19.2.1999 Official Journal of the European Communities L 45/51 COMMISSION DECISION of 17 June 1998 concerning aid granted by Luxembourg to ProfilARBED in connection with its investment in environmental protection (notified under document number C(1998) 1764) (Only the French text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (1999/140/ECSC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article 4(c) thereof, Having regard to Commission Decision No 2496/96/ ECSC of 18 December 1996 establishing Community rules on aid to the steel industry ('), and in particular Article 6 thereof, Whereas: By letter dated 30 December 1993, registered by the Commission on 4 January 1994, the Luxembourg author- ities notified the Commission of a plan to grant aid to the steel company ProfilARBED (ARBED) in connection with investment undertaken by the company in environ- mental protection. By letter dated 14 June 1994 (%), the Commission informed the Luxembourg Government of its decision, taken on 1 June 1994, to initiate proceedings in respect of the aid in question under Article 6(4) of Decision No 3855/91/ECSC (%) (hereinafter ‘the Steel Aid Code’, since replaced by Decision No 2496/96/ECSC). On 9 August 1993 ARBED had requested State aid covering 25 % of the LUF 613 million it was committed to spending on environmental protection in connection with the development of the Esch-Schifflange steelworks, which in the event entailed the construction of a new electric steel plant. By letter of 19 December 1994, the Luxembourg Government stated that it planned to provide ARBED with a capital grant not exceeding 15 % of the eligible investment, i.e. not exceeding LUF 91,95 million, which it said was in accordance with the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (*). 338, 28. 12. 1996, p. 42. 212, 3. 8. 1994, p. 7. 362, 31. 12. 1991, p. 57. 72, 10. 3. 1994, p. 3. 0000 S oo In response to the decision initiating proceedings, the Luxembourg authorities put forward the following argu- ments: (1) the steelworks as a whole had come into being in the late 19th century and, in any case, the liquid phase at Esch had been operating for more than two years by the time that the new standards entered into force; (2) it was technically impossible for the old LD-AC steel- making plant to achieve the environmental protection levels required by the new standards laid down in February 1993; (3) according to the second recital under Part II of the preamble to the Steel Aid Code, the relevant reference text was the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection; (4) lastly, the Esch electric steel plant satisfied all the criteria set out therein. In this regard, it was pointed out that: — the new environmental protection standards had entered into force in 1990 and had been tightened in 1993. The liquid phase at Esch, however, had been in place for more than two years before the introduction of the new standards, — the building of the electric steel plant was an adaptation of a production process: the liquid phase based on the LD-AC process and con- tinuous casting had been converted into a liquid phase based on an electric process and continuous casting, — the aid requested related solely to that part of the investment that was not economically viable, while the expenditure connected with replacement and productivity-enhancing schemes, ie. the part of the investment with an economic objective, was borne entirely by ARBED, in accordance with the said Community guidelines. The Luxembourg authorities also argued that, in view of the heavy investment needed to bring the existing LD-AC steel plants into line with the environmental standards, and in order to avoid losing much of that investment