L 164/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 9.6.98 (Acts whose publication is not obligatory) COMMISSION COMMISSION DECISION of 15 July 1997 concerning State aid in favour of ‘Grupo de Empresas Alvarez’ (GEA) (notified under document number C(1997) 2615) (Only the Spanish text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (98/364/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUMTIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Atrticle 93(2) thereof, Having regard to the Agreement establishing the Euro- pean Economic Area, and in particular the first subpara- graph of Article 62(1)(a) thereof, Having given notice in accordance with Article 93 to interested parties to submit their comments to it, Whereas: On 15 November 1995, the Commission decided to open the Article 93(2) proceeding against aid which was awarded to GEA. GEA manufactures and sells tableware made of porcelain, earthenware and glass; it also produces bottles. GEA was in the past one of the most important Spanish tableware manufacturers. During the last five years, GEA’s market share amounted to an average of 11,6 % within the Spanish market and of 0,64 % within the EU market. GEA has a workforce of 1 029. Its annual turnover amounted to approximately ESP 2 500 million in 1995 and 1996. The group is located in Vigo, province of Pontevedra in Galicia, a Spanish region in which the shipping, fishing and car industry are dominant and which suffers, owing to the problems these industries are facing, a serious economic crisis and high unemployment. The region is considered an Objective 1 zone and eligible for regional aid within the meaning of Article 92(3)(a). After Citroen, GEA is the second-largest industrial employer in this area. Until June 1991, GEA was wholly owned by the Spanish public holding INI. INI then decided to privatise the enterprise. One condition, however, was that INI should first clean up GEA, which had made sigruficant losses during the previous years. Thus, INI paid aid which amounted to ECU 24 million in order to leave GEA free of debts. That aid, although not notified, was approved by the Commission in 1992 (State aid NN 15/92, doc. SEC(92) 1655). The approval was justified on the grounds of a marked decrease in production capacity, the sever- ance of GEA’s ties with INI and the fact of its location in an Article 92(3)(a) area. After this approval, which was not subject to the fulfil- ment of any conditions, GEA had received further aid from INI which was not notified to, nor approved by, the Commission. This aid comprised a guarantee in 1992 which, at that time, entailed a potential risk of ESP 1 620 million and a direct grant of ESP 983 million in 1994 which was paid in order to discharge the earlier guarantee. In addition, the Commission was informed that the