial Decisions of 1989 and those
that could be used for investment or working capital.
which followed (detailed in recitals 50 to 52 above)
constituted an independent aid scheme or whether they
formed an integral part of the overall system which has
been analysed in the various procedures opened, and
(135) Regarding the restructuring of loans linked to invest
given that the letter of 10 May 2006 from the Greek
ments, the Greek authorities, in their letter of 10 May
authorities provided no explanation in this regard, the
2006, provided no information allowing the Commission
compatibility with the internal market of the aid
to confirm that the restructured loans were actually
provided for in the Ministerial Decisions under scrutiny
linked to investments that had been already carried out.
will be assessed separately. The guarantees provided for
Consequently, the Commission cannot find that the
in Ministerial Decision No 2/82257/0025 of
condition set out in recital 90(a) has been satisfied.
18 December 2000 (see recital 49) will also be
examined separately since the latter provides that the
beneficiary firms must be viable and not viable after
(136) Similarly, the Commission is not able to conclude
restructuring as in the other cases referred to here.
without any doubt, on the basis of the information
available, that there has been full compliance with the
condition set out in recital 90(b), since Greece provided
no details in this connection in its letter of 10 May
(131) With regard to the Ministerial Decisions referred to in
2006.
recitals 44 to 52, the analysis will consist of two main
parts, an agricultural and a non-agricultural one, as in the
case of the schemes examined in the first two procedures,
but the non-agricultural part will be divided into several
(137) With regard to the requirement set out in recital 90(c),
sub-parts — the industrial, hotel and craft sectors on the
the Commission finds that the second alternative has
one hand, and the shipping sector on the other. The coal
been satisfied, since the beneficiary firms had to be
sector, which was also addressed by the opening of the
viable after restructuring based on an assessment
procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty
carried out by the banks.
will not be examined here because the Greek authorities
explained in their letters of 15 and 29 March 2011 that
( 41 ) OJ C 244, 1.10.2004, p. 2.

---

EN
14.6.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/33
(138) With regard to the restructuring of loans used to
underemployment, and of the regions referred to in
constitute working capital, the scheme in question
Article 349 ( 42 ), in view of their structural, economic
could not have been applied in compliance with all the
and social situation may be considered compatible
conditions set out in recital 90 either, as the first
with the internal market;
requirement (recital 90(a)) specifically lays down that
loans must be linked to investments.
(c) in order for this derogation to apply, this would have
required that the aid be granted in compliance with
(139) Concerning the aid granted from 1 January 1998 until
the rules governing the aid for rescuing and restruc
the date of applicability of the 2004 Guidelines, the
turing firms in difficulty; whereas it has been shown
analysis carried out in recitals 98 to 104 also applies
above that this was not the case.
to the substance of the present case since, in its letter
of 10 May 2006, Greece provided no information
allowing the Commission to confirm that a restructuring
(143) The Commission is not able to ascertain the applicability
of Article 107(2)(b) of the Treaty on the following
plan together with the obligatory contribution was
grounds:
presented with a view to obtaining the aid in question.
(a) in its letter of 10 May 2006, Greece rightfully
(140) Lastly, with regard to the aid granted from the date of
pointed out that the overall and per capita GDP in
applicability of the 2004 Guidelines, the Commission can
the Prefectures concerned was very low in relation to
but remark that, in its letter of 10 May 2006, Greece
other regions in the country during the period
provided no facts allowing the Commission to confirm
covered by the scheme, but it also stated that GDP
that a restructuring plan together with the obligatory
did record some growth in this same period, which
contribution had been presented with a view to
shows that the war in the neighbouring regions did
obtaining the aid in question. Consequently, it is not in
not have a catastrophic impact on the economies of
a position to be able to remove all the doubts expressed
the affected zones;
when it initiated the procedure provided for in
Article 108(2) of the Treaty, and therefore is forced to
conclude that the scheme in question is incompatible
(b) as the description of the scheme’s legal basis shows,
with the common market.
some changes were made to the scheme almost
10 years after the end of hostilities in the neigh
bouring regions; consequently, Greece cannot be
(141) In their letter of 10 May 2006, the Greek authorities
considered to have been forced to intervene
sought to justify the aid in question on the grounds of
because of a state of war in the bordering areas
the war in the neighbouring regions. Greece took the
and that as a result there existed a relation of cause
view that the context rendered the aid eligible for
and effect between this and the difficulties of firms (a
exemption under Article 107(3)(a) and (c) of the Treaty
sole example is sufficient to bear out this remark:
(cf. recital 59(a)).
Ministerial Decision No 2/64046/0025/2003 of
28 January 2004 referred to in recital 48 covers
loans that could be taken out by industrial businesses
(142) The Commission cannot accept this argument for several
— in other words potentially by industrial livestock
reasons:
firms — until 31 December 2004).
(144) With respect to the other comments made by the Greek
(a) from a regulatory viewpoint, the existence of a
authorities in their letter of 10 May 2006, the
conflict is deemed to be an exceptional occurrence
Commission stresses the following (these observations
that can only be covered by Article 107(2)(b) of the
excluding (b) also apply to all the other sectors referred
Treaty, according to which aid intended to make
to in the procedure opened):
good the damage caused by natural disasters or by
other exceptional occurrences is compatible with the
internal market;
(a) problems such as the lack of dynamism in local
markets or the drop in demand cannot be resolved
by aid grants to firms in difficulty without restruc
(b) in the agricultural sector, compatibility of the aid
turing. Structural measures are a more appropriate
measures is assessed in the light of the exemption
means of assistance;
provided for in Article 107(3)(c) of the Treaty,
which lays down that aid to facilitate the devel
opment of certain economic activities or of certain
(b) the share of meat production of the Prefectures
economic areas, where such aid does not adversely
concerned in Greece’s overall production has
affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the
absolutely no bearing on the risk of distortion of
common interest, may be considered compatible with
competition arising from aid granted outside the
the internal market, and not in the light of the
established regulatory framework (in the present
exemption provided for in Article 107(3)(a) of the
case, aid granted to firms in difficulty without a
Treaty, which establishes that aid to promote the
restructuring plan); according to the case-law of
economic development of areas where the standard
of living is abnormally low or where there is serious
( 42 ) Island regions.

---

L 153/34
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.6.2012
the Court of Justice, where financial aid granted by a
(151) The Commission must examine the scheme in question
Member State strengthens the position of an under
in the light of the rules governing aid for rescuing and
taking compared with competitors (which is the
restructuring firms in difficulty.
substance in this present case), this aid may give
rise to a competitive advantage over the other under
takings not benefiting from this assistance ( 43 );
(152) Regarding shipbuilding, the rules applicable for rescuing
and restructuring firms in difficulty following the entry
into force of Ministerial Decision No 1648/B.22 of
(c) the question of the viability of the firms within the
13 January 1994 have been the following:
meaning established in the two Ministerial Decisions
issued in 1989 will be dealt with later on in this
Decision;
(a) until 31 December 1998: Council Directive
90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990 on aid to ship
building ( 44 );
(d) the argument according to which the account set up
pursuant to Law No 128/75 did not constitute a
(b) from 1 January 1999 to 31 December 2003: Council
State resource was dealt with in recital 82(d).
Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 estab
lishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding ( 45 );
(145) In view of these considerations, the Commission is forced
to conclude that the scheme in question is incompatible
(c) since 1 January 2004: the Framework on State aid to
with the internal market.
shipbuilding ( 46 ).
(b) Industrial, craft and hotel sectors
(153) In their letter of 10 May 2006, the Greek authorities
provided no information that might allow the
(146) The Commission must examine the scheme in question
Commission to find that the aid scheme in question
in the light of the rules governing aid for rescuing and
had been applied in compliance with the rules applicable
restructuring firms in difficulty.
to rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty in this
sector. Therefore, the Commission is not in a position to
dispel the doubts it expressed when it initiated the
(147) As in the case of aid referred to in the first two
procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty
procedures, the rules applicable to rescuing and restruc
and is forced to conclude that the scheme in question is
turing firms in difficulty at the time the aid in question
incompatible with the internal market.
was granted were, in chronological order, points 177,
227 and 228 of the Eighth Report on Competition
Policy and the 1994, 1997 and 1999 Guidelines. In
(154) Similarly, with regard to maritime transport, the
the case under consideration, as the regime expired on
Commission shall examine the scheme in question in
31 December 2005 in certain Prefectures, the 2004
the light of the rules governing aid for rescuing and
Guidelines should be added to this list.
restructuring firms in difficulty.
(148) The information sent by the Greek authorities in their
(155) Since the entry into force of Ministerial Decision No
letter of 10 May 2006 and set out in recital 59 does not
1648/B.22 of 13 January 1994, the rules governing the
include any details with regard to compliance with rules
rescue and restructuring of firms in difficulty in the
governing the rescuing and restructuring of firms in
shipping industry have been and continue to be the
difficulty. Consequently, the Commission is not in a
following:
position to verify if there was compliance with points
177, 227 and 228 of the Eighth Report on Competition
(a) ‘Financial and fiscal measures concerning shipping
Policy and the 1994, 1997, 1999 and 2004 Guidelines.
operations with ships registered in the Commu
nity’ ( 47 );
(149) Therefore, the Commission is not in a position to be able
to remove all the doubts it expressed when it initiated
(b) Community guidelines on State aid to maritime
the procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the
transport 1997 ( 48 );
Treaty, and so it is forced to conclude that the scheme
in question is incompatible with the common market.
(c) Community guidelines on State aid to maritime
transport 2004 ( 49 ).
(c) Shipping sector
( 44 ) OJ L 380, 31.12.1990, p. 27.
(150) The compatibility of the scheme in question with the
( 45 ) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, p. 1.
internal market will be assessed from two viewpoints,
( 46 ) OJ C 317, 30.12.2003, p. 11. This framework was first extended in
reflecting the fact that the term ‘shipping sector’ covers
2006 (OJ C 260, 28.10.2006, p. 7) with the second extension in
both shipbuilding and transport by ship.
2008 (OJ C 173, 8.7.2008, p. 3).
( 47 ) SEC(89) 921 final, 3 August 1989.
( 48 ) OJ C 205, 5.7.1997, p. 5.
( 43 ) Cf. footnote on No 24, Case C-730/79, grounds 11 and 12.
( 49 ) OJ C 13, 17.1.2004, p. 3.

---

EN
14.6.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/35
(156) In their letter of 10 May 2006, the Greek authorities
(160) With respect to the second hypothesis, two scenarios
again provided no information that might allow the
must be envisaged: aid was granted to firms in difficulty
Commission to find that the aid scheme in question
or aid was granted to viable firms.
had been applied in compliance with the rules applicable
to rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty in the
sector. Therefore the Commission is not in a position
to remove the doubts it expressed when it initiated the
(161) In the first scenario, the analysis carried out in recitals
procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty
146 to 149 remains valid, and the explanations given by
and is forced to conclude that the scheme in question is
Greece in its letter of 10 May 2006 do not dispel the
incompatible with the internal market.
doubts expressed when the Commission initiated the
procedure provided for in Article 108(2) of the Treaty
and consequently the Commission is forced to conclude
that the regime in question is incompatible with the
(d) Aid granted in the Prefectures of Lesbos, Samos,
internal market.
Chios and the Dodecanese, also referred to in the
third procedure
(157) Within the framework of the procedure provided for in
(162) In the second scenario, the Commission also notes that
Article 108(2) of the Treaty, the Commission, since it did
Greece’s explanations in its letters of 10 May 2006,
not have sufficient information, considered two hypo
15 March 2011 and 29 March 2011 do not allow it
theses:
to ascertain if the working capital constituted using
subsidised loans financed eligible investment within the
meaning of Union rules on regional aid (since the entry
into force of Ministerial Decision No 2041901 of
(a) the aid provided for in Ministerial Decision No
16 May 1989, the applicable rules have been the
2041901 of 16 May 1989 and Ministerial Decision
Commission communication on the method for
No 2078809 of 10 October 1989 and their
applying Article 92(3)(a) and (c) to regional aid ( 50 ),
amendments was covered by the same framework
followed by the 1998 Guidelines on national regional
as that established by the Decisions referred to in
aid 1998
( 51 )). The Commission must therefore
recitals 44 to 48;
conclude that the scheme in question is incompatible
with the internal market.
(b) the aid was part of a financing system that was not
(163) In the event that this working capital did not finance
set up on the same bases.
eligible investments within the meaning laid down by
the Union rules on national regional aid, the Commission
must check whether the aid granted to constitute that
capital, which then qualifies as operating aid, can be
(158) In its letter of 10 May 2006, Greece stated that the two
declared compatible under the relevant provisions of
Ministerial Decisions issued in 1989 laid down that firms
the Union’s rules on national regional aid. In view of
had to be viable prior to and after the restructuring of
this, the Commission wishes to underline that it is up
their debts. The Commission cannot endorse this
to the Member State concerned to fulfil the duty of
statement as, following re-examination, it appears that
cooperation it has towards the Commission by
neither of the two Decisions in question establishes
providing all the elements required for the Commission
that the firms had to be viable prior to and after the
to be able to check the compatibility of the aid in ques
restructuring of the debts. Consequently, the Commission
tion ( 52 ). Since the information in the various letters sent
will assess the compatibility of the aid covered by the
by Greece does not allow the Commission to verify
two Decisions and their amendments, basing itself not
compliance with the provisions in the Union’s rules on
only on the two hypotheses set out in recital 157, but
national regional aid, it cannot but conclude that the
also without excluding, in the second hypothesis, that the
scheme in question is incompatible with the internal
aid may have been granted to firms in difficulty.
market.
(159) Concerning the first hypothesis set out in recital 157, the
Aid in the form of guarantees granted under Minis
Commission is forced to find, if the two Ministerial
terial Decision No 2/82257/0025 of 18 December
Decisions issued in 1989 and their amendments fall
2000 (see recital 49)
within the same framework as that established by the
(164) The guarantee granted under Decision No 2/82257/0025
Ministerial Decisions referred to in recitals 44 to 48,
of 18 December 2000 cannot be considered as an
that the analysis carried out in recitals 146 to 149
instrument to assist the restructuring of a firm
remains valid, the explanations given by Greece in its
letter of 10 May 2006 do not dispel the doubts
expressed when it initiated the procedure provided for
( 50 ) OJ C 212, 12.8.1988, p. 2.
in Article 108(2) of the Treaty and that it is forced to
( 51 ) OJ C 74, 10.3.1998, p. 9.
( 52 ) Judgment of the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) in
conclude that the scheme in question is incompatible
Case T-171 Region of Sardinia v Commission [2005] ECR II — 2123,
with the internal market.
point 129.

---

L 153/36
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
14.6.2012
in difficulty like that provided for in other Decisions
(170) In accordance with Article 14(1) of Council Regulation
referred to in this Decision because Ministerial Decision
(EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down
No 2/82257/0025 lays down that it can only be awarded
detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the
to viable firms and not to firms that are viable following
EC Treaty ( 53 ), where negative decisions are taken in
debt restructuring. Therefore, it should be examined in
cases of unlawful aid, the Commission must decide that
the light of the applicable State aid rules.
the Member State concerned must take all necessary
measures to recover the aid from the beneficiary (in
the present case, all the firms that have benefited from
the provisions of the Ministerial Decisions examined).
(165) From the entry into force of Ministerial Decision No
Greece must take all necessary measures to recover the
2/82257/0025 of 18 December 2000 until 31 December
incompatible aid granted from the beneficiaries. In
2005 (the expiry date of the scheme), guarantees were
accordance with the provisions of point 42 of the
governed by the 2000 Communication.
notice from the Commission ‘Towards an effective imple
mentation of Commission decisions ordering Member
States to recover unlawful and incompatible State
aid’ ( 54 ), Greece has a time limit of four months
following the notification of this Decision to
(166) The 2000 Communication establishes that the
implement it. The aid to be recovered is to include
Commission must assess the compatibility of aid linked
interest calculated in accordance with Commission Regu
to the grant of a guarantee on the basis of the rules
lation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 imple
applied to other aid forms and laid down in the
menting Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying
various frameworks and guidelines applicable in the
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of
sectors concerned. Moreover, the guarantee can only be
the EC Treaty ( 55 ).
accepted if its mobilisation is contractually linked to
specific conditions which may go as far as the
compulsory declaration of bankruptcy of the beneficiary
firm or any similar procedure.
(171) This Decision must be implemented immediately, notably

with regard to the recovery of all individual aid granted
under the aid scheme, excluding individual aid granted to
specific projects which, at the time the aid was granted,
met all the conditions established in the de minimis or
(167) In the present case, the Greek authorities did not submit
exemption regulation applicable under Articles 1 and 2
any information on the guarantees granted. As a result,
of Council Regulation (EC) No 994/98 of 7 May 1998
the Commission is unable to assess it in the light of the
on the application of Articles 92 and 93 of the Treaty
various rules applicable in the sectors concerned or
establishing the European Community to certain
ascertain if this aid measure could have exceeded the
categories of horizontal State aid ( 56 ), or under an aid
maximum aid intensities applicable, as appropriate, to
scheme approved by the Commission.
firms not in difficulty (moreover Greece did not
provide any information on compliance with the
various rules in their reply to the third procedure).
(172) However, Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999
lays down that the powers of the Commission to
recover aid are subject to a limitation period. The limi
tation period shall begin on the day on which the
(168) In these circumstances, the Commission is unable to
unlawful aid is awarded to the beneficiary either as indi
conclude that the aid granted in the form of guarantees
vidual aid or as aid under an aid scheme. Any action
under Ministerial Decision No 2/82257/0025 of
taken by the Commission or by a Member State, acting
18 December 2000 is compatible with the internal
at the request of the Commission, with regard to the
market.
unlawful aid shall interrupt the limitation period and
each interruption shall start time running afresh.
VI. CONCLUSION
(173) In the present case, the dates to which the Commission
may go back for recovery purposes are as follows:
(169) The Commission notes that Greece unlawfully imple
mented the aid measures in question in breach of
Article 108(3) of the Treaty. The foregoing analysis
(a) concerning aid referred to in the first procedure:
shows that the aid cannot be declared compatible with
1 October 1993, in view of the fact that the
the internal market, as Greece has not provided any
Commission’s first action dates from 27 May 2003
information establishing compliance with the various
whereas Ministerial Decision No 69836/B1461,
rules mentioned, and therefore the Commission is not
adopted on 14 September 1993, was published in
in a position to dispel the doubts it expressed when
the Greek Government Gazette on 1 October 1993
opening the various procedures. In this connection, the
and entered into force on that date;
Commission recalls that it is the responsibility of the
Member State concerned to fulfil the duty of cooperation
it has towards the Commission by providing all the
( 53 ) OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.
( 54 ) OJ C 272, 15.11.2007, p. 4.
elements required for it to check the compatibility of
( 55 ) OJ L 140, 30.4.2004, p. 1.
the aid in question.
( 56 ) OJ L 142, 14.5.1998, p. 1.

---

EN
14.6.2012 Official
Journal
of
the
European
Union L
153/37
(b) concerning aid referred to in the second procedure:
Greece shall ensure that this Decision is implemented within
22 April 1994, in view of the fact that the Commis
four months of its notification.
sion’s first action dates from 22 April 2004;
Article 5
(c) concerning aid referred to in the third procedure:
12 November 1994, in view of the fact that the
1. Within two months of the notification of this Decision,
Commission’s first action dates from 12 November
Greece shall send the Commission the following information:
2004,
HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:
(a) the list of the beneficiaries that have received aid under the
schemes referred to in Article 1 and the total amount
Article 1
received by each of them under the scheme concerned;
The aid schemes in the form of debt restructuring unlawfully
(b) the total amount (capital and interest) to be recovered from
implemented by Greece in breach of Article 108(3) of the
each beneficiary in the case of aid which cannot be covered
Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union in the
by the de minimis rule;
Prefectures of Kastoria, Evia, Florina, Kilkis, Rodopi, Evros,
Xanthi and the Dodecanese, and the islands of Lesbos, Samos
and Chios are incompatible with the internal market.
(c) a detailed description of the measures already taken and
those planned to comply with this Decision;
Article 2
(d) the documents showing that the beneficiaries have been
Individual aid granted under one of the schemes referred to in
ordered to repay the aid.
Article 1 shall not be qualified as aid if, at the time it was
granted, it complied with the conditions established by one of
the regulations adopted pursuant to Article 2 of Regulation (EC)
2. Greece
shall
keep
the
Commission
informed
of
the
No 994/98 applicable at the time the aid was granted.
progress of the national measures taken to implement this
Decision until recovery of the aid granted under the scheme
Article 3
referred to in Article 1 has been completed. It shall immediately
submit, on simple request by the Commission, information on
1. Greece
shall
recover
the
incompatible
aid
granted
under the measures already taken and those planned to comply with
the schemes referred to in Article 1 from the beneficiaries.
this Decision It shall also provide detailed information
concerning the amounts of aid and interest already recovered
2. The sums to be recovered shall bear interest from the date
from the beneficiaries.
on which they were put at the disposal of the beneficiaries until
their actual recovery.
Article 6
3. The
interest
shall
be
calculated
on
a
compound
basis
in
This Decision is addressed to the Hellenic Republic.
accordance with Chapter V of Regulation (EC) No 794/2004.
4. Greece
shall
cancel
all
outstanding
payments
of
aid
under
the scheme referred to in Article 1 with effect from the date of
Done at Brussels, 19 October 2011.
notification of this Decision.
Article 4
For the Commission
Recovery of the aid granted under the schemes referred to in
Dacian CIOLO
Article 1 shall be immediate and effective.
Member of the Commission

---

Document Outline

• �

---