C 77/28DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften 28.3.2002

STAATLICHE BEIHILFE — VEREINIGTES KÖNIGREICH

Beihilfe C 4/2002 (ex N 594/01)— Vauxhall/ Aufforderung zur Abgabe einer Stellungnahme gemäß Artikel 88 Absatz 2 EG-Vertrag

(2002/C 77/05)

(Text von Bedeutung für den EWR)

Mit Schreiben vom 23. Januar 2002, das nachstehend in der verbindlichen Sprachfassung abgedruckt ist, hat die Kommission dem Vereinigten Königreich ihren Beschluss mitgeteilt, wegen der vorerwähnten Beihilfe das Verfahren nach Artikel 88 Absatz 2 EG-Vertrag einzuleiten.

Die Kommission fordert alle Beteiligten zu den Beihilfen, derentwegen die Kommission das Verfahren einleitet, zur Stellungnahme innerhalb eines Monats nach dem Datum dieser Veröffentlichung an folgende Anschrift auf:

Europäische Kommission Generaldirektion Wettbewerb Registratur Staatliche Beihilfen B-1049 Brüssel Fax-Nr. (32-2) 296 12 42.

Alle Stellungnahmen werden dem Vereinigten Königreich übermittelt. Jeder, der eine Stellungnahme abgibt, kann unter Angabe von Gründen schriftlich beantragen, dass seine Identität nicht bekannt gegeben wird.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG Würdigung

Die Beihilfe wird aufgrund des Gemeinschaftsrahmens für staat- Verfahren liche Beihilfen in der Kfz-Industrie gewürdigt. Demnach muss die Kommission gewährleisten, dass die gewährte Beihilfe einer- Das Beihilfevorhaben wurde am 23. August 2001 notifiziert. seits für die Verwirklichung des Vorhabens notwendig ist und Die Kommission ersuchte am 23. Oktober 2001 um zusätzli- andererseits in einem Verhältnis zur Schwere der zu lösenden che Auskünfte, die das Vereinigte Königreich mit Schreiben Probleme steht. vom 16. November 2001 erteilte.

Um die Notwendigkeit einer Regionalbeihilfe nachzuweisen, muss der Beihilfeempfänger eindeutig belegen, dass er über Beschreibung einen wirtschaftlich tragfähigen Alternativstandort für sein Pro- jekt verfügt. Der technische Charakter der Investition und die Der Beihilfeempfänger soll (UK) Ltd. sein. Bei Durchführbarkeit des Vorhabens in Antwerpen müssen präzi- der fraglichen Beihilfe handelt es sich um eine regionale Inves- siert werden. titionsbeihilfe für die Umrüstung von einer Einzelmodellfer- tigung aufeine Doppelanlage zwecks Umstellung der Produk- tion aufzwei Modelle. Nach Durchführungder Investition wird In Bezug aufdie Verhältnismäßigkeit muss sich die Kommis- es im Werk von Ellesmere Port möglich sein, sowohl Astras als sion vergewissern, dass die geplante Beihilfe in einem Verhält- auch neue Vectra-Modelle herzustellen. Das Werk liegt in ei- nis zu den regionalen Problemen steht, die mit ihr gelöst wer- nem Fördergebiet nach Artikel 87 Absatz 3 Buchstabe c) EG- den sollen. Zu diesem Zweck wird eine Kosten-Nutzen-Analyse Vertrag mit einem Förderhöchstsatz von 15 % Nettosubventi- (KNA) durchgeführt. Nach der vom Vereinigten Königreich onsäquivalent. übermittelten KNA beträgt das regionale Handicap-Verhältnis bei der Durchführung des Vorhabens in Ellesmere Port 11,8 %. Die Kommission hegt jedoch an der Analyse Zweifel. Ihre Zweifel betreffen insbesondere die angeblich höheren Ausbil- Die beihilfefähigen Investitionen belaufen sich auf insge- dungskosten in Antwerpen, die angeblichen Eingangsbeför- samt 156,198 Mio. GBP (gegenwärtiger Nettowert derungskosten, die angebliche Einkaufsstruktur und die Auswir- 153,814 Mio. GBP). Die geplante Beihilfe beträgt kungen der Durchführung des Vorhabens in Antwerpen auf das 10 Mio. GBP (gegenwärtiger Nettowert 9,847 Mio. GBP). Es Markenimage von Vauxhall im Vereinigten Königreich mit wurde eine Beihilfeintensität von 6,4 % angemeldet. Nach An- möglichen Auswirkungen aufden Marktanteil und den Absatz. gaben des Vereinigten Königreichs untersuchte Die Kommission kann derzeit nicht die Möglichkeit ausschlie- Europe zwei Alternativstandorte für diese Vorhaben, nämlich ßen, dass das tatsächliche regionale Handicap-Verhältnis durch Ellesmere Port und Antwerpen. die geplante Beihilfe überkompensiert wird. 28.3.2002DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften C 77/29

Schluss (5) The aid ofGBP 10 million (net present value: GBP 9,847 million) would be provided as regional selective Daher hat die Kommission beschlossen, das Verfahren nach assistance, which is an approved scheme based on the Artikel 88 Absatz 2 EG-Vertrag einzuleiten. Industrial Development Act from 1982. The notified aid intensity is 6,4 %.

WORTLAUT DES SCHREIBENS (6) The Ellesmere Port plant is located in the Westminster „The Commission wishes to inform the United Kingdom that, ward ofEllesmere Port and Neston in . This having examined the information supplied by your authorities region was recognised by the Commission as a regionally on the aid referred to above, it has decided to initiate the assisted area in the sense ofArticle 87(3)(c) EC, under the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) ofthe EC Treaty. regional aid map for the period 2000-2006, with a regional ceiling of15 %.

Procedure (7) According to the United Kingdom, General Motors (1) The United Kingdom authorities notified the above- Europe considered two alternatives sites for the project, mentioned aid proposal to the Commission pursuant to Ellesmere Port and Antwerp. The final location decision in Article 88(3) ofthe EC Treaty by letter dated 23 August favourofEllesmere Port was part ofa major restructuring 2001 (registered on 28 August 2001). The Commission within with the objective of asked additional questions on 23 October 2001, to which generating savings sufficient to return GM Europe to the United Kingdom replied by letter dated 16 November profitability. As part of this plan, passenger car 2001 (registered on 21 November 2001). production in Luton would cease at the end ofthe life ofthe current Vectra model at the end ofthe firstquarter of2002. From this point forward,the remaining Luton Detailed description of the project facilities would concentrate on commercial and off-road vehicles, while passenger car production would be (2) The recipient ofthe aid would be Vauxhall Motors (UK) concentrated at Ellesmere Port. Ellesmere Port will Ltd, which is a wholly owned subsidiary ofGeneral continue to produce the Astra, incorporate the next- Motors Corporation. The aid in question is regional generation Vectra and turn the facility into a two-model investment aid leading to the retooling from a single flex plant. model production facility to a two-model plant with the capacity to switch production between two models as demand varies. The plant in question is situated in (8) The United Kingdom authorities have provided together Ellesmere Port and currently produces the Astra model. with the notification a cost-benefit analysis (hereinafter After the investment, it will be able to produce a mix of referred to as CBA) comparing the costs and benefits in Astras and ofthe new replacement Vectra passenger car the two locations. The CBA indicates a net cost handicap models. The replacement Vectra is to be built in Ellesmere ofGBP 18,116 million forthe location in Ellesmere Port Port from April 2002 onwards. According to the United in comparison with the location in Antwerp. The Kingdom, the project will safeguard 771 jobs at Vauxhall handicap intensity ofthe project would be 11,8 %. Motors and create approximately 530 jobs in the supply chain.

(3) The replacement Vectra will be designed to compete in Assessment of the aid the upper-medium segment ofthe European passenger car (9) According to Article 87(1) ofthe EC Treaty, any aid market. The main geographical markets for both the granted by a Member State or through State resources current Astra model and the replacement Vectra model in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to are Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Holland distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or and Spain, although other smaller western and central the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects European passenger car markets are also supplied. trade between Member States, be incompatible with the common market. Pursuant to the established case-law of (4) According to the notification, the total amount of eligible the European Courts, the criterion of trade being affected investments amounts to GBP 156,198 million. The net is met ifthe recipient firmcarries out an economic present value ofthe eligible investments is GBP 153,814 activity involving trade between Member States. million. These investments are divided as follows (in GBP million): (10) The Commission notes that the notified aid is granted through State resources to an individual company Building/land improvements 8,352 favouring it by reducing the costs it would normally have to bear ifit wanted to carry out the notified Machinery and equipment 131,343 investment project. Moreover, the recipient ofthe aid, Vauxhall Motors, is a company manufacturing and Tools and dies 14,119 selling cars, which is an economic activity involving trade between Member States. Therefore, the aid in Total 153,814 question fallswithin the scope ofArticle 87(1) ofthe EC Treaty. C 77/30DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften 28.3.2002

(11) Vauxhall Motors is active in the motor vehicle industry. project, General Motors Europe carried out a study, Consequently, the aid granted to it shall be assessed comparing the incremental costs ofproducing the new according to the Community framework for State aid to Vectra in both locations. The study, as well as additional the motor vehicle industry (1). documents from the decision-making procedure of General Motors Europe, were provided to the (12) According to the Community framework for State aid to Commission. As regards the timing ofthe decision, the motor vehicle industry (hereinafter referred to as the Vauxhall Motors approached the United Kingdom auth- ‘car framework’), the Commission shall ensure that the aid orities in December 2000 for support to help offset the granted is both proportional to the gravity ofthe cost advantages ofAntwerp. A regional selective problems it intended to solve and necessary for the real- assistance offer of GBP 10 million was made to isation ofthe project. Both tests, proportionality and Vauxhall Motors in January 2001, conditional on EC necessity, must be satisfied if the Commission is to approval. On 1 February 2001, the European Strategy authorise State aid in the motor vehicle industry. Board ofGeneral Motors Europe decided in favourof the Ellesmere Port location. As regards the technical feasi- (13) According to point 3(2)(a) ofthe car framework,in order bility to carry out the project in the alternative location, to demonstrate the necessity for regional aid, the aid the Commission needs to verify whether Antwerp was a recipient must clearly prove that it has an economically real alternative. viable alternative location for its project. If there were no other industrial site, whether new or in existence, capable (19) Regional aid intended for modernisation and rational- ofreceiving the investment in question within the group, isation, which is generally not mobile, is not authorised the undertaking would be compelled to carry out its in the motor vehicle sector. However, a transformation, project in the sole plant available, even in the absence involving a radical change in production structures on the ofaid. existing site could be eligible for regional aid. The Commission has to verify that the planned project does (14) The existence ofa viable alternative definesthe mobility not include any elements ofmodernisation, which is ofthe project; mobility may ifnecessary be demonstrated completely excluded from all aid. by investors on the basis ofstudies they have carried out in order to identify the final location. That alternative site (20) According to point 3(2)(c) ofthe car framework,when need not necessarily always be located in the Community. considering the mobile aspects ofa project, the However, the Commission verifies the likelihood of the Commission needs to ensure that the planned aid is in alternative, particularly when the relevant markets are considered. Thus, to authorise regional aid, the proportion to the regional problems it is intended to Commission studies the geographical mobility ofthe resolve. For that, a cost-benefit analysis method (here- notified project, after checking that the region in inafter referred to as CBA) is used. question is eligible for aid under Community law. No regional aid may be authorised for a project which is (21) A CBA compares, with regard to the mobile elements, the not geographically mobile. costs which an investor would bear in order to carry out the project in the region in question with those it would (15) The Commission notes that according to the new regional bear for an identical project in a different location, which map in the United Kingdom, the project would be makes it possible to determine the specific handicaps of situated in an assisted area pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) the assisted region concerned. The Commission authorises ofthe EC Treaty with a maximum regional ceiling of regional aid within the limit ofthe regional handicaps 15 % nge. resulting from the investment in the comparator plant.

(16) The UK authorities have asserted that a real economically (22) The Commission notes that the United Kingdom auth- realistic alternative location to Ellesmere Port would be to orities have provided with their notification a CBA carry out the investment in the car plant in Antwerp, comparing the two locations, Ellesmere Port and Belgium, which currently produces the Astra model and, Antwerp. In accordance with point 3(2)(c) ofthe car until 1998, produced the Vectra model. framework, operating handicaps are assessed over three years in the CBA since the project in question is an (17) The Commission notes that when assessing the mobility expansion project, not a greenfield site. The time period ofa project, it tries to take into account all the relevant covered by the submitted CBA is April 2002 to March factors that have or might have influenced a decision to 2005, that is three years from the beginning of invest in a certain location. Among such factors are, inter production in compliance with point 3(3) ofAnnex I to alia the location study, the location ofthe plant in respect the car framework. The CBA, based on exchange rates at ofthe main markets and the business rationale ofan the time ofthe location decision, indicates a net cost investment decision. The aim is to assess the situation handicap ofGBP 18,116 million forthe location in as a whole. Ellesmere Port in comparison with the location in Antwerp. (18) The United Kingdom stated that the best viable alternative location to Ellesmere Port would be to carry out the (23) The Commission has assessed the information contained investment in Antwerp, Belgium. The Commission notes in the CBA provided and notes that further explanations that, in considering the two alternative sites for the are necessary before it can reach a final decision. This relates to elements used in the CBA, especially with (1) OJ C 279, 15.9.1997, p. 1. regard to the following elements. 28.3.2002DE Amtsblatt der Europäischen Gemeinschaften C 77/31

(24) The Commission has some doubts on the assumed, factors. The Commission considers that it might be necessary training costs in the CBA, which assumes that necessary to incorporate these effects into the CBA and training cost in Ellesmere Port are significantly higher asks the United Kingdom to quantify an estimate of the than in Antwerp. The United Kingdom justifies this possible costs. assumption by the fact that Antwerp already has been a flexible plant in the recent past and was therefore able to (27) Consequently, the Commission has doubts whether all the profit from the existing experience and skills base. relevant costs and benefits relating to the two alternative Furthermore, the Antwerp plant had already produced production locations are accurately reflected in the CBA the current Vectra model until 1998 and has installed a provided by the United Kingdom authorities. higher level ofstandardised, modern production tech- niques. Although the Commission considers it plausible (28) Finally, the Commission in its analysis considers the that the necessary training costs are higher in Ellesmere question ofa ‘top-up’, which is an increase in the Port than in Antwerp, there are doubts whether the extent allowable aid intensity intended as a further incentive to ofthe handicap in the CBA is justified.The CBA assumes the investor to invest in the region in question. Such that necessary training costs in Ellesmere Port are around top-ups are authorised on condition that the investment four times higher than in Antwerp. does not increase the capacity problems facing the motor vehicle industry. Aid proposals in support ofinvestments (25) As regards inward transport costs, which represents the that potentially aggravate the overcapacity problem ofthe biggest operating cost handicap ofEllesmere Port, the industry can be modulated by reducing the ‘regional CBA is based on the assumptions that the inward handicap ratio’ by up to two points. In this respect the transport cost per vehicle is GBP 203 (EUR 324) in Commission notes that, according to the United Kingdom Ellesmere Port and DEM 220 (EUR 112) in Antwerp authorities, the production capacity ofGeneral Motors and that the procurement pattern is the same in both Europe amounts to 2 167 932 before the investment locations. In view of the assumed significant differences and to 2 058 021 after the investment project (around in cross-channel transport costs and the fact that 5 % capacity reduction). Consequently, taking into Ellesmere Port has already a well developed supplier account the Article 87(3)(c) area status ofthe region park it needs to be clarified whether these assumptions and the capacity reduction ofthe group, the project on inward transport costs are plausible. would have a ‘negligible’ impact on competitors.

(26) Even with the grant, Antwerp was still a lower cost location compared to Ellesmere Port. However, Decision according to the United Kingdom, the grant closed the gap to such an extent that General Motors was able to (29) In the light ofthe foregoingconsiderations, the take into account two soft factors in favour of Ellesmere Commission, acting under the procedure laid down in Port when considering the location, namely (a) access to Article 88(2) ofthe EC Treaty, requests the United the UK market, and (b) that Ellesmere Port would be a UK Kingdom to submit its comments and to provide all project, which would in part mitigate an earlier Luton car such information as may help to assess the aid, within plant closure decision. The United Kingdom explained one month ofthe date ofreceipt ofthis letter. It requests that in view ofthe job losses in Luton, an unsuccessful your authorities to forward a copy of this letter to the bid for the new Vectra in Ellesmere Port would have lead potential recipient ofthe aid immediately. to a risk ofindustrial action in Luton and possibly Ellesmere Port with a resulting impact on public (30) The Commission wishes to remind the United Kingdom perception in the United Kingdom ofVauxhall as a that Article 88(3) of the EC Treaty has suspensory effect, reliable, quality brand as well as an impact on market and would draw your attention to Article 14 ofCouncil share and sales. However, the United Kingdom considers Regulation (EC) No 659/1999, which provides that all it impossible to accurately quantify the effect of these two unlawful aid may be recovered from the recipient.“