L 210/4 Official Journal of the European Union 14.8.2009 I (Acts adopted under the EC Treaty/Euratom Treaty whose publication is not obligatory) DECISIONS COMMISSION COMMISSION DECISION of 10 March 2009 on measure C 5/2000 (ex NN 118/97) implemented by Spain in favour of SNIACE SA, located in Torrelavega, Cantabria, and amending Decision 1999/395/EC (Notified under document C(2009) 1479) (Only the Spanish text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (2009/612/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Commu- nities and, in particular, the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) thereof, Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area and, in particular, Article 62(1)(a) thereof, Having called on interested parties to submit their comments, pursuant to the provisions cited above ('), and having regard to those comments, Whereas: ) 1. PROCEDURE By letter of 17 April 1997, the Commission received a complaint from the Austrian undertaking Lenzing AG, the Community’s main producer of viscose fibres, concerning a number of measures granted to its Spanish competitor Sociedad Nacional de Industrias y Aplicaciones de Celulosa Espafiola SA (hereinafter SNIACE). By letter of 7 November 1997, the Commission informed the Spanish Government of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the Treaty. C 275, 16.11.2007, p. 18. L 149, 16.6.1999, p. 40. G) By Decision 1999/395/EC (?) (hereinafter the Decision of 1998), the Commission considered the aid granted in favour of SNIACE by the Fondo de Garantia Salarial (the Wages Guarantee Fund, hereinafter FOGASA) and the Tesoreria General de la Seguridad Social (the General Social Security Treasury, hereinafter the TGSS) to be unlawful and incompatible with the common market because the debt repayment agreements concluded between SNIACE and FOGASA and the rescheduling agreement concluded between SNIACE and the TGSS did not comply with market conditions as the interest rates applied to the agreements were below market rates. That unfavourable decision ordered Spain to require the recipient to repay the contested aid. In the Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 29 April 1999 in Case C-342/96 Spain v Commission (hereinafter Tubacex) (), the Court considered that the debt rescheduling agreements concluded by the TGSS and FOGASA did not constitute State Aid as those public institutions had acted as a private creditor would have done to try to recover amounts owed to it, provided that the interest rate was at least equal to the rate that a private creditor would have applied (* and that the rescheduling agreement did not result in new debts being accumulated. () [1999] ECR 1-2459. (%) Paragraph 48 of the Tubacex judgment.