# Úradný vestník C 306/2011

| | ISSN 1977-1037
  doi:10.3000/19771037.C_2011.306.slk |
| --- | --- |
| Úradný vestník
  Európskej únie | C 306 |
| | |
| Slovenské vydanie | Informácie a oznámenia | Zväzok 5418. októbra 2011 |

ISSN 1977-1037

doi:10.3000/19771037.C_2011.306.slk

Úradný vestník

Európskej únie

C 306

Slovenské vydanie

Informácie a oznámenia

Zväzok 5418. októbra 2011

---

| Číslo oznamu | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Informácie |
| | INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE |
| | Európska komisia |
| 2011/C 306/01 | Výmenný kurz eura | 1 |
| | INFORMÁCIE ČLENSKÝCH ŠTÁTOV |
| 2011/C 306/02 | Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o štátnej pomoci poskytnutej v súlade s nariadením Komisie (ES) č. 1857/2006 o uplatňovaní článkov 87 a 88 zmluvy na štátnu pomoc pre malé a stredné podniky (MSP) pôsobiace vo výrobe, spracovaní a odbyte poľnohospodárskych výrobkov, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa nariadenie (ES) č. 70/2001 | 2 |
| 2011/C 306/03 | Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu | 4 |
| 2011/C 306/04 | Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu | 5 |
| 2011/C 306/05 | Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu | 6 |
| 2011/C 306/06 | Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu | 7 |
| 2011/C 306/07 | Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu | 8 |
| 2011/C 306/08 | Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu | 9 |

Číslo oznamu

Obsah

Strana

IV   Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

2011/C 306/01

Výmenný kurz eura

1

INFORMÁCIE ČLENSKÝCH ŠTÁTOV

2011/C 306/02

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o štátnej pomoci poskytnutej v súlade s nariadením Komisie (ES) č. 1857/2006 o uplatňovaní článkov 87 a 88 zmluvy na štátnu pomoc pre malé a stredné podniky (MSP) pôsobiace vo výrobe, spracovaní a odbyte poľnohospodárskych výrobkov, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa nariadenie (ES) č. 70/2001

2

2011/C 306/03

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu

4

2011/C 306/04

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu

5

2011/C 306/05

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu

6

2011/C 306/06

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu

7

2011/C 306/07

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu

8

2011/C 306/08

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu

9

| | V   Oznamy |
| --- | --- |
| | KONANIA TÝKAJÚCE SA VYKONÁVANIA POLITIKY HOSPODÁRSKEJ SÚŤAŽE |
| | Európska komisia |
| 2011/C 306/09 | Štátna pomoc — Írsko – Štátna pomoc SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) – Letecká doprava – Výnimky z dane za cestujúcich v leteckej doprave – Výzva na predloženie pripomienok v súlade s článkom 108 ods. 2 ZFEÚ (
  1
  ) | 10 |
| 2011/C 306/10 | Predbežné oznámenie o koncentrácii (Vec COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV) – Vec, ktorá môže byť posúdená v zjednodušenom konaní (
  1
  ) | 17 |
| | INÉ AKTY |
| | Európska komisia |
| 2011/C 306/11 | Uverejnenie žiadosti o zápis do registra podľa článku 6 ods. 2 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 510/2006 o ochrane zemepisných označení a označení pôvodu poľnohospodárskych výrobkov a potravín | 18 |

V   Oznamy

KONANIA TÝKAJÚCE SA VYKONÁVANIA POLITIKY HOSPODÁRSKEJ SÚŤAŽE

Európska komisia

2011/C 306/09

Štátna pomoc — Írsko – Štátna pomoc SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) – Letecká doprava – Výnimky z dane za cestujúcich v leteckej doprave – Výzva na predloženie pripomienok v súlade s článkom 108 ods. 2 ZFEÚ (
  1
  )

1

10

2011/C 306/10

Predbežné oznámenie o koncentrácii (Vec COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV) – Vec, ktorá môže byť posúdená v zjednodušenom konaní (
  1
  )

1

17

INÉ AKTY

Európska komisia

2011/C 306/11

Uverejnenie žiadosti o zápis do registra podľa článku 6 ods. 2 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 510/2006 o ochrane zemepisných označení a označení pôvodu poľnohospodárskych výrobkov a potravín

18

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text s významom pre EHP |

---

(1)   Text s významom pre EHP

1

| SK | |
| --- | --- |

SK

---

IV Informácie

INFORMÁCIE INŠTITÚCIÍ, ORGÁNOV, ÚRADOV A AGENTÚR EURÓPSKEJ ÚNIE

Európska komisia

| 18.10.2011 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 306/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 306/1

---

Výmenný kurz eura (1)

17. októbra 2011

2011/C 306/01

1 euro =

| | Mena | Výmenný kurz |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | Americký dolár | 1,3776 |
| JPY | Japonský jen | 106,43 |
| DKK | Dánska koruna | 7,4453 |
| GBP | Britská libra | 0,87400 |
| SEK | Švédska koruna | 9,1582 |
| CHF | Švajčiarsky frank | 1,2365 |
| ISK | Islandská koruna | |
| NOK | Nórska koruna | 7,7320 |
| BGN | Bulharský lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Česká koruna | 24,762 |
| HUF | Maďarský forint | 293,94 |
| LTL | Litovský litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Lotyšský lats | 0,7049 |
| PLN | Poľský zlotý | 4,2927 |
| RON | Rumunský lei | 4,3320 |
| TRY | Turecká líra | 2,5514 |
| AUD | Austrálsky dolár | 1,3406 |
| CAD | Kanadský dolár | 1,3955 |
| HKD | Hongkongský dolár | 10,7124 |
| NZD | Novozélandský dolár | 1,7225 |
| SGD | Singapurský dolár | 1,7458 |
| KRW | Juhokórejský won | 1 577,85 |
| ZAR | Juhoafrický rand | 10,8856 |
| CNY | Čínsky juan | 8,7746 |
| HRK | Chorvátska kuna | 7,4685 |
| IDR | Indonézska rupia | 12 147,13 |
| MYR | Malajzijský ringgit | 4,2707 |
| PHP | Filipínske peso | 59,465 |
| RUB | Ruský rubeľ | 42,4230 |
| THB | Thajský baht | 42,182 |
| BRL | Brazílsky real | 2,4083 |
| MXN | Mexické peso | 18,2857 |
| INR | Indická rupia | 67,4400 |

Mena

Výmenný kurz

USD

Americký dolár

1,3776

JPY

Japonský jen

106,43

DKK

Dánska koruna

7,4453

GBP

Britská libra

0,87400

SEK

Švédska koruna

9,1582

CHF

Švajčiarsky frank

1,2365

ISK

Islandská koruna

NOK

Nórska koruna

7,7320

BGN

Bulharský lev

1,9558

CZK

Česká koruna

24,762

HUF

Maďarský forint

293,94

LTL

Litovský litas

3,4528

LVL

Lotyšský lats

0,7049

PLN

Poľský zlotý

4,2927

RON

Rumunský lei

4,3320

TRY

Turecká líra

2,5514

AUD

Austrálsky dolár

1,3406

CAD

Kanadský dolár

1,3955

HKD

Hongkongský dolár

10,7124

NZD

Novozélandský dolár

1,7225

SGD

Singapurský dolár

1,7458

KRW

Juhokórejský won

1 577,85

ZAR

Juhoafrický rand

10,8856

CNY

Čínsky juan

8,7746

HRK

Chorvátska kuna

7,4685

IDR

Indonézska rupia

12 147,13

MYR

Malajzijský ringgit

4,2707

PHP

Filipínske peso

59,465

RUB

Ruský rubeľ

42,4230

THB

Thajský baht

42,182

BRL

Brazílsky real

2,4083

MXN

Mexické peso

18,2857

INR

Indická rupia

67,4400

---

(1)  Zdroj: referenčný výmenný kurz publikovaný ECB.

---

INFORMÁCIE ČLENSKÝCH ŠTÁTOV

| 18.10.2011 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 306/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 306/2

---

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o štátnej pomoci poskytnutej v súlade s nariadením Komisie (ES) č. 1857/2006 o uplatňovaní článkov 87 a 88 zmluvy na štátnu pomoc pre malé a stredné podniky (MSP) pôsobiace vo výrobe, spracovaní a odbyte poľnohospodárskych výrobkov, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa nariadenie (ES) č. 70/2001

2011/C 306/02

Č. pomoci: SA.33657 (11/XA)

Členský štát: Francúzsko

Región: France

Názov schémy štátnej pomoci alebo názov podniku prijímajúceho individuálnu štátnu pomoc: Assistance technique aux exploitations agricoles de huit baies bretonnes pour leur évolution vers des systèmes de production à très basses fuites d'azote

Právny základ:

| — | arrêté du préfet de la région Centre, coordonnateur du bassin Loire-Bretagne, du 18 novembre 2009, portant approbation du schéma directeur d’aménagement et de gestion des eaux du bassin Loire-Bretagne (cf. disposition 10 A) |
| --- | --- |

—

arrêté du préfet de la région Centre, coordonnateur du bassin Loire-Bretagne, du 18 novembre 2009, portant approbation du schéma directeur d’aménagement et de gestion des eaux du bassin Loire-Bretagne (cf. disposition 10 A)

| — | plan de lutte contre les algues vertes du 5 février 2010 |
| --- | --- |

—

plan de lutte contre les algues vertes du 5 février 2010

| — | projets de délibération du Conseil régional de Bretagne et des Conseils généraux des Côtes-d’Armor et du Finistère |
| --- | --- |

—

projets de délibération du Conseil régional de Bretagne et des Conseils généraux des Côtes-d’Armor et du Finistère

Ročné výdavky plánované v rámci schémy štátnej pomoci alebo celková výška individuálnej štátnej pomoci poskytnutej podniku: Celková ročná výška rozpočtu plánovaného podľa schémy pomoci: 3 EUR (v mil.)

Maximálna intenzita pomoci: 100 %

Dátum implementácie: —

Trvanie schémy štátnej pomoci alebo individuálnej štátnej pomoci: 24. októbra 2011 – 31. decembra 2015

Účel pomoci: Technická pomoc [článok 15 nariadenia (ES) č. 1857/2006]

Príslušné odvetvia hospodárstva: Pestovanie plodín a chov zvierat, poľovníctvo a služby s tým súvisiace

Názov a adresa orgánu poskytujúceho pomoc: M. le préfet de la région Bretagne, MM. les présidents du Conseil régional de Bretagne et des Conseils généraux des Côtes-d’Armor et du Finistère

le préfet de la région Bretagne

3 avenue de la Préfecture

35026 Rennes Cedex 9

FRANCE

le président du Conseil régional de Bretagne

5-9 rue Martenot

35000 Rennes

FRANCE

le directeur de l’agence de l’eau Loire-Bretagne

avenue Buffon, BP 6339

45063 Orleans Cedex 2

FRANCE

Internetová stránka:

| | http://draaf.bretagne.agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Note_detaillee_Diagnostic-conseil_cle838b5c.pdf |
| --- | --- |

http://draaf.bretagne.agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Note_detaillee_Diagnostic-conseil_cle838b5c.pdf

| | http://www.bretagne.pref.gouv.fr/Les-actions-de-l-Etat/Environnement-et-prevention-des-risques/L-eau/Plan-de-lutte-contre-les-algues-vertes |
| --- | --- |

http://www.bretagne.pref.gouv.fr/Les-actions-de-l-Etat/Environnement-et-prevention-des-risques/L-eau/Plan-de-lutte-contre-les-algues-vertes

Ďalšie informácie: —

Č. pomoci: SA.33729 (11/XA)

Členský štát: Taliansko

Región: Emilia-Romagna

Názov schémy štátnej pomoci alebo názov podniku prijímajúceho individuálnu štátnu pomoc: Prevenzione e l'eradicazione di fitopatie ed infestazioni parassitarie. Programma di intervento contributivo riferito alle estirpazioni di piante di drupacee e di actinidia

Právny základ: Deliberazione Giunta Regionale n. 1275 del 5 settembre 2011,

Legge Regionale n. 6 del 23 luglio 2010,

Legge Regionale n. 3 del 20 gennaio 2004,

Decreto Legislativo n. 214 del 19 agosto 2005,

Decreto Ministeriale 28 luglio 2009,

Decreto Ministeriale 7 febbraio 2011.

Ročné výdavky plánované v rámci schémy štátnej pomoci alebo celková výška individuálnej štátnej pomoci poskytnutej podniku: Celková ročná výška rozpočtu plánovaného podľa schémy pomoci: 1 EUR (v mil.)

Maximálna intenzita pomoci: 100 %

Dátum implementácie: —

Trvanie schémy štátnej pomoci alebo individuálnej štátnej pomoci: 4. novembra 2011 – 31. decembra 2013

Účel pomoci: Ochorenia rastlín – zamorenie škodcami [článok 10 nariadenia (ES) č. 1857/2006]

Príslušné odvetvia hospodárstva: Poľnohospodárstvo, lesníctvo a rybolov

Názov a adresa orgánu poskytujúceho pomoc:

| Regione Emilia-Romagna |
| --- |
| Direzione Generale Agricoltura, economia ittica, attività faunistico-venato |
| Viale della Fiera 8 |
| 40127 Bologna BO |
| ITALIA |

Regione Emilia-Romagna

Direzione Generale Agricoltura, economia ittica, attività faunistico-venato

Viale della Fiera 8

40127 Bologna BO

ITALIA

Internetová stránka: http://www.ermesagricoltura.it/Servizio-fitosanitario/Finanziamenti/Finanziamenti-batteriosi-dell-actinidia-PSA/Normativa-di-base/Deliberazione-n.-1275-del-5-09-20112

Ďalšie informácie: —

Č. pomoci: SA.33730 (11/XA)

Členský štát: Taliansko

Región: Basilicata

Názov schémy štátnej pomoci alebo názov podniku prijímajúceho individuálnu štátnu pomoc: Misure regionali di sostegno alle aziende frutticole colpite dalla Vaiolatura delle drupacee (Sharka), causata dall'agente Plum pox virus

Právny základ: Legge 1 luglio 1997, n. 206 Norme in favore delle produzioni agricole danneggiate da organismi nocivi;

Decreto del ministero delle politiche agricole, alimentari e forestali del 28 luglio 2009 recante lotta obbligatoria per il controllo del virus Plum pox virus (PPV), agente della «Vaiolatura delle drupacee» (Sharka).

Delibera di Giunta Regionale n. 643 del 4 maggio 2011

Ročné výdavky plánované v rámci schémy štátnej pomoci alebo celková výška individuálnej štátnej pomoci poskytnutej podniku: Celková ročná výška rozpočtu plánovaného podľa schémy pomoci: 0,30 EUR (v mil.)

Maximálna intenzita pomoci: 39,20 %

Dátum implementácie: —

Trvanie schémy štátnej pomoci alebo individuálnej štátnej pomoci: 13. októbra 2011 – 31. decembra 2012

Účel pomoci: Ochorenia rastlín – zamorenie škodcami [článok 10 nariadenia (ES) č. 1857/2006]

Príslušné odvetvia hospodárstva: Pestovanie jadrového a kôstkového ovocia

Názov a adresa orgánu poskytujúceho pomoc:

| Regione Basilicata |
| --- |
| Dipartimento Agricoltura, Sviluppo Rurale, Economia Montana |
| Via Vincenzo Verrastro |
| 85100 Potenza PZ |
| ITALIA |

Regione Basilicata

Dipartimento Agricoltura, Sviluppo Rurale, Economia Montana

Via Vincenzo Verrastro

85100 Potenza PZ

ITALIA

Internetová stránka: http://www.regione.basilicata.it/giunta/files/docs/DOCUMENT_FILE_554194.pdf

Ďalšie informácie: —

---

| 18.10.2011 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 306/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 306/4

---

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu

2011/C 306/03

V súlade s článkom 35 ods. 3 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 1224/2009 z 20. novembra 2009, ktorým sa zriaďuje systém kontroly Spoločenstva na zabezpečenie dodržiavania pravidiel spoločnej politiky v oblasti rybného hospodárstva (1), sa prijalo rozhodnutie ukončiť rybolov, ako sa uvádza v tejto tabuľke:

| Dátum a čas ukončenia | 5.9.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Trvanie | 5.9.2011 – 31.12.2011 |
| Členský štát | Portugalsko |
| Populácia alebo skupina populácií | WHM/ATLANT |
| Druh | kopijonos belavý (Tetrapturus albidus) |
| Zóna | Atlantický oceán |
| Druh(-y) rybárskych plavidiel | — |
| Referenčné číslo | — |

Dátum a čas ukončenia

5.9.2011

Trvanie

5.9.2011 – 31.12.2011

Členský štát

Portugalsko

Populácia alebo skupina populácií

WHM/ATLANT

Druh

kopijonos belavý (Tetrapturus albidus)

Zóna

Atlantický oceán

Druh(-y) rybárskych plavidiel

—

Referenčné číslo

—

Webový odkaz na rozhodnutie členského štátu:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 343, 22.12.2009, s. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 306/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 306/5

---

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu

2011/C 306/04

V súlade s článkom 35 ods. 3 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 1224/2009 z 20. novembra 2009, ktorým sa zriaďuje systém kontroly Spoločenstva na zabezpečenie dodržiavania pravidiel spoločnej politiky v oblasti rybného hospodárstva (1), sa prijalo rozhodnutie ukončiť rybolov, ako sa uvádza v tejto tabuľke:

| Dátum a čas ukončenia | 5.9.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Trvanie | 5.9.2011 – 31.12.2011 |
| Členský štát | Portugalsko |
| Populácia alebo skupina populácií | ALF/3X14- |
| Druh | beryxy (Beryx spp.) |
| Zóna | vody EÚ a medzinárodné vody zón III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII a XIV |
| Druh(-y) rybárskych plavidiel | — |
| Referenčné číslo | — |

Dátum a čas ukončenia

5.9.2011

Trvanie

5.9.2011 – 31.12.2011

Členský štát

Portugalsko

Populácia alebo skupina populácií

ALF/3X14-

Druh

beryxy (Beryx spp.)

Zóna

vody EÚ a medzinárodné vody zón III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII a XIV

Druh(-y) rybárskych plavidiel

—

Referenčné číslo

—

Webový odkaz na rozhodnutie členského štátu:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 343, 22.12.2009, s. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 306/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 306/6

---

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu

2011/C 306/05

V súlade s článkom 35 ods. 3 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 1224/2009 z 20. novembra 2009, ktorým sa zriaďuje systém kontroly Spoločenstva na zabezpečenie dodržiavania pravidiel spoločnej politiky v oblasti rybného hospodárstva (1), sa prijalo rozhodnutie ukončiť rybolov, ako sa uvádza v tejto tabuľke:

| Dátum a čas ukončenia | 25.6.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Trvanie | 25.6.2011 – 31.12.2011 |
| Členský štát | Španielsko |
| Populácia alebo skupina populácií | BSF/8910- |
| Druh | mieňovce rodu Phycis (Phycis blennoides) |
| Zóna | vody EÚ a medzinárodné vody zón VIII a IX |
| Druh(-y) rybárskych plavidiel | — |
| Referenčné číslo | 887271 |

Dátum a čas ukončenia

25.6.2011

Trvanie

25.6.2011 – 31.12.2011

Členský štát

Španielsko

Populácia alebo skupina populácií

BSF/8910-

Druh

mieňovce rodu Phycis (Phycis blennoides)

Zóna

vody EÚ a medzinárodné vody zón VIII a IX

Druh(-y) rybárskych plavidiel

—

Referenčné číslo

887271

Webový odkaz na rozhodnutie členského štátu:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 343, 22.12.2009, s. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 306/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 306/7

---

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu

2011/C 306/06

V súlade s článkom 35 ods. 3 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 1224/2009 z 20. novembra 2009, ktorým sa zriaďuje systém kontroly Spoločenstva na zabezpečenie dodržiavania pravidiel spoločnej politiky v oblasti rybného hospodárstva (1), sa prijalo rozhodnutie ukončiť rybolov, ako sa uvádza v tejto tabuľke:

| Dátum a čas ukončenia | 12.7.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Trvanie | 12.7.2011 – 31.12.2011 |
| Členský štát | Španielsko |
| Populácia alebo skupina populácií | BSF/8910- |
| Druh | stuhochvost čierny (Aphanopus carbo) |
| Zóna | vody EÚ a medzinárodné vody zón VIII, IX a X |
| Druh(-y) rybárskych plavidiel | — |
| Referenčné číslo | 887293 |

Dátum a čas ukončenia

12.7.2011

Trvanie

12.7.2011 – 31.12.2011

Členský štát

Španielsko

Populácia alebo skupina populácií

BSF/8910-

Druh

stuhochvost čierny (Aphanopus carbo)

Zóna

vody EÚ a medzinárodné vody zón VIII, IX a X

Druh(-y) rybárskych plavidiel

—

Referenčné číslo

887293

Webový odkaz na rozhodnutie členského štátu:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 343, 22.12.2009, s. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 306/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 306/8

---

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu

2011/C 306/07

V súlade s článkom 35 ods. 3 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 1224/2009 z 20. novembra 2009, ktorým sa zriaďuje systém kontroly Spoločenstva na zabezpečenie dodržiavania pravidiel spoločnej politiky v oblasti rybného hospodárstva (1), sa prijalo rozhodnutie ukončiť rybolov, ako sa uvádza v tejto tabuľke:

| Dátum a čas ukončenia | 13.8.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Trvanie | 13.8.2011 – 31.12.2011 |
| Členský štát | Belgicko |
| Populácia alebo skupina populácií | WHG/08. |
| Druh | treska merlang (Merlangius merlangus) |
| Zóna | VIII |
| Druh(-y) rybárskych plavidiel | — |
| Referenčné číslo | 870462 |

Dátum a čas ukončenia

13.8.2011

Trvanie

13.8.2011 – 31.12.2011

Členský štát

Belgicko

Populácia alebo skupina populácií

WHG/08.

Druh

treska merlang (Merlangius merlangus)

Zóna

VIII

Druh(-y) rybárskych plavidiel

—

Referenčné číslo

870462

Webový odkaz na rozhodnutie členského štátu:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 343, 22.12.2009, s. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 306/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 306/9

---

Informácie oznámené členskými štátmi o ukončení rybolovu

2011/C 306/08

V súlade s článkom 35 ods. 3 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 1224/2009 z 20. novembra 2009, ktorým sa zriaďuje systém kontroly Spoločenstva na zabezpečenie dodržiavania pravidiel spoločnej politiky v oblasti rybného hospodárstva (1), sa prijalo rozhodnutie ukončiť rybolov, ako sa uvádza v tejto tabuľke:

| Dátum a čas ukončenia | 13.8.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Trvanie | 13.8.2011 – 31.12.2011 |
| Členský štát | Belgicko |
| Populácia alebo skupina populácií | LEZ/8ABDE. |
| Druh | kalkany rodu Lepidorhombus (Lepidorhombus spp.) |
| Zóna | VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId a VIIIe |
| Druh(-y) rybárskych plavidiel | — |
| Referenčné číslo | 870462 |

Dátum a čas ukončenia

13.8.2011

Trvanie

13.8.2011 – 31.12.2011

Členský štát

Belgicko

Populácia alebo skupina populácií

LEZ/8ABDE.

Druh

kalkany rodu Lepidorhombus (Lepidorhombus spp.)

Zóna

VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId a VIIIe

Druh(-y) rybárskych plavidiel

—

Referenčné číslo

870462

Webový odkaz na rozhodnutie členského štátu:

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 343, 22.12.2009, s. 1.

---

V Oznamy

KONANIA TÝKAJÚCE SA VYKONÁVANIA POLITIKY HOSPODÁRSKEJ SÚŤAŽE

Európska komisia

| 18.10.2011 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 306/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 306/10

---

ŠTÁTNA POMOC — ÍRSKO

Štátna pomoc SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) – Letecká doprava – Výnimky z dane za cestujúcich v leteckej doprave

Výzva na predloženie pripomienok v súlade s článkom 108 ods. 2 ZFEÚ

(Text s významom pre EHP)

2011/C 306/09

Listom z 13. júla 2011, ktorý je uvedený v autentickom jazyku za týmto zhrnutím, Komisia oznámila Írsku svoje rozhodnutie začať konanie stanovené v článku 108 ods. 2 ZFEÚ, pokiaľ ide o uvedené opatrenie.

Zainteresované strany môžu predložiť svoje pripomienky k opatreniu, vo veci ktorého Komisia začína konanie, v lehote jedného mesiaca odo dňa uverejnenia tohto zhrnutia a nasledujúceho listu. Kontaktné údaje:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| State aid Greffe |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Fax +32 22961242 |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

State aid Greffe

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Fax +32 22961242

Tieto pripomienky sa oznámia Írsku. Zainteresované strany môžu písomne s uvedením dôvodov požiadať o dôverné zaobchádzanie s údajmi o ich totožnosti.

TEXT ZHRNUTIA

Írske orgány zaviedli od 30. marca 2009 spotrebnú daň za cestujúcich v leteckej doprave, ktorá sa mala vyberať za „každého cestujúceho odlietajúceho z letiska“. Aj keď sa daň v konečnom dôsledku mala vyberať od cestujúcich ako súčasť ceny letenky, za vyberanie a odvádzanie dane za cestujúcich odlietajúcich príslušnými lietadlami boli zodpovední prevádzkovatelia leteckých služieb. Vymedzenie pojmu „cestujúci“ v tomto kontexte vylučuje z daňovej povinnosti transferových a tranzitných cestujúcich. V čase zavedenia sa daň vyberala v závislosti od vzdialenosti medzi letiskom, na ktorom cesta začínala, a cieľovým letiskom, a to sadzbou i) 2 EUR v prípade cesty z letiska do miesta určenia nachádzajúceho sa maximálne 300 km od letiska v Dubline a ii) 10 EUR v ostatných prípadoch. V nadväznosti na konanie o porušení predpisov sa od 1. marca 2011 uplatňuje na všetky vzdialenosti jednotná sadzba 3 EUR. Vzhľadom na to, že zdaniteľným plnením je odlet cestujúceho lietadlom, nákladné lety a iné spôsoby dopravy tejto dani nepodliehajú.

Podľa sťažnosti, ktorá bola doručená Komisii, neuplatňovanie tejto dane na transferových a tranzitných cestujúcich a na nákladné lety predstavuje neoprávnenú a nezlučiteľnú štátnu pomoc poskytovanú prevádzkovateľovi leteckých služieb Aer Lingus a Aer Arann a prevádzkovateľovi letiska Dublin Airport Authority (DAA), keďže tieto podniky majú pomerne vysoký podiel takýchto cestujúcich a letov. Neuplatňovanie dane na námorné služby a železničnú dopravu okrem toho údajne predstavuje štátnu pomoc poskytovanú prevádzkovateľom v týchto odvetviach. Sťažovateľ takisto upozornil na skutočnosť, že v prípade nízkonákladových prepravcov pevná výška dane predstavuje vyšší podiel ceny cestovného v porovnaní s tradičnými leteckými spoločnosťami. Záverom sťažovateľ tvrdí, že nižšia sadzba dane zvýhodnila spoločnosť Aer Arann vzhľadom na to, že 50 % cestujúcich, ktorých táto spoločnosť prepravuje, cestuje do destinácií vzdialených viac ako 300 km od letiska v Dubline.

Podľa írskych orgánov nákladné lety a iná ako letecká doprava nepodliehajú tejto dani kvôli jej pomerne jednoduchému uplatňovaniu. Daňová politika nie je navrhnutá tak, aby vyhovovala niektorému konkrétnemu individuálnemu modelu podnikania. Všetci prevádzkovatelia nákladnej dopravy alebo inej ako leteckej dopravy sú vylúčení z rozsahu pôsobnosti dane za poskytovanie takýchto služieb. Vylúčenie transferovej a tranzitnej dopravy z rozsahu pôsobnosti dane vychádza z dôvodov neutrality: náklady spojené s touto daňou znášajú v konečnom dôsledku cestujúci a tí by nemali byť penalizovaní za to, že let má medzipristátie v Írsku. Írske orgány okrem toho naznačujú, že tento systém bráni dvojitému zdaňovaniu v prípadoch, keď sa vyberá podobná daň na letisku, kde let začína. Uplatňovanie pevnej sadzby dane namiesto proporcionálnej sadzby podľa ceny letenky vyplýva zo skutočnosti, že ide o spotrebnú daň. Okrem zvýšenia administratívnej záťaže by použitie percentuálnej sadzby z ceny letenky mohlo viesť k obchádzaniu dane, keďže letecké spoločnosti by sa v takom prípade snažili znižovať ceny leteniek a zároveň zvyšovať svoje príjmy prostredníctvom pridružených poplatkov. Pokiaľ ide o nižšiu sadzbu dane pri kratších letoch (platnú do 1. marca 2011), írske orgány vysvetlili, že sa zakladala na skutočnosti, že ceny bližších destinácií sú obvykle nižšie. Spochybnili tiež, že by bola nižšou sadzbou dane zvýhodnená spoločnosť Aer Arann, keďže sťažovateľ takisto prevádzkoval významnú časť trás, na ktoré sa vzťahovala táto nižšia sadzba. Írskym orgánom preto nie je jasné, ako by skutočnosť, že pri kratších trasách je sadzba nižšia, mohla predstavovať štátnu pomoc poskytnutú spoločnostiam Aer Arann a Aer Lingus.

Pri určovaní, či údajné opatrenia predstavujú štátnu pomoc, je v tomto prípade hlavnou otázkou stanoviť, či je splnené kritérium selektivity, t. j. či opatrenia zvýhodňujú určité podniky nachádzajúce sa v právnej a faktickej situácii, ktorá je vzhľadom na cieľ, ktorý sa mal danými opatreniami dosiahnuť, porovnateľná.

Iné spôsoby dopravy ako letecká doprava patria do odlišného právneho, regulačného a daňového systému ako letecká doprava. Sú takisto v odlišnej faktickej situácii ako prevádzkovatelia leteckej dopravy. Vylúčenie iných spôsobov dopravy z pôsobnosti dane preto nie je selektívne.

Vzhľadom na to, že prevádzkovatelia nákladnej prepravy pôsobia v inom odvetví s iným druhom zákazníkov a nákladná preprava a doprava cestujúcich nepredstavujú vzájomne nahraditeľné služby, títo prevádzkovatelia nie sú v rovnakej faktickej situácii ako prevádzkovatelia leteckej dopravy cestujúcich. Vylúčenie nákladnej prepravy z pôsobnosti dane sa preto nemôže považovať za selektívne.

Neuplatňovanie dane na transferových a tranzitných cestujúcich vyplýva z logiky a charakteru daňového systému, a preto sa nemôže považovať za selektívne. Cieľom je vyberať daň na základe vzdialenosti medzi destináciami, kde sa let začal a kde bol ukončený. Neuplatňovanie dane na transferových a tranzitných cestujúcich je logické, keďže vedie k tomu, že cestujúci podliehajú dani rovnakým spôsobom bez ohľadu na trasu (namiesto toho, aby podliehali zdaneniu tak v prvom, ako aj v druhom úseku letu). Skutočnosť, že sa táto daň nevzťahuje na transferových a tranzitných cestujúcich je okrem toho odôvodnená tým, že sa tak zabráni dvojitému zdaneniu.

Pokiaľ ide o použitie pevných sadzieb namiesto percentuálnych, je potrebné uviesť, že členské štáty sú oprávnené vybrať si medzi pevnými a proporcionálnymi sadzbami. Na rozdiel od daní z predaja, ktoré sa stanovujú v pomere k hodnote, sa spotrebné dane, ako je táto, obvykle stanovujú v jednotkovej sadzbe. Pevné sadzby predstavujú vo svojej podstate v prípade nižších celkových cien vyšší podiel. Rozdiel medzi vyššími a nižšími cenami však zostáva zachovaný. Preto sa nezdá, že by tradičné letecké spoločnosti boli v porovnaní s nízkonákladovými prepravcami zvýhodnené. Okrem toho daň proporcionálna k cene letenky môže viesť spoločnosti k znižovaniu cien leteniek a zároveň k zvyšovaniu transakčných alebo pridružených nákladov.

Pokiaľ ide o rozdielne sadzby daní platné od 30. marca 2009 do 1. marca 2011, Komisia vo svojom pracovnom dokumente zdôraznila, že rozlišovanie medzi vnútroštátnymi letmi a letmi v rámci Spoločenstva nie je žiaduce. Podľa rozhodovacej praxe Komisie by sa také rozlišovanie malo považovať za selektívne, ak sa nezakladá na žiadnom logickom dôvode. To jasne stanovil aj súd. Argument írskych orgánov, že lety na dlhšie vzdialenosti sú drahšie a že by sa preto za ne mohol vyberať vyšší poplatok, ak by nebol neprimeraný k cene, nie je opodstatnený, pretože cena leteniek do vnútroštátnych destinácií nemusí byť (v zásade) nevyhnutne nižšia ako pri letoch do iných destinácií EÚ. Preto sa zdá, že nižšia sadzba dane poskytuje v rámci referenčného systému selektívne zvýhodnenie podnikom. Vzhľadom na to, že ostatné kritériá stanovené v článku 107 ods. 1 ZFEÚ sú splnené, opatrenie predstavuje štátnu pomoc.

Z toho vyplýva, že ani vyňatie nákladnej prepravy a iných spôsobov dopravy než leteckej dopravy, ani neuplatňovanie dane na dopravu transferových a tranzitných cestujúcich nepredstavuje štátnu pomoc podľa článku 107 ods. 1 ZFEÚ. Uplatňovanie pevnej sadzby a nie sadzby vyjadrenej percentuálne k cene letenky takisto nepredstavuje štátnu pomoc. Zdá sa však, že uplatňovanie nižšej vnútroštátnej sadzby od 30. marca 2009 do 1. marca 2011 predstavuje štátnu pomoc a existujú pochybnosti o jeho zlučiteľnosti s vnútorným trhom.

V súlade s článkom 14 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 659/1999 sa môže od príjemcu požadovať vrátenie každej neoprávnene poskytnutej pomoci.

TEXT LISTU

„1.   PROCEDURE

| (1) | By letter of 21 July 2009, registered at the Commission the following day under number CP 231/2009, the Commission received a complaint from an airline operator regarding alleged unlawful and illegal State aid measures, which were in place in Ireland. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

By letter of 21 July 2009, registered at the Commission the following day under number CP 231/2009, the Commission received a complaint from an airline operator regarding alleged unlawful and illegal State aid measures, which were in place in Ireland.

| (2) | By letter of 28 July 2009, the Commission forwarded the complaint to the Irish authorities and asked for their position on the claims brought forward therein. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

By letter of 28 July 2009, the Commission forwarded the complaint to the Irish authorities and asked for their position on the claims brought forward therein.

| (3) | By letter of 26 August 2009, the Irish authorities asked for an extension of the deadline to reply, which the Commission accepted in letter of 3 September 2009. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

By letter of 26 August 2009, the Irish authorities asked for an extension of the deadline to reply, which the Commission accepted in letter of 3 September 2009.

| (4) | On 15 October 2009, the Irish authorities responded to the letter of the Commission. Their reply was registered at the Commission on the same day. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

On 15 October 2009, the Irish authorities responded to the letter of the Commission. Their reply was registered at the Commission on the same day.

| (5) | Since the alleged aid had been implemented without prior notification to the Commission, the case was registered as a non-notified measure, 11/NN. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

Since the alleged aid had been implemented without prior notification to the Commission, the case was registered as a non-notified measure, 11/NN.

2.   DESCRIPTION OF THE ALLEGED AID

2.1.   The Irish Air Travel Tax

| (6) | As of 30 March 2009, the Irish authorities introduced an excise duty on air passenger transport. The national legal basis for the tax is Section 55 of the Finance (No 2) Act 2008, which introduces an excise duty referred to as the “air travel tax” which the airlines operators are liable to pay in respect of “every departure of a passenger on an aircraft from an airport” located in Ireland. While the tax in fine is intended to be passed on to the passengers via the ticket price, it is thus the airline operators that are liable to pay the tax. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

As of 30 March 2009, the Irish authorities introduced an excise duty on air passenger transport. The national legal basis for the tax is Section 55 of the Finance (No 2) Act 2008, which introduces an excise duty referred to as the “air travel tax” which the airlines operators are liable to pay in respect of “every departure of a passenger on an aircraft from an airport” located in Ireland. While the tax in fine is intended to be passed on to the passengers via the ticket price, it is thus the airline operators that are liable to pay the tax.

| (7) | At the time of the introduction of the tax, it was levied on the basis of the distance between the airport where the journey began and the airport where the journey ended, at the rate of (i) EUR 2 in the case of a journey from an airport to a destination located no more than 300 km from Dublin airport; and (ii) EUR 10 in any other case. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

At the time of the introduction of the tax, it was levied on the basis of the distance between the airport where the journey began and the airport where the journey ended, at the rate of (i) EUR 2 in the case of a journey from an airport to a destination located no more than 300 km from Dublin airport; and (ii) EUR 10 in any other case.

| (8) | Following an investigation by the Commission regarding a possible infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (1) and the Treaty provisions on free provision of services, the rates were changed as of 1 March 2011 so that a single tax rate of EUR 3 is applicable to all departures, regardless of the distance travelled. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Following an investigation by the Commission regarding a possible infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 September 2008 on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community (1) and the Treaty provisions on free provision of services, the rates were changed as of 1 March 2011 so that a single tax rate of EUR 3 is applicable to all departures, regardless of the distance travelled.

| (9) | In the legal basis, a passenger is defined as a person other than a member of the crew of the aircraft travelling on an aircraft, but the definition explicitly excludes transfer and transit passengers. A transfer passenger is defined as a passenger who arrives on a flight to an airport and who departs from the airport on a further flight, other than to the airport where the passenger’s journey originated, where both flights are part of a single booking and where the length of time between the scheduled time of arrival of the flight to the airport and the scheduled time of departure of the flight from that airport is maximum six hours. A transit passenger is a passenger who is on board an aircraft which lands at an airport in the course of its journey and who continues his or her journey on that aircraft. This means effectively that transfer and transit passengers fall outside of the scope of the tax.







  Examples: | New York–Shannon–Dublin | Tax payable: EUR 0 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| New York–Dublin | Tax payable: EUR 0 |
| Dublin–Shannon–New York | Tax payable: EUR 10 |
| Dublin–New York | Tax payable: EUR 10 |

(9)

In the legal basis, a passenger is defined as a person other than a member of the crew of the aircraft travelling on an aircraft, but the definition explicitly excludes transfer and transit passengers. A transfer passenger is defined as a passenger who arrives on a flight to an airport and who departs from the airport on a further flight, other than to the airport where the passenger’s journey originated, where both flights are part of a single booking and where the length of time between the scheduled time of arrival of the flight to the airport and the scheduled time of departure of the flight from that airport is maximum six hours. A transit passenger is a passenger who is on board an aircraft which lands at an airport in the course of its journey and who continues his or her journey on that aircraft. This means effectively that transfer and transit passengers fall outside of the scope of the tax.

Examples:

New York–Shannon–Dublin

Tax payable: EUR 0

New York–Dublin

Tax payable: EUR 0

Dublin–Shannon–New York

Tax payable: EUR 10

Dublin–New York

Tax payable: EUR 10

| (10) | Since the taxable event is the departure of a passenger on an aircraft, cargo flights and other modes of transport fall outside of the scope of the tax. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Since the taxable event is the departure of a passenger on an aircraft, cargo flights and other modes of transport fall outside of the scope of the tax.

2.2.   Alleged illegal and unlawful State aid

| (11) | First, the complainant argues that the non-application of the tax to cargo transport results in State aid to cargo operator Aer Lingus and to Dublin Airport Authority (DAA), which manages, operates and develops Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports, and manages domestic and international airport retail and airport investment. |
| --- | --- |

(11)

First, the complainant argues that the non-application of the tax to cargo transport results in State aid to cargo operator Aer Lingus and to Dublin Airport Authority (DAA), which manages, operates and develops Dublin, Cork and Shannon airports, and manages domestic and international airport retail and airport investment.

| (12) | Second, the complainant claims that the non-application of the tax to maritime services and rail transport results in State aid to operators in these sectors. |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Second, the complainant claims that the non-application of the tax to maritime services and rail transport results in State aid to operators in these sectors.

| (13) | Third, it is claimed that the non-application of the tax to transfer and transit passengers and cargo flights constituted illegal and incompatible State aid granted to DAA and to Air Lingus and Air Arann, since these undertakings have a relatively high proportion of such passengers and flights. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Third, it is claimed that the non-application of the tax to transfer and transit passengers and cargo flights constituted illegal and incompatible State aid granted to DAA and to Air Lingus and Air Arann, since these undertakings have a relatively high proportion of such passengers and flights.

| (14) | Fourth, according to the complaint, the use of fixed tax rates (as opposed to the use of a tax that is proportional to the ticket price) imposes a proportionally heavier charge on low fare passengers and discriminate against the business models used by low-cost carriers, which are based on small margins and high numbers of passengers in order to maximise revenues from ancillary services. Therefore, low-cost carriers cannot pass the full cost of the tax on to their passengers. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

Fourth, according to the complaint, the use of fixed tax rates (as opposed to the use of a tax that is proportional to the ticket price) imposes a proportionally heavier charge on low fare passengers and discriminate against the business models used by low-cost carriers, which are based on small margins and high numbers of passengers in order to maximise revenues from ancillary services. Therefore, low-cost carriers cannot pass the full cost of the tax on to their passengers.

| (15) | Fifth, the complainant claims that the differentiated tax rates favour Aer Arann since 50 % of the passengers carried by that airline travel to destinations located at less than 300 km from Dublin airport. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Fifth, the complainant claims that the differentiated tax rates favour Aer Arann since 50 % of the passengers carried by that airline travel to destinations located at less than 300 km from Dublin airport.

| (16) | The complainant estimates that the aid provided to DAA, Aer Lingus and Aer Arann stemming from the exemptions of cargo traffic, transfer and transit passengers and the lower tax rate for shorter flights in total amounts to at least EUR 50 million per year. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

The complainant estimates that the aid provided to DAA, Aer Lingus and Aer Arann stemming from the exemptions of cargo traffic, transfer and transit passengers and the lower tax rate for shorter flights in total amounts to at least EUR 50 million per year.

2.3.   The opinion of the Irish authorities

| (17) | According to the Irish authorities, the use of a fixed tax rate instead of a proportion of the ticket price stems from the fact that the tax is an excise duty and, as such, a fixed amount. Apart from being administratively burdensome, using a percentage of the ticket price would open up for circumvention since airlines would then strive to reduce fares while raising revenues via ancillary fees (credit card handling, online check-in, baggage handling, charging for sports equipment carried, etc.). |
| --- | --- |

(17)

According to the Irish authorities, the use of a fixed tax rate instead of a proportion of the ticket price stems from the fact that the tax is an excise duty and, as such, a fixed amount. Apart from being administratively burdensome, using a percentage of the ticket price would open up for circumvention since airlines would then strive to reduce fares while raising revenues via ancillary fees (credit card handling, online check-in, baggage handling, charging for sports equipment carried, etc.).

| (18) | As to the lower tax rate for shorter routes, the Irish authorities explained that it was based on the fact that the prices are normally lower for closer destinations. They pointed out that there is only one domestic route on which the complainant and Aer Arann compete. On that route, close to 40 % of the flights are operated by the complainant. For routes abroad benefiting from the lower rate (western UK), the complainant operates more than 40 % of the scheduled flights, while Aer Arann and Aer Lingus have smaller shares. Therefore, the Irish authorities do not see how the fact that there is a lower rate for shorter routes would constitute State aid to Aer Arann and Aer Lingus. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

As to the lower tax rate for shorter routes, the Irish authorities explained that it was based on the fact that the prices are normally lower for closer destinations. They pointed out that there is only one domestic route on which the complainant and Aer Arann compete. On that route, close to 40 % of the flights are operated by the complainant. For routes abroad benefiting from the lower rate (western UK), the complainant operates more than 40 % of the scheduled flights, while Aer Arann and Aer Lingus have smaller shares. Therefore, the Irish authorities do not see how the fact that there is a lower rate for shorter routes would constitute State aid to Aer Arann and Aer Lingus.

| (19) | With respect to the non-imposition of the tax on cargo flights and other modes of transport than air transport, the Irish authorities argue that this is due to the relatively simple application of the tax. Taxation policy is not designed to fit with any particular individual business model. Any operator of cargo service or other modes of transport than air transport would fall outside of the scope of the tax for the provision of such services. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

With respect to the non-imposition of the tax on cargo flights and other modes of transport than air transport, the Irish authorities argue that this is due to the relatively simple application of the tax. Taxation policy is not designed to fit with any particular individual business model. Any operator of cargo service or other modes of transport than air transport would fall outside of the scope of the tax for the provision of such services.

| (20) | As to the non-application of the tax on transfer and transit passengers, the Irish authorities state that the fact that any first leg of an overall journey is not subject to the tax ensures that the passenger is not punished because a route includes a stopover in order to get to the final destination. The Irish authorities furthermore indicate that other countries with air passenger taxes, such as the United Kingdom, normally exclude transfer and transit passengers from the scope of the tax. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

As to the non-application of the tax on transfer and transit passengers, the Irish authorities state that the fact that any first leg of an overall journey is not subject to the tax ensures that the passenger is not punished because a route includes a stopover in order to get to the final destination. The Irish authorities furthermore indicate that other countries with air passenger taxes, such as the United Kingdom, normally exclude transfer and transit passengers from the scope of the tax.

| (21) | Therefore, in the opinion of the Irish authorities, the tax and its non-applicability in respect of cargo transport and other means of transport than air transport and of certain categories of passengers does not amount to aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter the “TFEU”). Neither do the use of a fixed tax rate and the differentiated tax rates in force between 30 March 2009 and 1 March 2011. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Therefore, in the opinion of the Irish authorities, the tax and its non-applicability in respect of cargo transport and other means of transport than air transport and of certain categories of passengers does not amount to aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (hereinafter the “TFEU”). Neither do the use of a fixed tax rate and the differentiated tax rates in force between 30 March 2009 and 1 March 2011.

3.   ASSESSMENT

3.1.   Existence of aid under Article 107(1) of the TFEU

| (22) | By virtue of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, “any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market”. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

By virtue of Article 107(1) of the TFEU, “any aid granted by a Member State or through State resources in any form whatsoever which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between Member States, be incompatible with the internal market”.

| (23) | In order to be caught by Article 107(1) of the TFEU, a measure must thus be selective (2). The Court has held that that Article requires assessment of whether, under a particular legal regime, a national measure is such as to favour “certain undertakings or the production of certain goods” in comparison with others which, in the light of the objective pursued by that regime, are in a comparable factual and legal situation (3). |
| --- | --- |

(23)

In order to be caught by Article 107(1) of the TFEU, a measure must thus be selective (2). The Court has held that that Article requires assessment of whether, under a particular legal regime, a national measure is such as to favour “certain undertakings or the production of certain goods” in comparison with others which, in the light of the objective pursued by that regime, are in a comparable factual and legal situation (3).

| (24) | The selective advantage may derive from an exception to the tax provisions of a legislative, regulatory or administrative nature or from a discretionary practice on the part of the tax authorities. However, the selective nature of a measure may be justified by “the nature or general scheme of the system” (4). The Commission must therefore examine whether such exemptions are justified by the nature or the general principles of the tax system in the Member State. If that is the case, the measure is not considered to be aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

The selective advantage may derive from an exception to the tax provisions of a legislative, regulatory or administrative nature or from a discretionary practice on the part of the tax authorities. However, the selective nature of a measure may be justified by “the nature or general scheme of the system” (4). The Commission must therefore examine whether such exemptions are justified by the nature or the general principles of the tax system in the Member State. If that is the case, the measure is not considered to be aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU.

| (25) | According to established case-law (5), a fiscal measure is selective if it constitutes a departure from the normal application of the general tax framework. First, the Commission therefore has to identify the relevant tax system of reference. |
| --- | --- |

(25)

According to established case-law (5), a fiscal measure is selective if it constitutes a departure from the normal application of the general tax framework. First, the Commission therefore has to identify the relevant tax system of reference.

| (26) | As regards taxation, the Commission notes that, in principle, the definition of the system of taxation falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States. In designing its taxation system, the Irish authorities chose, on the one hand, to define the taxable event of the air travel tax as the departure of a passenger from an airport situated in Ireland. The taxation legislation at hand aims at regulating the payment of duties on passengers departing on a plane from an airport located in Ireland. In the case at hand, the Commission considers the system of reference to be the taxation of air passengers departing from an airport situated in Ireland. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

As regards taxation, the Commission notes that, in principle, the definition of the system of taxation falls within the exclusive competence of the Member States. In designing its taxation system, the Irish authorities chose, on the one hand, to define the taxable event of the air travel tax as the departure of a passenger from an airport situated in Ireland. The taxation legislation at hand aims at regulating the payment of duties on passengers departing on a plane from an airport located in Ireland. In the case at hand, the Commission considers the system of reference to be the taxation of air passengers departing from an airport situated in Ireland.

| (27) | The objective of the system of reference is to tax passengers departing on a plane from an airport located in Ireland in order to raise revenue for the State budget. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

The objective of the system of reference is to tax passengers departing on a plane from an airport located in Ireland in order to raise revenue for the State budget.

| (28) | First, other modes of transport than air transport fall outside of the reference system. Different legal, regulatory and taxation systems apply to different modes of transport. For example, aviation fuel is exempted from fuel taxation (6) and, as from 1 January 2012, the aviation sector will, contrary to some other modes of transport, be included in the EU Emission Trading Scheme (7). It is therefore impossible to identify one single reference tax system that would apply to all modes of transport. Differences in the legal (regulatory) and factual situations of operators of various modes of transport can also justify the application of different tax systems (e.g. security and safety regulations are different, traffic management systems are different and the support for and need for infrastructure varies). Therefore, the Commission finds that other modes of transport than air transport are not to be included in the reference system for the air passenger taxes subject to assessment. The air travel tax can thus not be considered to provide the maritime and rail sectors with a selective advantage. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

First, other modes of transport than air transport fall outside of the reference system. Different legal, regulatory and taxation systems apply to different modes of transport. For example, aviation fuel is exempted from fuel taxation (6) and, as from 1 January 2012, the aviation sector will, contrary to some other modes of transport, be included in the EU Emission Trading Scheme (7). It is therefore impossible to identify one single reference tax system that would apply to all modes of transport. Differences in the legal (regulatory) and factual situations of operators of various modes of transport can also justify the application of different tax systems (e.g. security and safety regulations are different, traffic management systems are different and the support for and need for infrastructure varies). Therefore, the Commission finds that other modes of transport than air transport are not to be included in the reference system for the air passenger taxes subject to assessment. The air travel tax can thus not be considered to provide the maritime and rail sectors with a selective advantage.

| (29) | With respect to cargo operations, the Commission notes that some legislative systems cover both air passenger and cargo transport (8), while other systems are separate for the two types of transport (9). However, cargo traffic is a different business with a very different customer base. Also, from the view of the final consumer, the service provided by cargo operators is not substitutable to the one provided by operators in the passenger air transport market. Since cargo operators are not in the same factual situation as operators in the air passenger transport market, the fact that they are excluded from the scope of the reference system cannot be considered to provide them with a selective advantage. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

With respect to cargo operations, the Commission notes that some legislative systems cover both air passenger and cargo transport (8), while other systems are separate for the two types of transport (9). However, cargo traffic is a different business with a very different customer base. Also, from the view of the final consumer, the service provided by cargo operators is not substitutable to the one provided by operators in the passenger air transport market. Since cargo operators are not in the same factual situation as operators in the air passenger transport market, the fact that they are excluded from the scope of the reference system cannot be considered to provide them with a selective advantage.

| (30) | On the contrary, transfer and transit passengers are passengers departing from an Irish airport and thus would appear to be part of the reference system. The non-application of the taxes on such passengers constitutes a derogation from that system. In accordance with the selectivity analysis set out by the Court, it must however be determined whether the exemption derives directly from the basic or guiding principles of the tax system in the Member State. In this context, the Irish authorities referred to reasons of neutrality from the perspective of the passenger, who cannot always determine itself the route to its final destination. That would also be the reason why countries with similar taxes normally exclude such passengers. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

On the contrary, transfer and transit passengers are passengers departing from an Irish airport and thus would appear to be part of the reference system. The non-application of the taxes on such passengers constitutes a derogation from that system. In accordance with the selectivity analysis set out by the Court, it must however be determined whether the exemption derives directly from the basic or guiding principles of the tax system in the Member State. In this context, the Irish authorities referred to reasons of neutrality from the perspective of the passenger, who cannot always determine itself the route to its final destination. That would also be the reason why countries with similar taxes normally exclude such passengers.

| (31) | In this regard the Commission recalls that when it examined the possible establishment of a European flight tax in 2005, the Commission services provided some guidance about the feasibility of such taxes. In a 2005 staff working paper (10), the Commission pointed out the specific attention required by the issue of passengers in transit and of connecting flights. The Commission recommended the exclusion of transfer and transit passengers for tax neutrality reasons. Moreover, an exclusion of such passengers would avoid the risk of double taxation in the event that the airport of departure, situated in another Member State, levies a similar tax. The non-imposition of the tax on transfer and transit passengers allows different systems of air ticket taxes to coexist in the absence of tax harmonisation. |
| --- | --- |

(31)

In this regard the Commission recalls that when it examined the possible establishment of a European flight tax in 2005, the Commission services provided some guidance about the feasibility of such taxes. In a 2005 staff working paper (10), the Commission pointed out the specific attention required by the issue of passengers in transit and of connecting flights. The Commission recommended the exclusion of transfer and transit passengers for tax neutrality reasons. Moreover, an exclusion of such passengers would avoid the risk of double taxation in the event that the airport of departure, situated in another Member State, levies a similar tax. The non-imposition of the tax on transfer and transit passengers allows different systems of air ticket taxes to coexist in the absence of tax harmonisation.

| (32) | The objective and structure of the travel tax system is to tax passengers departing on a plane from an airport located in Ireland in order to raise revenue for the State budget. If the tax was to be levied on transfer and transit passengers, the airline operator may have to pay the tax twice for a journey with a stopover. It therefore seems that the non-application of the tax on transfer and transit passengers, which results in passengers being taxed the same way independently of the route travelled, falls within the nature and logic of the relevant tax systems. In addition, the avoidance of double taxation justifies that transfer and transit passengers are not covered by the tax. Consequently, the Commission finds that the non-imposition of the tax on transport of transfer and transit passengers is in the nature and logic of the system and is, thus, not selective. |
| --- | --- |

(32)

The objective and structure of the travel tax system is to tax passengers departing on a plane from an airport located in Ireland in order to raise revenue for the State budget. If the tax was to be levied on transfer and transit passengers, the airline operator may have to pay the tax twice for a journey with a stopover. It therefore seems that the non-application of the tax on transfer and transit passengers, which results in passengers being taxed the same way independently of the route travelled, falls within the nature and logic of the relevant tax systems. In addition, the avoidance of double taxation justifies that transfer and transit passengers are not covered by the tax. Consequently, the Commission finds that the non-imposition of the tax on transport of transfer and transit passengers is in the nature and logic of the system and is, thus, not selective.

| (33) | With respect to the use of fixed tax rates instead of a percentage of the ticket price, it should be noted that the Member States, as part of their exclusive competence in designing their tax systems, are entitled to choose between fixed and proportional rates. By nature, fixed amounts represent a higher part of lower total prices. However, the difference between higher and lower prices is left untouched. The Commission therefore thinks that traditional airlines do not have an advantage in comparison with low-cost carriers. Moreover, as mentioned by the Irish authorities, proportional taxes could encourage companies to reduce fares and at the same time increase transaction or ancillary costs in order to circumvent the tax. Therefore, the Commission does not consider the use of fixed tax rates per se to be selective. |
| --- | --- |

(33)

With respect to the use of fixed tax rates instead of a percentage of the ticket price, it should be noted that the Member States, as part of their exclusive competence in designing their tax systems, are entitled to choose between fixed and proportional rates. By nature, fixed amounts represent a higher part of lower total prices. However, the difference between higher and lower prices is left untouched. The Commission therefore thinks that traditional airlines do not have an advantage in comparison with low-cost carriers. Moreover, as mentioned by the Irish authorities, proportional taxes could encourage companies to reduce fares and at the same time increase transaction or ancillary costs in order to circumvent the tax. Therefore, the Commission does not consider the use of fixed tax rates per se to be selective.

| (34) | As regards the period between 30 March 2009 and 1 March 2011, the Commission observes that the air travel tax system provided for two different rates: one general or normal rate applicable to nearly all flights and a reduced rate for journeys from an airport to a destination located no more than 300 km from Dublin airport. The Commission finds the normal rate to constitute part of the reference system, while the reduced rate, that is applicable to a well delimited category of flights, appears to be an exception from the reference system. The reduced rate does not seem to be justified on the basis of the distance between the beginning and the final destination of the journey. First, it is not applicable on the basis of the actual length of the journey, but on the basis of the distance between Dublin airport and the destination. Second, the structure and objective nature of the tax does not appear to be related to the distance of the journey, but with the fact of departing from an Irish airport. The connection with the fiscal authority, the taxable event and the externalities for the Irish society of passengers departing from an Irish airport is precisely the same regardless of the destination of the flight. Airline operators are also in the same legal and factual situation with regard to this objective. Moreover, the tax system is not characterised by an articulated differentiation in the tax level in relation to the flights distance, but it fixes only two rates: one for very short distance flights from Dublin airport and the other for all other flights. This criterion favours flights within Ireland and to certain western parts of the United Kingdom and, consequently, it discriminates between national and intra-Community flights. As pointed out in the mentioned Staff working paper, that several rates could be introduced, but that no discrimination could be made between national and intra-Community flights (11). Such differentiation should be considered as selective if it is not within the nature or general scheme of the system. This has also been set out by the Court (12), which has stated that “since airport taxes directly and automatically influence the price of the journey, differences in the taxes to be paid by passengers will automatically be reflected in the transport cost, and thus, [...], access to domestic flights will be favoured over access to intra-Community flights”. In the case at hand, the Irish authorities argued that longer distance flights are more expensive and a higher charge could thus be raised without being disproportional in relation to the price. The Commission finds that the price of tickets to domestic destinations is not necessarily lower than the ones of flights to other EU destinations. The lower tax rate does therefore not appear to be justified by the nature or the general scheme of the air travel tax and is therefore a selective measure. |
| --- | --- |

(34)

As regards the period between 30 March 2009 and 1 March 2011, the Commission observes that the air travel tax system provided for two different rates: one general or normal rate applicable to nearly all flights and a reduced rate for journeys from an airport to a destination located no more than 300 km from Dublin airport. The Commission finds the normal rate to constitute part of the reference system, while the reduced rate, that is applicable to a well delimited category of flights, appears to be an exception from the reference system. The reduced rate does not seem to be justified on the basis of the distance between the beginning and the final destination of the journey. First, it is not applicable on the basis of the actual length of the journey, but on the basis of the distance between Dublin airport and the destination. Second, the structure and objective nature of the tax does not appear to be related to the distance of the journey, but with the fact of departing from an Irish airport. The connection with the fiscal authority, the taxable event and the externalities for the Irish society of passengers departing from an Irish airport is precisely the same regardless of the destination of the flight. Airline operators are also in the same legal and factual situation with regard to this objective. Moreover, the tax system is not characterised by an articulated differentiation in the tax level in relation to the flights distance, but it fixes only two rates: one for very short distance flights from Dublin airport and the other for all other flights. This criterion favours flights within Ireland and to certain western parts of the United Kingdom and, consequently, it discriminates between national and intra-Community flights. As pointed out in the mentioned Staff working paper, that several rates could be introduced, but that no discrimination could be made between national and intra-Community flights (11). Such differentiation should be considered as selective if it is not within the nature or general scheme of the system. This has also been set out by the Court (12), which has stated that “since airport taxes directly and automatically influence the price of the journey, differences in the taxes to be paid by passengers will automatically be reflected in the transport cost, and thus, [...], access to domestic flights will be favoured over access to intra-Community flights”. In the case at hand, the Irish authorities argued that longer distance flights are more expensive and a higher charge could thus be raised without being disproportional in relation to the price. The Commission finds that the price of tickets to domestic destinations is not necessarily lower than the ones of flights to other EU destinations. The lower tax rate does therefore not appear to be justified by the nature or the general scheme of the air travel tax and is therefore a selective measure.

| (35) | The fact that the Irish authorities allowed a lower tax rate than the normal one to be applied results in a loss of tax revenue for the State and is therefore financed from State resources. Since such relief is decided upon by the national authorities, it is imputable to the State. The airline operators benefiting from the lower rate are undertakings that compete on markets that are open for competition and the reduced rate therefore distorts or threatens to distort competition on the internal market and is likely to affect trade between Member States. |
| --- | --- |

(35)

The fact that the Irish authorities allowed a lower tax rate than the normal one to be applied results in a loss of tax revenue for the State and is therefore financed from State resources. Since such relief is decided upon by the national authorities, it is imputable to the State. The airline operators benefiting from the lower rate are undertakings that compete on markets that are open for competition and the reduced rate therefore distorts or threatens to distort competition on the internal market and is likely to affect trade between Member States.

| (36) | Since all criteria in Article 107(1) of the TFEU seem to be fulfilled, the measure appears to constitute State aid to airline operators that have operated the routes benefiting from the reduced rate. It seems moreover that those routes are essentially operated by Irish air carriers (Air Lingus, Air Arann and Ryanair). Therefore, the Commission has to verify whether the reduced rate has been a means for the Irish authorities to provide an advantage to national air carriers compared to other EU operators. |
| --- | --- |

(36)

Since all criteria in Article 107(1) of the TFEU seem to be fulfilled, the measure appears to constitute State aid to airline operators that have operated the routes benefiting from the reduced rate. It seems moreover that those routes are essentially operated by Irish air carriers (Air Lingus, Air Arann and Ryanair). Therefore, the Commission has to verify whether the reduced rate has been a means for the Irish authorities to provide an advantage to national air carriers compared to other EU operators.

| (37) | Consequently, the Commission does not consider that the exclusion of cargo traffic and of transport of transfer and transit passengers from the scope of the tax results in State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU. Neither is the use of fixed tax rates caught by that Article. |
| --- | --- |

(37)

Consequently, the Commission does not consider that the exclusion of cargo traffic and of transport of transfer and transit passengers from the scope of the tax results in State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU. Neither is the use of fixed tax rates caught by that Article.

| (38) | On the contrary, it appears that the lower tax rates applied in the case of a journey from an Irish airport to a destination located no more than 300 km from Dublin airport between 30 March 2009 and 1 March 2011 constitute State aid to air carriers operating the routes that have benefited from that lower rate. |
| --- | --- |

(38)

On the contrary, it appears that the lower tax rates applied in the case of a journey from an Irish airport to a destination located no more than 300 km from Dublin airport between 30 March 2009 and 1 March 2011 constitute State aid to air carriers operating the routes that have benefited from that lower rate.

3.2.   Compatibility of the aid with the TFEU

| (39) | According to Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU, aid may be considered to be compatible with the internal market if it aims at facilitating the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. The aid does not appear to fall within the scope of any guidelines for compatibility of State aid issued by the Commission in this context. As it appears to constitute an operating aid that discriminates between flights within the EU, it cannot be considered to be compatible directly under Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU. Therefore, the Commission has doubts as to the compatibility of the aid under that Article. |
| --- | --- |

(39)

According to Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU, aid may be considered to be compatible with the internal market if it aims at facilitating the development of certain economic activities or of certain economic areas, where such aid does not adversely affect trading conditions to an extent contrary to the common interest. The aid does not appear to fall within the scope of any guidelines for compatibility of State aid issued by the Commission in this context. As it appears to constitute an operating aid that discriminates between flights within the EU, it cannot be considered to be compatible directly under Article 107(3)(c) of the TFEU. Therefore, the Commission has doubts as to the compatibility of the aid under that Article.

| (40) | The aid in question does not either fall within any other exemption specified in Article 107(2) or 107(3) of the TFEU. |
| --- | --- |

(40)

The aid in question does not either fall within any other exemption specified in Article 107(2) or 107(3) of the TFEU.

| (41) | Consequently, the Commission has, at this stage, doubts as to the compatibility of the aid measure with the TFEU and in accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (13) the Commission has decided to open the formal investigation procedure, thereby inviting Ireland to submit its comments. |
| --- | --- |

(41)

Consequently, the Commission has, at this stage, doubts as to the compatibility of the aid measure with the TFEU and in accordance with Article 4(4) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (13) the Commission has decided to open the formal investigation procedure, thereby inviting Ireland to submit its comments.

4.   DECISION

| (42) | The Commission has decided that the non-application of the air travel tax on cargo flights and other means of transport than air transport, as well as on transfer and transit passengers does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU. The Commission find that the use of a fixed rate as opposed to a proportion of the ticket price does not fall within the scope of that Article. However, the Commission finds that the use of a lower rate over the period 30 March 2009 to 1 March 2011 for flights within 300 km from Dublin airport seems to constitute State aid to the air carriers that have operated the routes benefiting from it and, at this stage, it finds no basis for compatibility thereof. |
| --- | --- |

(42)

The Commission has decided that the non-application of the air travel tax on cargo flights and other means of transport than air transport, as well as on transfer and transit passengers does not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 107(1) of the TFEU. The Commission find that the use of a fixed rate as opposed to a proportion of the ticket price does not fall within the scope of that Article. However, the Commission finds that the use of a lower rate over the period 30 March 2009 to 1 March 2011 for flights within 300 km from Dublin airport seems to constitute State aid to the air carriers that have operated the routes benefiting from it and, at this stage, it finds no basis for compatibility thereof.

| (43) | In light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the TFEU, requests Ireland to submit its comments and to provide all information that may help to assess the measure, within one month of the date of receipt of this letter. It requests your authorities to forward a copy of this letter to all recipients of the aid immediately. |
| --- | --- |

(43)

In light of the foregoing considerations, the Commission, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) of the TFEU, requests Ireland to submit its comments and to provide all information that may help to assess the measure, within one month of the date of receipt of this letter. It requests your authorities to forward a copy of this letter to all recipients of the aid immediately.

| (44) | The Commission warns Ireland that it will inform interested parties by publishing this letter and a meaningful summary of it in the Official Journal of the European Union. It will also inform interested parties in the EFTA countries which are signatories to the EEA Agreement, by publication of a notice in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union and will inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority by sending a copy of this letter. All such interested parties will be invited to submit their comments within one month of the date of such publication.“ |
| --- | --- |

(44)

The Commission warns Ireland that it will inform interested parties by publishing this letter and a meaningful summary of it in the Official Journal of the European Union. It will also inform interested parties in the EFTA countries which are signatories to the EEA Agreement, by publication of a notice in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union and will inform the EFTA Surveillance Authority by sending a copy of this letter. All such interested parties will be invited to submit their comments within one month of the date of such publication.“

---

(1)  OJ L 293, 31.10.2008, p. 3.

1

(2)  See Case C-66/02 (Italy v Commission) [2005] ECR I-10901, paragraph 94.

2

Italy

Commission

(3)  See, for example, Cases C-143/99 (Adria-Wien Pipeline and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke) [2001] ECR I-8365, paragraph 41; C-308/01 (GIL Insurance and Others) [2004] ECR I-4777, paragraph 68; and C-172/03 (Heiser) [2005] ECR I-1627, paragraph 40; C-88/03 (Portugal) [2006] ECR I-7115, paragraph 54; C-172/03 (Wolfgang Heiser v Finanzamt Innsbruck) [2005] ECR I-1627, paragraph 40; and C-169/08 (Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri v Regione Sardegna) [2009] ECR I-10821, paragraph 61.

3

Adria-Wien Pipeline and Wietersdorfer & Peggauer Zementwerke

GIL Insurance and Others

Heiser

Portugal

Wolfgang Heiser

Finanzamt Innsbruck

Presidente del Consiglio dei Ministri

Regione Sardegna

(4)  See, for example, Case 173/73 (Italy v Commission) [1974] ECR 709, as well as point 13 et seq. of Commission Notice on the application of the State aid rules to measures relating to direct business taxation (OJ C 384, 10.12.1998, p. 3).

4

Italy

Commission

(5)  See, for example, the judgments in the mentioned Case C-88/2003 (Portugal), paragraph 56, and in Case C-487/08 P (British Aggregates) [2008] ECR I-10505, paragraphs 81-83.

5

Portugal

British Aggregates)

(6)  For example, Article 14(b) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ L 283, 31.10.2003, p. 51) sets out that Member States shall exempt energy products supplied for use as fuel for air navigation other than private pleasure-flying from taxation.

6

(7)  See Directive 2008/101/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to include aviation activities in the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community (OJ L 8, 13.1.2009, p. 3).

7

(8)  For example, as mentioned, the EU Emission Trading Scheme will as from 2012 apply to the entire aviation industry.

8

(9)  For example, while cargo transport is covered by VAT, this is not the case for passenger transport (see, for example, Article 371 (Annex X, Part B, point 10) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system for value added tax (OJ L 347, 11.12.2006, p. 1), and Article 2(1)(c) of the same Directive according to which VAT should be levied on cargo transport).

9

(10)  Commission staff working document, 1.9.2005, SEC(2005) 1067.

10

(11)  Commission staff working paper, 1.9.2005, SEC(2005) 1067, p. 5.

11

(12)  See, for example, Cases C-92/01 (Georgios Stylianakis v Elliniko Dimosio) [2003] ECR I-1291, paragraph 28; and C-70/99 Commission v Portugal [2001] ECR I-4845, paragraph 20.

12

Georgios Stylianakis

Elliniko Dimosio

Commission

Portugal

(13)  OJ L 83, 27.3.1999, p. 1.

13

---

| 18.10.2011 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 306/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 306/17

---

Predbežné oznámenie o koncentrácii

(Vec COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV)

Vec, ktorá môže byť posúdená v zjednodušenom konaní

(Text s významom pre EHP)

2011/C 306/10

| 1. | Komisii bolo 11. októbra 2011 podľa článku 4 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 139/2004 (1) doručené oznámenie o zamýšľanej koncentrácii, ktorou podniky Alstom Holdings (Francúzsko), patriace do francúzskej skupiny Alstom, a podniky Bouygues Immobilier SA („Bouygues Immobilier“, Francúzsko) a Exprimm SAS („Exprimm“, Francúzsko), dve dcérske spoločnosti patriace do francúzskej skupiny Bouygues, získavajú v zmysle článku 3 ods. 1 písm. b) nariadenia (ES) o fúziách prostredníctvom kúpy akcií v novozaloženej spoločnosti tvoriacej spoločný podnik spoločnú kontrolu nad podnikom Embix SAS („Embix“, Francúzsko). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Komisii bolo 11. októbra 2011 podľa článku 4 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 139/2004 (1) doručené oznámenie o zamýšľanej koncentrácii, ktorou podniky Alstom Holdings (Francúzsko), patriace do francúzskej skupiny Alstom, a podniky Bouygues Immobilier SA („Bouygues Immobilier“, Francúzsko) a Exprimm SAS („Exprimm“, Francúzsko), dve dcérske spoločnosti patriace do francúzskej skupiny Bouygues, získavajú v zmysle článku 3 ods. 1 písm. b) nariadenia (ES) o fúziách prostredníctvom kúpy akcií v novozaloženej spoločnosti tvoriacej spoločný podnik spoločnú kontrolu nad podnikom Embix SAS („Embix“, Francúzsko).

| 2. | Predmet činnosti dotknutých podnikov:






  — | Alstom Holdings: držba akcií v spoločnostiach skupiny Alstom, ktoré pôsobia v oblasti výroby dopravných zariadení a poskytovania služieb v sektore dopravy, ako aj v oblasti výroby a prenosu energie, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Predmet činnosti dotknutých podnikov:

—

Alstom Holdings: držba akcií v spoločnostiach skupiny Alstom, ktoré pôsobia v oblasti výroby dopravných zariadení a poskytovania služieb v sektore dopravy, ako aj v oblasti výroby a prenosu energie,

| — | Bouygues Immobilier: developerská činnosť so zameraním na obytné nehnuteľnosti, ekologické štvrte, obchodné parky, ako aj činnosti v oblasti urbanizmu, |
| --- | --- |

—

Bouygues Immobilier: developerská činnosť so zameraním na obytné nehnuteľnosti, ekologické štvrte, obchodné parky, ako aj činnosti v oblasti urbanizmu,

| — | Exprimm: poskytovanie služieb v oblasti správy infraštruktúry budov a technickej správy, |
| --- | --- |

—

Exprimm: poskytovanie služieb v oblasti správy infraštruktúry budov a technickej správy,

| — | Embix: poskytovanie služieb v oblasti inteligentnej správy energie pre veľké administratívne centrá a ekologické štvrte. |
| --- | --- |

—

Embix: poskytovanie služieb v oblasti inteligentnej správy energie pre veľké administratívne centrá a ekologické štvrte.

| 3. | Na základe predbežného posúdenia a bez toho, aby bolo dotknuté konečné rozhodnutie v tejto veci, sa Komisia domnieva, že oznámená transakcia by mohla spadať do rozsahu pôsobnosti nariadenia ES o fúziách. V súlade s oznámením Komisie týkajúcim sa zjednodušeného konania pre posudzovanie určitých druhov koncentrácií podľa nariadenia ES o fúziách (2) je potrebné uviesť, že túto vec je možné posudzovať v súlade s postupom stanoveným v oznámení. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Na základe predbežného posúdenia a bez toho, aby bolo dotknuté konečné rozhodnutie v tejto veci, sa Komisia domnieva, že oznámená transakcia by mohla spadať do rozsahu pôsobnosti nariadenia ES o fúziách. V súlade s oznámením Komisie týkajúcim sa zjednodušeného konania pre posudzovanie určitých druhov koncentrácií podľa nariadenia ES o fúziách (2) je potrebné uviesť, že túto vec je možné posudzovať v súlade s postupom stanoveným v oznámení.

| 4. | Komisia vyzýva zainteresované tretie strany, aby predložili prípadné pripomienky k zamýšľanej koncentrácii.
  Pripomienky musia byť Komisii doručené najneskôr do 10 dní od dátumu uverejnenia tohto oznámenia. Pripomienky je možné zaslať faxom (+32 22964301), e-mailom na adresu: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu alebo poštou s uvedením referenčného čísla COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV na túto adresu:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

4.

Komisia vyzýva zainteresované tretie strany, aby predložili prípadné pripomienky k zamýšľanej koncentrácii.

Pripomienky musia byť Komisii doručené najneskôr do 10 dní od dátumu uverejnenia tohto oznámenia. Pripomienky je možné zaslať faxom (+32 22964301), e-mailom na adresu: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu alebo poštou s uvedením referenčného čísla COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV na túto adresu:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 24, 29.1.2004, s. 1 („nariadenie ES o fúziách“).

(2)  Ú. v. EÚ C 56, 5.3.2005, s. 32 („Oznámenie o zjednodušenom postupe“).

---

INÉ AKTY

Európska komisia

| 18.10.2011 | SK | Úradný vestník Európskej únie | C 306/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SK

Úradný vestník Európskej únie

C 306/18

---

Uverejnenie žiadosti o zápis do registra podľa článku 6 ods. 2 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 510/2006 o ochrane zemepisných označení a označení pôvodu poľnohospodárskych výrobkov a potravín

2011/C 306/11

Týmto uverejnením sa poskytuje právo vzniesť námietky proti žiadosti o zápis podľa článku 7 nariadenia Rady (ES) č. 510/2006 (1). Vznesené námietky sa musia Komisii doručiť do šiestich mesiacov po uverejnení tejto žiadosti.

JEDNOTNÝ DOKUMENT

NARIADENIE RADY (ES) č. 510/2006

„VADEHAVSLAM“

ES č.: DK-PGI-0005-0771-25.03.2009

CHZO ( X ) CHOP ( )

1.   Názov:

„Vadehavslam“

2.   Členský štát alebo tretia krajina:

Dánsko

3.   Opis poľnohospodárskeho výrobku alebo potraviny:

3.1.   Druh výrobku:

| Trieda 1.1 | Čerstvé mäso (a droby) |
| --- | --- |

Trieda 1.1

Čerstvé mäso (a droby)

3.2.   Opis výrobku, na ktorý sa vzťahuje názov uvedený v bode 1:

Jahňacie mäso „Vadehavslam“ sú jatočné telá a časti jahniat narodených a chovaných vo vymedzenej zemepisnej oblasti.

Ide o ovce plemena Texel alebo o krížence tohto plemena s inými plemenami (iné plemená: niekedy, po prvom jahňati, sa bahnica plemena Texel pripúšťa baranom plemena Suffolk alebo Gotlandského plemena), ktoré sa tradične používali na slaných lúkach.

Cieľom dlhodobého kríženia je vytvoriť plemeno ovce, ktoré je nielen dobre prispôsobené svojmu biotopu, ale produkuje veľké, mäsité jahňatá. Táto skutočnosť spolu s trávou, ktorú jahňatá na slaných lúkach spásajú, odlišuje tieto jahňatá od jahniat chovaných v iných častiach krajiny.

Požiadavky na kvalitu jahniat:

| hmotnosť pri porážke | : | 19 – 25 kg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| tvar | : | min. 6 |
| farba | : | 3 – 4 |
| pretučnenosť | : | 1 – 2 – 3 |

hmotnosť pri porážke

:

19 – 25 kg

tvar

:

min. 6

farba

:

3 – 4

pretučnenosť

:

1 – 2 – 3

Vek pri porážke (vek, v ktorom sa jahňatá porážajú) závisí od hmotnosti jahňaťa, ktorá musí byť medzi 19 a 25 kg. Podnik, ktorý má na starosti bitúnok musí okrem toho vizuálne stanoviť obsah tuku. (Pôvodne sa v prípade jahniat používalo oznámenie podobné tomu, ktoré používalo Dánske kráľovstvo v prípade hovädzieho dobytka. V prípade jahniat sa už oznámenie nepoužíva, a preto musia podniky pri porážaní na bitúnku vizuálne stanoviť obsah tuku.)

3.3.   Suroviny:

—

3.4.   Krmivo (len pri výrobkoch živočíšneho pôvodu):

V zime sa musí aspoň 50 % krmiva pre zvieratá vyrobiť vo vymedzenej oblasti. V zimných mesiacoch sa jahňatá kŕmia trávou, kukuricou, silážou a v poslednej časti vykrmovacieho obdobia slamou, ktorú dopĺňa jačmeň.

Zvieratá sa musia pásť na slaných lúkach a pobrežnej oblasti vo vymedzenej zemepisnej oblasti najmenej 4 a pol mesiaca za rok.

3.5.   Konkrétne kroky pri výrobe, ktoré sa musia uskutočniť v označenej zemepisnej oblasti:

| — | Jahňatá sa musia narodiť a musia sa chovať vo vymedzenej zemepisnej oblasti. |
| --- | --- |

—

Jahňatá sa musia narodiť a musia sa chovať vo vymedzenej zemepisnej oblasti.

3.6.   Osobitné pravidlá pri krájaní, strúhaní, balení atď.:

—

3.7.   Osobitné pravidlá pri označovaní:

Všetky zabité zvieratá sa označujú pečiatkou s logom „Vadehav, Marsk og Mad“.

Logo musí byť označené na obale konečného produktu a musí byť odtlačené na zabitom zvierati, čím sa zabezpečí vysledovateľnosť.

| | |
| --- | --- |

Image

Image

4.   Stručné vymedzenie zemepisnej oblasti:

Zemepisnou oblasťou je región Waddenského mora (Waddensee) na juhozápade Dánska. Región Waddenského mora tvoria tri ostrovy – Romø, Mandø a Fanø – a pevnina, kde dánsky región Waddenského mora na juhu končí na hranici s Nemeckom. Severná hranica je totožná so severnou hranicou Národného parku Waddenské more. Oblasť na východe ohraničuje diaľnica A11.

5.   Spojenie so zemepisnou oblasťou:

5.1.   Špecifickosť zemepisnej oblasti:

Mesto Ribe bolo založené okolo roku 710 n. l. ako obchodné stredisko a archeologickými vykopávkami sa odhalilo, aký tovar sa tam predával. Medzi produktmi, ktoré sa v tých časoch nachádzali na trhu, bola baranina a jahňacina. Ovce a jahňatá pochádzali z dedín v blízkosti slaných lúk pozdĺž pobrežia Waddenského mora, čo znamená, že miestni poľnohospodári chovali ovce a jahňatá už v dobe železnej.

Výroba jahňacieho mäsa „Vadehavslam“ (waddenské jahňa) je založená na tejto starodávnej tradícii chovu oviec a jahniat na slaných lúkach. Oblasť každoročne postihovali povodne spôsobené búrkami, ktoré zaplavovali poľnohospodársku pôdu. More za sebou zanechalo úrodné naplaveniny, čím umožnilo vznik sviežich pastvín na slaniskách, kde sa zvieratá mohli v lete pásť a odkiaľ bolo možné zberať krmivo na zimu.

Lorens Hansen v článku Jordbundsundersøgelser i marsken (Pôdny prieskum na slaných lúkach) z časopisu pre pestovateľov rastlín Tidsskrift for planteavl z roku 1968 preskúmal vzorky pôdy odobratej výlučne zo slaných lúk. V článku tvrdí, že pôda slaných lúk je prirodzene bohatá na draslík, čo zodpovedá vysokému obsahu ílu a spôsobu, ako vznikli. V bežnej ornej pôde sa obsah sodíka určuje len zriedkavo, pretože je veľmi nízky a nemá nijaký vplyv na štruktúru pôdy. Pôda slaných lúk často obsahuje veľmi vysoké množstvo sodíka. Príčinou je morská soľ, ktorá sa v pôde usadila počas vzniku lúk.

Odolné druhy tráv, ktorým sa darí na slaných lúkach, sú bohaté a hoci nie sú príliš vhodné pre bežné poľnohospodárstvo, sú takmer ideálne ako pastva. Odolné druhy tráv, ktorým sa na slaných lúkach darí, sú bohaté na živiny a navyše dokážu znášať rôzne druhy počasia. Vlastne práve vďaka tomuto drsnému, slanému pôsobeniu Waddenského mora je pastva v tejto oblasti jedinečná. V pobrežnej oblasti sa nachádzajú najmä tieto druhy rastlín a tráv:

| — | jemná tráva, prirodzene rastúca drobná ďatelina plazivá, ľadenec rožkatý, štrkáč menší, iskerníky a trávničky dobre rastú ďalej pri hrádzach, |
| --- | --- |

—

jemná tráva, prirodzene rastúca drobná ďatelina plazivá, ľadenec rožkatý, štrkáč menší, iskerníky a trávničky dobre rastú ďalej pri hrádzach,

| — | statice, barička prímorská a niektoré druhy hrubej trávy v nižšie položených oblastiach, |
| --- | --- |

—

statice, barička prímorská a niektoré druhy hrubej trávy v nižšie položených oblastiach,

| — | steblovec prímorský a slanorožec rastú vo vzdialenejšej/nižšie položenej časti pobrežia. |
| --- | --- |

—

steblovec prímorský a slanorožec rastú vo vzdialenejšej/nižšie položenej časti pobrežia.

5.2.   Špecifickosť výrobku:

Jahňatá sa šľachtia tak, aby dokázali žiť v drsných podmienkach slaných lúk a pobrežnej oblasti. Krížením sa tiež dosiahlo, že jahňatá sú väčšie, mäsitejšie a ich mäso je menej mastné. Jahňacie mäso „Vadehavslam“ má charakteristickú slanú chuť.

5.3.   Príčinná súvislosť medzi zemepisnou oblasťou a špecifickou akosťou, povesťou alebo inou typickou vlastnosťou výrobku:

Drsné okolie a osobitné poľnohospodárske podmienky sú na poľnohospodárov, ktorí chovajú jahňatá v regióne Waddenského mora, veľmi náročné. Miestni chovatelia čerpajú zo svojich znalostí a skúseností, čím produkujú silné, húževnaté jahňatá v podmienkach, ktoré pri Waddenskom mori vytvorila príroda.

Jahňatá sú veľké a mäsité. Ich mäso má v dôsledku osobitných podmienok pre rast v danej oblasti charakteristickú slanú chuť. Pri zaplavení pôdy morskou vodou sa do nej ukladajú soli a minerály. Jahňatá sa pasú na slaných lúkach, ktorých trávy s vysokým obsahom draslíka a sodíka majú vplyv na chuť jahňacieho mäsa, čím jahňacie mäso „Vadehavslam“ získava svoju osobitnú akosť a charakteristickú slanú chuť.

Jahňacie mäso „Vadehavslam“ je už mnoho rokov v celom Dánsku všeobecne známe.

O výrobe jahňacieho mäsa „Vadehavslam“ sa v turistických príručkách pre región Waddenského mora a pre Národný park Waddenské more píše ako o významnej špecialite tejto oblasti.

Odkaz na uverejnenie špecifikácie:

http://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/SiteCollectionDocuments/25_PDF_word_filer%20til%20download/06kontor/Maerkning/Oprindelsesmaerkning_af_foedevarer/Varespecifikation%20for%20Vadehavslam.pdf

---

(1)  Ú. v. EÚ L 93, 31.3.2006, s. 12.

---