No L 283/42 Official Journal of the European Communities 27. 10. 84 COMMISSION DECISION of 27 June 1984 on the aid granted by the Belgian Government to a producer of polypropylene fibre and yarn (Only the Dutch and French texts are authentic) (84/508/EEC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 93 (2) thereof, * Having given notice to the parties concerned to submit their comments as provided for in the said Article 93, and having regard to those comments, Whereas : I Following a number of complaints from federations of firms in the synthetic fibre and textile sectors, the Commission, by letters of 26 July 1983 and 3 November 1983, requested information from the Belgian Government in respect of an alleged aid granted to a Belgian textile company for the produc- tion of polypropylene fibre and yarn. By letter dated 18 November 1983, the Belgian Government informed the Commission that in March 1983 an aid had been granted to the largest Belgian textile and carpet group for the purpose of establishing a production plant for polypropylene staple fibre and filament yarn. According to the Belgian authorities the aid had been granted under the transitional period of three months authorized by the Commission until the end of March 1983 for the 1982 aid programme in favour of the textile and clothing industry. The Commission also was informed that the aid amounted to Bfrs 224 million and took the form of a State participation in the capital of the subsidiary created by the textile and carpet group for the abovementioned purpose. Finally, the Belgian Governmemt indicated that this aid was the only intervention under the 1982 textile programme in favour of the textile and carpet group in question. By telex dated 5 December 1983 the Commission requested additional information. Partial replies were communicated orally on 20 December 1983 and 11 January 1984, Having examined the case, the Commission consi- dered that the .aid would be incompatible with the common market on the grounds that it would affect trade between Member States to an extent contrary to the common interest. The Commission also consi- dered that in view of the overcapacities in polypropy- lene staple fibre and filament yarn the creation of any additional capacities should not be encouraged with State aid. Furthermore, the Commission considered that the aid should have been notified to it in advance under the transitional period authorized for the 1982 textile-aid programme and that neither the textile and carpet group nor its subsidiary concerned were registered on the list of firms submitted to the Commission for the purpose of monitoring the application of the transi- tional period. Consequently, the Commission initiated the procedure provided for in the first paragraph of Article 93 (2) of the EEC Treaty in respect of the aid and by letter of 13 February 1984 gave the Belgian Government notice to submit its comments. I1 The Belgian Government, in submitting by letter dated 13 March 1984 its comments under the proce- dure provided for in Article 93 (2), did not question the aid character of the intervention and pointed out that State participation reached only 18 % of total investment cost, if including the working capital required for the project in total investment costs. It argued that no advance notification had been required as the project, while being undertaken by a carpet producer, concerned synthetic fibre and yarn and thus products not subject to this notification procedure. Furthermore, it considered that the firm in question had been listed on the document sent to the Commis- sion for the purpose of monitoring the application of the transitional period under the name of the principal owner of the textile and carpet group and his commer- cial domicile. The Belgian Government also disputed the overcapacity problems in the production of poly- propylene fibre and yarn highlighted by the Commis- sion. The comments of two other Member States, seven federations of firms in the sector and four individual companies, submitted to the Commission under the Article 93 (2) procedure, supported the Commission’s view and underlined the overcapacity problems which