2012/26/EU: Commission Decision of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to... (32012D0026)
2012/26/EU: Commission Decision of 29 June 2011 on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08)) (notified under document C(2011) 4483) Text with EEA relevance
- COMMISSION DECISION
- of 29 June 2011
- on State aid granted by France to the Institut Français du Pétrole (Case C 35/08 (ex NN 11/08))
- (notified under document C(2011) 4483)
- (Only the French text is authentic)
- (Text with EEA relevance)
- (2012/26/EU)
- 1
- PROCEDURE
- 2
- THE IFP GROUP
- 3
- DESCRIPTION OF THE MEASURE
- 4
- REASONS FOR INITIATING THE FORMAL INVESTIGATION PROCEDURE
- 5
- OBSERVATIONS AND PROPOSALS PUT FORWARD BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
- 5.1
- INITIAL OBSERVATIONS BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
- 5.1.1 THERE IS NO GUARANTEE IMPUTABLE TO THE STATE INVOLVING A TRANSFER OF STATE RESOURCES
- A.
- No unlimited State guarantee
- B.
- Flawed Commission argument
- (34)
- a)
- The reimbursement of individual claims is not guaranteed
- b)
- The continued existence of IFP or of its obligations is not guaranteed
- 5.1.2 NO ADVANTAGE IS CONFERRED ON IFP OR ITS SUBSIDIARIES
- 5.2
- PROPOSALS BY THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
- 5.2.1 CLARIFICATION OF THE DECREE IMPLEMENTING THE LAW OF 16 JULY 1980
- 5.2.2 INCORPORATION OF A REFERENCE SPELLING OUT THE ABSENCE OF A GUARANTEE IN IFP’S CONTRACTS INVOLVING A CLAIM
- 5.2.3 INCORPORATION OF A REFERENCE SPELLING OUT THE ABSENCE OF A GUARANTEE IN THE FINANCING CONTRACTS OF IFP’S SUBSIDIARIES AXENS, BEICIP-FRANLAB AND PROSERNAT
- 5.3
- ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS FROM THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
- 6
- COMMENTS FROM THIRD PARTIES AND FROM THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES
- 6.1
- OBSERVATIONS FROM UOP
- 6.1.1 MARKET PERCEPTION OF IFP/AXENS
- 6.1.2 THE ADVANTAGES CONFERRED BY THE EPIC STATUS
- 6.2
- COMMENTS FROM THE FRENCH AUTHORITIES ON UOP’S OBSERVATIONS
- 6.2.1 ‘IFP/AXENS’ IS NOT A STATE BODY WITH UNLIMITED RESOURCES
- 6.2.2 AXENS DOES NOT DERIVE ANY ADVANTAGE ON THE MARKET FROM IFP’S EPIC STATUS
- 6.2.2.1
- The relations between Axens and its customers
- 6.2.2.2
- The relations between Axens and its suppliers and the funding terms on the financial markets
- 7
- ASSESSMENT
- 7.1
- EXISTENCE OF STATE AID WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 107(1) TFEU
- 7.1.1 USE OF STATE RESOURCES IN THE FORM OF AN UNLIMITED GUARANTEE
- 7.1.1.1
- Unlimited State guarantee to IFP conferred by its EPIC status
- A.
- Guarantee of payment of individual claims
- a)
- Rejection of the arguments of the French authorities
- b)
- A creditor of IFP can be sure that his claim will be repaid.
- B.
- Guarantee of the continued existence of IFP and/or of its obligations
- C.
- Conclusion regarding the existence of a State guarantee in favour of IFP
- 7.1.1.2
- The unlimited guarantee does not cover IFP’s private-law subsidiaries
- A.
- Creditors of IFP’s subsidiaries have no guarantee of payment of their individual claims
- a)
- Compulsory winding up under ordinary law
- b)
- No guarantee mechanism for IFP’s private-law subsidiaries
- i)
- No general vicarious liability of a shareholder for its subsidiary
- α)
- Denial by the parent of the legal personality of the subsidiary
- β)
- Liability for mismanagement of the subsidiary by the parent
- ii)
- Recent plans for reform of vicarious liability
- ‘Article 1355
- ‘Article 1360
- B.
- Creditors of IFP’s subsidiaries have no guarantee of the continued existence of the subsidiaries and/or their obligations
- C.
- Conclusion regarding the lack of a State guarantee covering the private-law subsidiaries of the publicly owned establishment IFP
- 7.1.2 ECONOMIC NATURE OF THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PUBLICLY OWNED ESTABLISHMENT IFP THAT ARE COVERED BY THE UNLIMITED GUARANTEE
- 7.1.3 SCOPE OF THE PRESENT DECISION
- 7.1.4 EXISTENCE OF A SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE TO THE IFP GROUP
- 7.1.4.1
- Advantages to the publicly owned establishment IFP
- A.
- No advantage in dealings with banks and financial institutions
- B.
- Advantage in dealings with suppliers
- C.
- Advantage in dealings with customers
- 7.1.4.2
- Advantages transferred to the private-law subsidiaries of the IFP group
- 7.1.5 DISTORTION OF COMPETITION AND EFFECT ON TRADE
- 7.1.6 CONCLUSION REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE AID MEASURE
- 7.2
- UNLAWFULNESS OF THE AID MEASURE
- 7.3
- COMPATIBILITY OF THE AID MEASURE
- 7.3.1 AID IN THE FIELD OF CONTRACT RESEARCH AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE PUBLICLY OWNED ESTABLISHMENT IFP
- 7.3.1.1
- Possible transfer of State aid to third parties or subsidiaries
- 7.3.1.2
- Compatibility of a State guarantee conferred on a research organisation for the performance of contract research services and services ancillary to its principal objective of independent public research
- 7.3.2 AID TO THE IFP GROUP IN THE EXCLUSIVE FIELDS OF ACTIVITY OF AXENS AND PROSERNAT
- 7.3.2.1
- Basis for the examination of the compatibility of the aid
- 7.3.2.2
- Research stages
- 7.3.2.3
- Eligible costs
- 7.3.2.4
- Intensity of the aid
- 7.3.2.5
- Cumulation
- 7.3.2.6
- Incentive effect
- 7.3.3 CONCLUSION ON THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE MEASURE
- 8
- NEUTRALITY WITH REGARD TO THE RULES GOVERNING THE SYSTEM OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP
- Article 1
- Article 2
- Article 3
- Article 4
- Article 5
- Article 6
- Article 7
- Article 8
- Article 9
- Article 10
- Article 11
- Article 12
- Article 13
Feedback