You are on page 1of 8


98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 256/7

CØ19/98 (ex NNØ30/97 (NÙ242/96))

(98/C 256/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(Articles 92 to 94 of the Treaty establishing the European Community)

Commission notice pursuant to Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty to other Member States and
interested parties on aid granted by the German Government to Weida Leder GmbH

In the letter reproduced below, the Commission tanneries in the GDR. Its main activity is to produce
informed the German Government of its decision to leather for the furniture industry. Production is located
initiate proceedings under Article 93(2) of the EC in Weida (Thuringia), a region with very high unem-
Treaty. ployment (17Ø%). It currently has 96 employees.


With a view to implementing a restructuring plan, the
By letter dated 12 March 1996, registered on 21 March firm has in recent years been carying out an investment
1996, the German Government notified to the programme, for which it has received aid.
Commission a DEM 5 million restructuring loan to
Weida Leder GmbH (Weida) of Thuringia. The
Commission asked additional questions on 11 April
1996, 28 May 1996, 3 July 1996, 26 August 1996 and
6 March 1997. The German authorities replied by letters
of 25 July 1996, 30 October 1996, 7 November 1996, The first attempt to privatise the firm failed in 1993.
20 January 1997 and 26 May 1997, registered by Weida went bankrupt on 1 October 1993. On 18
the Commission on 25 July 1996, 31 October 1996, October 1993 a rescue was carried out involving a new
13 November 1996, 21 January 1997 and 3 June 1997 investor, Elster Management KG. The available
respectively. An additional informal reply was information does not indicate why and when Weida
subsequently given in preparation for this visit by Mr subsequently returned into the BvS portfolio and what
Petersen to Erfurt in September 1997. The aid was first happened to this new investor. The fact is that it has still
registered under NØ242/96. However, it was clear from not been privatised. An interim manager familiar with the
the information supplied by the German Government on sector was appointed (from September 1977 onwards) to
7 November 1996 and 20 January 1997 that the auth- improve the firm’s performance on the market and to cut
orities in Thuringia had already granted loans totalling costs. Privatisation in the form of a management
more than DEM 7 million. The case was therefore buy-out/management buy-in (MBO/MBI) is currently
reclassified on 4 March 1997 as unnotified aid and being discussed. The BvS intends to choose between that
registered under NNØ30/97. In the information option (including the interim manager) and a posible
submitted in May 1997, it was revealed that a further new investor within the next 12 months. It is likely that
DEM 12 million had been paid out in 1994. The legal the BvS will have to make a considerable additional
basis for granting the aid in 1994 and 1995/96 was a financial effort, particularly if it chooses the MBO/MBI
credit mandate Kreditauftrag of the Thuringia Ministry option.
of Finance.

According to the latest information (dated 7 November
1997), the firm still has major financial problems despite
the aid already granted. It had just a received a ‘‘final’’
I. payment (loan) of DEM 1,5 million in order to secure its
liquidity and keep it in business. Moreover, the Land, as
Weida operated before German unification as VEB priority creditor, waived some DEM 2 million in claims
Lederwerke Weida and was one of the best-equipped in 1997 to prevent Weida from going bankrupt. The firm
C 256/8 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 14.8.98

was unable to achieve either the expected overall positive if the Commission were to issue a decision
turnover or its projected profit. approving the aid before the end of 1997.

This most recent communication from the German auth- The following figures give a complete overview of the
orities mentioned the existence of a new investor and aid measures implemented up to the end of 1997, as far
indicated that the outcome of talks was likely to be as they are known to the Commission:

—ÙSME grant on the basis of NØ408/93, granted on 21 October 1993 DEM Ù4,5Ù million
—Ù90Ø% guarantee for a DEM 8 million investment loan, granted on 7
March 1994 DEM Ù7,2Ù million
—Ù90Ø% guarantee for a DEM 4 million loan, granted on 16 September
1994 DEM Ù3,6Ù million
—ÙSeveral grants on the basis of the Joint Federal Government/Länder
Scheme 1995/1996 (approved) DEM Ù1,84 million
—ÙLoan on the basis of NNØ74/95, granted in December 1995 DEM Ù2ØÙÙ million
—ÙTABØ(Î) loan, granted on 2 January 1996 DEM Ù5ØÙÙ million
—ÙTAB loan, granted in November 1997 DEM Ù1,5Ù million

TotalÙÙ DEM 25,64 million

(Î) Thüringer Aufbaubank, which is owned by the Land of Thuringia.

Aid has been granted exclusively by the Land of unknown), and a DEM 1,344 million loan from Weida
Thuringia without any other State body being involved itself, for which the Land of Thuringia put up a 90Ø%
(e.Øg. THA/BvS). This list shows that an amount of guarantee and which should therefore also be regarded
DEM 17,3 million has been granted either without the as State aid (amounting to DEM 1,21 million). This
Commission’s approval or outside the context of an gives rise to a figure of DEM 6,184 million for the
approved scheme. It is not possible to assess the grants subsidiary which has not been approved by the
totalling DEM 1,84 millionØ(Ï) for lack of information. Commission or which was not granted in the context of
an approved scheme. The remaining DEM 5,95 million
seems to have been granted on the basis of an approved
scheme. However, no detailed assessment is possible
II. since the Commission does not know when and how
much aid has been granted.
In addition, Weida founded a subsidiary, Abwasserreini-
gungsanalge Schloßmühlenweg Weida GmbH, which
operates a sewage-treatment plant. 99Ø% of the costs of The total amount of aid granted to Weida and its
this subsidiary were financed or guaranteed by various subsidiary is therefore about DEM 37,774 million.
public institutions. It is 98Ø% owned by Weida and is
used mainly for its own purposes, although it also
services the business park which was created on the
former site of the tanneryØ(Ð).

An overview reveals that the total cost of setting up this
subsidiary was some DEM 12,134 million, financed as Leather is the basic product of the tanning sector. It is an
follows: DEM 5,95 million under the Joint Federal intermediate industrial product with many applications in
Government/Länder Scheme (an approved scheme), a downstream sectors of the consumer products industry.
DEM 4,84 million grant from the THA/BvS (legal basis For the latter, leather is often the main input material, as
is the case, for example, with shoes, clothing, leather
(Ï)ÙOn the basis of the Joint Federal Government/Länder
goods, furniture and many other items of daily use.
Scheme (Gemeinschaftsaufgabe).
(Ð)ÙVery often companies in the former GDR had more land
than necessary for their business purposes, especially once
they were downsized after unification. In many cases, the Production and consumption of leather has grown in its
land was either sold or used to create business parks. importance to the economies of developing countries,
14.8.98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 256/9

particularly in Asia. Bulk and standard leather 200 employees, and 8,5Ø% of firms fall within the 21 to
production has largely shifted to those regions since 100-employees category.
low-cost labour is widely available there. Some countries
in Asia and the Americas have seen their leather
industries develop to become important players inter- Recent problems affecting the supply of hides and skins
nationally. The structural adjustment required by these represent an additional threat to the EU tanning
and forthcoming changes in global production and industry. The embargo of British beef in response to the
consumption patterns is hitting European tanners’ BSE affair has led to a deterioration of consumer
preponderance in the world leather industry. It will confidence in red meat throughout Europe. The resulting
continue in the long term to influence the firms active in decline in the number of slaughterings has further
this sector. worsened the already poor availability of raw materials
for the sector and the outlook for EU tanners. The
current sluggishness of demand for leather on the world
market is hiding the gravity of the situation. Many EU
In terms of production trends in Europe, this led to a tanners currently operating as small firms with low
reduction of capacity and output but also to a slow profitability will face difficulties in procuring raw
increase in turnover. Although the EU tanning sector has materials at rapidly escalating prices.
shrunk by some 1Ø000 production units and some 30Ø000
employees since the beginning of the 1980s, turnover has
almost doubled from some ECU 4Ø000 million to nearly However, the future prospects of the tanning industry
ECU 8Ø000 million. Much of the loss of industrial base will be influenced by the forthcoming eastwards
has occurred in Northern Europe. Germany has suffered enlargement of the EU. Since the collapse of the iron
a particularly sharp decline in the number of tanneries. curtain, East European countries have been investing in
the restructuring of their tanning industry with a view to
preserving most of the sector’s industrial base. Their
integration into the Community will not be without
problems for both sides.
EU tanners are adjusting their production to meet higher
quality standards and improve the fashion content of
leather. With economic globalisation, the EU tanning
industry is no longer able to rely on its domestic market
to sell its products. Greater export orientation has 4. ASSESSMENT
therefore become a key factor for European tanneries
targeting the upper end of tanning markets worldwide.
The Commission regrets the fact that the German auth-
orities have failed to meet their obligations under Article
93(3) of the EC Treaty by awarding the aid before
notifying it to the Commission. Any aid not previously
Demand for leather depends on a variety of factors approved by the Commission must therefore be deemed
linked principally to the perception of this material in the unlawful.
eyes of consumers. Footwear remains the most important
market for EU tanners, accounting as it does for 50Ø%
of their output. The clothing industry accounts for some
The abovementioned aid to Weida is in any case liable to
20Ø% of finished leather produced in the EU, with
distort competition within the common market and to
upholstered furniture taking up approximately 17Ø% and
affect trade between Member States, and therefore falls
the leather goods sector 13Ø%. These ratios vary
within the scope of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty. It
considerably from one Member State to another, and the
should consequently be considered whether a derogation
relative weighting of the different markets indicates a
from the general principle of the incompatibility of State
degree of sectoral specialisation within the industry.
aid under Article 92(1) might be granted under Article
Northern European tanners are increasingly specialising
92(3) of the Treaty.
in the production of leather for the footwear and uphol-
stered furniture industries.

4.1. Derogations

Despite the enlargement of the EU to include Sweden,
Finland and Austria, the total number of tanneries is 4.2. Applicability of existing aid schemes
continuing to fall. There are at present slightly more
than 3Ø000 within the EU employing some 50Ø000 people.
The EU tanning industry has lost a quarter of its
industrial base and a third of its employees in the last I.
decade. EU tanneries tend to be SMEs, with only 10 or
so having more than 200 employees. Only 1Ø% of the Aid has been awarded from the available budgetary
industry is made up of firms with between 101 and funds of the Land of Thuringia under three different aid
C 256/10 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 14.8.98

schemes which have been approved by the Commission also undertaken to notify individually any cases in which
under Article 92(3)(a) or (c). restructuring aid is awarded repeatedly to the same
firm whereby the total amount of aid is more than
ECU 1 million.
As will be shown below, the aid awarded can only
partially be justified on the basis of the said approved
schemes. Some of the aid was therefore granted on However, it is not necessary to assess whether the
ad hoc basis and should therefore be scrutinised under conditions of the Thüringer Fonds zur Konsolidierung
the general State aid rules. von Unternehmen in Schwierigkeiten have been
complied with in this case since the scheme in question
was not approved by the Commission under Article
92(3)(c) until February 1996, i.e. after the aid in question
4.2.1. SME scheme for Thuringia (NØ408/93) was granted. The latter must therefore be deemed
unlawful. At the same time, the aid must be considered
incompatible with the common market because it was
On 21 October 1993, the Land authorities awarded a awarded outside the context of an approved scheme.
DEM 4,5 million grant on the basis of the SME scheme
for Thuringia (NØ408/93, approved on 29 September
1993). 4.2.3. Joint Federal Government/Länder Scheme

To qualify for this scheme, Weida had to comply with Several grants totalling DEM 1,84 million have
the following conditions: apparently also been awarded on the basis of the Joint
Federal Government/Länder Scheme for 1995/1996. The
aid might therefore be covered by that scheme.
—Ùit had to satisfy the SME criteria, as set out in the However, the Commission does not have detailed
Commission recommendation of 3 April 1996Ø(Ñ), i.e. information about when and how much aid was granted,
it must have fewer than 250 employees, have an and a final assessment is therefore not possible at the
annual turnover of less than ECU 40 million or a present time.
balance-sheet amount of not more than ECU 27
million, and not more than 25Ø% of its shares may be
held by a firm not meeting one or more of these defi- 4.3. Other financial measures
A further DEM 17,3 million has been granted in aid
—ÙWeida has 96 employees and an annual turnover of which is not covered by any Commission approval. The
some ECU 11 million (1996 figure). It has not yet measures in question are as follows:
been privatised, and all of its shares are therefore
held by the BvS. Consequently, it may be deemed to —Ùa 90Ø% guarantee for a DEM 8 million investment
constitute an SME within the meaning of the loan granted on 7 March 1994 (DEM 7,2 million),
Commission recommendation.
—Ùa 90Ø% guarantee for a DEM 4 million loan granted
—ÙThe second condition is that it must be active in the on 16 September 1994 (DEM 3,6 million),
manufacturing sector, which is also the case.
Consequently, the grant awarded on this basis may —Ùa TABØ(Ò) loan granted on 2 January 1996 (DEM
be deemed to be covered by an approved scheme. 5 million),

—Ùa TAB loan granted in September 1997 (DEM
4.2.2.ÙThüringer Fonds zur Konsolidierung von Unter- 1,5 million).
nehmen in Schwierigkeiten (NNØ74/95)
The general State aid rules are applicable to these ad hoc
In December 1995, the Land authorities awarded a
DEM 2 million loan on the basis of this scheme
(approved on 6 February 1996).
4.3.1. General State aid rules

The scheme applies to the rescue and restructuring of In this case, the Commission takes account of the fact
SMEs; aid to larger firms must be notified to the that Weida is situated in a region which qualifies for aid
Commission individually. The German authorities have
(Ò)ÙThüringer Aufbaubank, which is owned by the Land of
(Ñ)ÙOJ L 107, 30.4.1996. Thuringia.
14.8.98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 256/11

under Article 92(3)(a) of the EC Treaty. The viability of the firm, and undue distortions of
Commission Decision of 1996Ø(Ó) states that the new competition must be avoided.
German Länder are covered by that provision in that
they are areas in which the standard of living is
abnormally low and there is serious underemployment.
The unemployment rate in Thuringia (20,3Ø%) is
considerably higher than the Community average of —ÙRestructuring plan

Restructuring aid may be granted only where there is a
restructuring plan which restores the long-term viability
and health of the firm within a reasonable time scale.
Restructuring aid must be linked to a viable restructuring
Although some of the aid was intended to fund programme submitted in all relevant detail to the
investment, the derogation provided for in Article Commission.
92(2)(a) cannot be applied in this case. Weida has been
in difficulties since (at least) 1993. Consequently, the
only derogations for which the aid might qualify is that
provided for in Article 92(3)(c) of the Treaty, whereby
in particular the provisions of the Community guidelines The information hitherto submitted to the Commission
on State aid for rescuing and retructuring firms in does not demonstrate that the aid was granted in the
difficultyØ(Ô) are applicable. Restructuring aid may be context of a viable restructuring programme made up of
accepted on certain conditions. Such aid may be deemed concrete operational measures and which enables the
compatible with the common market. Moreover, the Commission to identify the positive financial results of
German authorities have invoked this provision. the measures. To the Commission’s knowledge, the firm
intended to modernise its production, i.e. to invest and
thereby increase its turnover and improve its annual
result. It is also not clear whether and how the firm
intended to bring its heavy cost structure and high
financial charges under control. Despite requesting
further information, the Commission has still not
It would generally appear justified to equate aid to firms received a sound restructuring plan which would enable
which take over the assets of another firm in bankruptcy it to assess the case in detail.
with restructuring aidØ(Õ), particularly in view of the
exceptional situation of such firms both historically and
economically, of the rapid transition which has taken
place from a planned to a market economy, and of the
special role played by the BvS in this process in priva- —ÙRestoration of viability
tising the firms in question. In such cases, however, the
new investor normally makes a significant contribution
to the restructuring effort. By contrast, it has not been
possible to find a private investor in Weida’s case. This All forecasts made in recent years concerning the firm’s
fact casts serious doubts on whether the aid granted to future development, including the forecast for turnover
Weida may be considered to constitute restructuring aid in the coming years, have proved erroneous. Weida has
within the meaning of the guidelines. An analysis on the now been struggling for years to gain a foothold on the
basis of these guidelines strengthens these doubts. market, and still no improvement to its situation can be
envisaged. Indeed, the latest figures suggest a further
deterioration in spite of all the financial efforts made.
Serious doubts as to Weida’s viability therefore remain.

The guidelines require that aid be strictly conditional on
the implementation of a viable restructuring plan. The In addition, it should not be forgotten that the financing
amount and intensity of aid must be restricted to a strict of the firm is still provisional since Weida has not yet
minimum during the restructuring phase, and the costs to been privatised. Moreover, it is only within the next 12
which the aid relates must not exceed the expected months that the BvS intends to decide whether the
benefits. Restructuring must restore the long-term MBO/MBI option currently being discussed will be
implemented. It is very likely that, during this period, the
(Ó)ÙNØ613/96 of 18 December 1996.
firm will still have to be financed from public funds via
(Ô)ÙOJ C 368, 23.12.1994, p. 12.
the BvS or the Land authorities. There is no indication as
(Õ)ÙSee cases NØ874/96 and NNØ136/96, letter from the
to its future financial development. The information
Commission D/3428 of 2 May 1997; case NÙ892/96, letter hitherto submitted is therefore inadequate to prove
from the Commission D/4047 of 28 May 1997. Weida’s long-term viability.
C 256/12 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 14.8.98

—ÙStrict minimum the business park which was created on the former site
of the tanneryØ(ÎÎ). However, the Commission does not
have any detailed information on the extent to which
The amount and intensity of aid must be limited to the Weida uses this installation for its own purposes.
strict minimum needed to enable restructuring to be
undertaken and must be proportionate to the benefits
anticipated from the community’s point of view. An overview submitted with the notification reveals that
Investors must therefore make a contribution to the the total cost of setting up this subsidiary was some
restructuring plan from their own resources. DEM 12,134 million, an amount which must also be
scrutinised under the general State aid rules, broken
down as follows:
Since Weida has not yet been privatised, it is not possible
to calculate whether the amount of aid granted is
proportionate to the restructuring effort. —Ùa DEM 5,95 million grant, which can be assumed to
have been awarded under the approved Joint Federal
Government/Länder Scheme. However, the
Commission does not have any information as to
—ÙEffects on competitors whether this was paid in several instalments and
when it was actually granted. It is therefore not
possible to determine once and for all whether this
The restructuring of Weida must involve measures to aid was granted lawfully and whether it is compatible
offset as far as possible adverse effects on competitors. with the common market,
Otherwise aid would be contrary to the common interest
and ineligible for exemption pursuant to Article 92(3)(c).
—Ùa DEM 4,84 million grant from the THA/BvS. The
Commission does not know when this was paid, but
since it is a grant it cannot be covered by the THA
Weida operates in the tanning sector and has concen- scheme and must be deemed unlawful and incom-
trated in recent years on the production of leather for patible with the common market,
the furniture industry. The capacity-utilisation rate in
this specific branch of the leather industry has recently
seemed sufficientØ(Ö), and the situation therein is
therefore satisfactory. However, even in such an —Ùa DEM 1,344 million loan from Weida itself, for
apparently advantageous situation, Weida has not been which the Land of Thuringia put up a 90Ø%
able to gain a foothold on the market, and no guarantee and which should therefore also be
improvement to this situation is foreseeable. regarded as State aid (amounting to DEM 1,21
million). Since this amount was granted outside the
context of an approved aid scheme, it must also be
considered unlawful and incompatible with the
Moreover, the firm has failed to submit any figures common market.
concerning its contribution to reducing capacities. It is
therefore difficult to evaluate any impact there might be
on competition. Nevertheless, the guidelines do allow for
a more flexible approach in the case of restructuring aid Since the subsidiary in question is 98Ø% owned by Weida
in regions falling within the scope of Article 93(3)(a)Ø(ÎÍ), and is primarily used for its purposes, this matter will be
and the Commission would normally require a smaller included in this assessment. However, since the
capacity reduction, especially in respect of an SME. Commission’s questions on this matter have not been
answered by the German authorities, the Commission
does not have the information it requires to assess this
point further on the basis of European competition law.


The aid measures also distort competition in the single
Alongside the aid measures referred to above, Weida market because they place the firm in a position to
also founded a subsidiary, Abwasserreinigungsanlage finance necessary operating investment almost entirely.
Schloßmühlenweg Weida GmbH, 99Ø% of the costs of Trade between the Member States is thus affected.
which were financed or guaranteed by various public Consequently, the measures fall within the scope of
institutions. It is 98Ø% owned by Weida and is used Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty. Since the Commission
mainly for its own purposes, although it also services
(ÎÎ)ÙVery often companies in the former GDR had more land
(Ö) Precise figures are not available since most firms regard this than necessary for their business purposes, especially after
information as confidential. they were downsized after unification. In many cases, the
(ÎÍ)ÙSee point 3.2.3 of the guidelines. land was either sold or used to create business parks.
14.8.98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 256/13

has not received sufficient information to assess the aid’s receiving the unlawful aid has improperly enjoyed since
compatibility with the common market, it is unable to the date on which the aid was paid.
decide whether a derogation should be granted pursuant
to Article 92(3) of the EC Treaty.
The Commission asks the German Government to
inform the recipient firm without delay that this
procedure has been initiated and that it might have to
repay any aid unlawfully received.

In view of the foregoing, and with reference to the
On the basis of the information at its disposal, the Judgment of the Court of Justice of 30 June 1992 in
Commission has doubts as to the compatibility of the aid Case C-47/91 Intalgrani and to its Judgment of 14
to Weida and to Abwasserreinigungsanlage with the February 1990 in Case C-301/87 Boussac, as confirmed
common market. It also has doubts concerning the by its Judgment of 13 April 1994 in Joined Cases
application of the guidelines on rescue and restructuring C-324/90 and C-342/90 Pleuger Worthington, which
aid in cases in which firms are created on the basis of the concerned an infringement of Article 93(3) of the EC
assets of bankrupt firms. These doubts have been further Treaty, the Commission is empowered to enjoin the
strengthened by the analysis it has carried out on the Member State in question, Germany in the present case,
basis of these guidelines. There has hitherto been no to provide it with all such documentation, information
viable concept of restructuring, let alone a concrete plan. and data as is necessary in order that it may examine the
Weida’s situation seems to have worsened still further in compatibility of the aid granted to Weida and to its
recent years despite all the financial efforts that have subsidiary with the common market. The German auth-
been made. Doubts therefore exist as to the firm’s orities should also enclose any other information which
viability. In addition, it should not be forgotten that the might be deemed relevant to the assessment of this case.
financing of the firm is still provisional since Weida has The Commission will otherwise take a decision on the
not yet been privatised. Consequently, no private basis of the information already at its disposal.
investor has contributed and it is therefore not possible
to calculate whether the amount of aid envisaged is
proportionate to the restructuring effort. The Commission has thus decided to ask the Federal
Republic of Germany to submit, within one month of
receiving this letter, any documents, information and
data concerning the aid already granted or to be granted
The Commission has therefore decided to initiate Article
in the future, relevant to an assessment of its compati-
93(2) proceedings in respect of the said measures and
bility with Article 92 of the EC Treaty.
any aid granted in future towards the restructuring of
the firm or subsidiary.
In particular, the Commission wishes to receive the
The Commission reminds the Federal Government of the
suspensory effect of Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty and
draws its attention to the communication published in 1.Ùan up-to-date restructuring plan with precise
the Official Journal of the European Communities C 318 information on:
of 24 November 1983, page 3, and the communication
published in the Official Journal of the European
Communities C 156 of 22 June 1995, page 5, in which it —Ùthe restoration of the firm’s long-term viability,
reminded Member States that any aid granted
unlawfully, i.e. without prior notification or without
awaiting the Commission’s final decision under the —Ùwhere appropriate, any restructuring measures
procedure provided for in Article 93(2) of the Treaty, taken up to privatisation,
might have to be recovered from the recipient firm.

—Ùthe contribution made by both the investor (Elster
KG) and the authorities to the first privatisation in
If the Commission were to decide that the aid was not 1993,
compatible with the common market, it would in
principle have to be recovered from the recipient in
accordance with the substantive and procedural —Ùthe extent to which the aid is proportionate to the
requirements of German law, with interest at the benefits of restructuring,
reference rate for the calculation of regional aid running
from the date on which the aid was disbursed. This
measure is necessary in order to restore the status quo by —Ùthe restriction of the aid to the strict minimum
removing all the financial benefits which the firm needed,
C 256/14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 14.8.98

—Ùup-to-date detailed information on the product 5.Ùinformation on the conditions on which the
and the relevant markets, including data on subsidiary’s sewage-treatment plant is made available
capacity, to other firms on the site (and other parties) and on
the extent to which it is used by Weida;
—Ùdata on the firm’s future development (forecasts); 6.Ùinformation on the legal basis of the TAB loans.’

2.Ùinformation on how the firm was restored to BvS’s The Commission hereby gives the other Member States
portfolio after the first rescue in 1993; and interested parties notice to submit their comments on
the measures in question within one month of the date of
3.Ùinformation on the various grants awarded to Weida publication of this notice to:
and its subsidiary on the basis of the Joint Federal European Commission,
Government/Länder Scheme; Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200,
B-1049 Brussels.
4.Ùinformation on the DEM 4,84 million grant awarded
to the subsidiary by THA/BvS (the Commission does These comments will be communicated to the German
not know when this occurred); Government.