25. 10. 96 Official Journal of the European Communities No L 272/53 COMMISSION DECISION of 29 May 1996 on the renewal, for the period 1993 to 1997, of the charge levied on certain oil products for the benefit of the Institut Frangais du Pétrole (IFP) (Only the Prench text is authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (96/615/EC) THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 93 (2) thereof, Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article 61 (1) thereof, Having requested the parties concerned to submit their comments pursuant to those Articles, Whereas: By letter No SG(94) D/16532 of 23 November 1994, the Commission informed France that the procedure provided for in Article 93 (2) of the EC Treaty had been initiated in respect of the aid arrangements financed by a parafiscal charge levied on certain oil products for the benefit of the Institut Francais du Pétrole (IFP). The IFP is a non-profit-making scientific and technical institute founded in 1944. Operating under the supervi- sion of the French authorities, it is engaged primarily in R&D projects in prospecting, refining and petrochemical technologies. As an adjunct to this activity, it carries out studies, disseminates technical information and trains technicians in the above fields. The IFP also has financial holdings in oil companies. To a large extent, the IFP is financed from the proceeds of a parafiscal charge on certain oil proudcts that was introduced for that purpose (68 % of its operating budget in 1991, 63,7 % in 1993 and 65,2 % in 1994). The para- fiscal charge was introduced in 1944 but France gave notification of its renewal only in 1992 for the period 1993 to 1997. Average annual proceeds from this charge for the period 1993 to 1997 are estimated at around FF 1 billion (ECU 155 million). The figure for 1944 was FF 1,15 billion. The refinancing project for the period was notified to the Commission in August 1992 but, following the an- nouncement that the IFP was to be granted advances on the proceeds from the charge, the aid was registered as non-notified aid in January 1993. The Commission decided to initiate the procedure pursuant to Article 93 (2) of the EC Treaty in connection with these arrangements because of the following doubts: — the levying of a charge on imported products might violate the general principle (which the Commission has regularly asserted in connection with parafiscal charges) that imports from other Member States shall be fully exempt from tax, — firms acquiring the findings of IFP studies would benefit from indirect aid because the prices, although they reflected market prices, did not seem to be calcu- lated on the basis of real costs, — it could not be ruled out that the IFP programmes involved direct aid to some of the firms controlled by the Institute and/or indirect aid as mentioned in the above indent, — the proceeds from the charge could constitute direct aid favouring the Institute’s activities over those of similar establishments in the rest of the Community, — the fact that the IFP did not obtain sufficient remune- ration from its financial holdings might also consti- tute aid. Since taxable oil producers who exported their production could obtain a refund of the charge, the Commission took the view that exemption constituted export aid. However, since France had notified it of a draft decree making exports of the products in question subject to the charge in accordance with the general principles in force, the Commission did not examine this matter when it initiated the procedure. At the same time, France had proposed amending the procedure for levying the charge on imports so that traders liable to it would not pay it on a proportion of their deliveries in France corresponding to the national average consumption of the product concerned that was met by imports from other Member States. In its decision to initiate the procedure, the Commission argued that this