# Europos Sąjungos C 306/2011

| | ISSN 1977-0960
  doi:10.3000/19770960.C_2011.306.lit |
| --- | --- |
| Europos Sąjungos
  oficialusis leidinys | C 306 |
| | |
| Leidimas lietuvių kalba | Informacija ir prane_imai | 54 tomas2011m. spalio 18d. |

ISSN 1977-0960

doi:10.3000/19770960.C_2011.306.lit

Europos Sąjungos

oficialusis leidinys

C 306

Leidimas lietuvių kalba

Informacija ir prane_imai

54 tomas2011m. spalio 18d.

---

| Prane_imo Nr. | Turinys | Puslapis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Pranešimai |
| | EUROPOS SĄJUNGOS INSTITUCIJŲ, ĮSTAIGŲ IR ORGANŲ PRANEŠIMAI |
| | Europos Komisija |
| 2011/C 306/01 | Euro kursas | 1 |
| | VALSTYBIŲ NARIŲ PRANEŠIMAI |
| 2011/C 306/02 | Valstybių narių perduota informacija apie suteiktą valstybės pagalbą pagal Komisijos reglamentą (EB) Nr. 1857/2006 dėl Sutarties 87 ir 88 straipsnių taikymo valstybės pagalbai mažoms ir vidutinėms įmonėms, kurios verčiasi žemės ūkio produktų gamyba, iš dalies keičiantį Reglamentą (EB) Nr. 70/2001 | 2 |
| 2011/C 306/03 | Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą | 4 |
| 2011/C 306/04 | Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą | 5 |
| 2011/C 306/05 | Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą | 6 |
| 2011/C 306/06 | Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą | 7 |
| 2011/C 306/07 | Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą | 8 |
| 2011/C 306/08 | Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą | 9 |

Prane_imo Nr.

Turinys

Puslapis

IV   Pranešimai

EUROPOS SĄJUNGOS INSTITUCIJŲ, ĮSTAIGŲ IR ORGANŲ PRANEŠIMAI

Europos Komisija

2011/C 306/01

Euro kursas

1

VALSTYBIŲ NARIŲ PRANEŠIMAI

2011/C 306/02

Valstybių narių perduota informacija apie suteiktą valstybės pagalbą pagal Komisijos reglamentą (EB) Nr. 1857/2006 dėl Sutarties 87 ir 88 straipsnių taikymo valstybės pagalbai mažoms ir vidutinėms įmonėms, kurios verčiasi žemės ūkio produktų gamyba, iš dalies keičiantį Reglamentą (EB) Nr. 70/2001

2

2011/C 306/03

Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą

4

2011/C 306/04

Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą

5

2011/C 306/05

Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą

6

2011/C 306/06

Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą

7

2011/C 306/07

Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą

8

2011/C 306/08

Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą

9

| | V   Nuomonės |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDŪROS, SUSIJUSIOS SU KONKURENCIJOS POLITIKOS ĮGYVENDINIMU |
| | Europos Komisija |
| 2011/C 306/09 | Valstybės pagalba – Airija – Valstybės pagalba SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) – Oro transportas – atleidimas nuo orlaivio keleivio vežimo mokesčio – Kvietimas teikti pastabas pagal SESV 108 straipsnio 2 dalį (
  1
  ) | 10 |
| 2011/C 306/10 | Išankstinis pranešimas apie koncentraciją (Byla COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV) – Bylą numatoma nagrinėti supaprastinta tvarka (
  1
  ) | 17 |
| | KITI AKTAI |
| | Europos Komisija |
| 2011/C 306/11 | Paraiškos paskelbimas pagal Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 510/2006 dėl žemės ūkio produktų ir maisto produktų geografinių nuorodų ir kilmės vietos nuorodų apsaugos 6 straipsnio 2 dalį | 18 |

V   Nuomonės

PROCEDŪROS, SUSIJUSIOS SU KONKURENCIJOS POLITIKOS ĮGYVENDINIMU

Europos Komisija

2011/C 306/09

Valstybės pagalba – Airija – Valstybės pagalba SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) – Oro transportas – atleidimas nuo orlaivio keleivio vežimo mokesčio – Kvietimas teikti pastabas pagal SESV 108 straipsnio 2 dalį (
  1
  )

1

10

2011/C 306/10

Išankstinis pranešimas apie koncentraciją (Byla COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV) – Bylą numatoma nagrinėti supaprastinta tvarka (
  1
  )

1

17

KITI AKTAI

Europos Komisija

2011/C 306/11

Paraiškos paskelbimas pagal Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 510/2006 dėl žemės ūkio produktų ir maisto produktų geografinių nuorodų ir kilmės vietos nuorodų apsaugos 6 straipsnio 2 dalį

18

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Tekstas svarbus EEE |

---

(1)   Tekstas svarbus EEE

1

| LT | |
| --- | --- |

LT

---

IV Pranešimai

EUROPOS SĄJUNGOS INSTITUCIJŲ, ĮSTAIGŲ IR ORGANŲ PRANEŠIMAI

Europos Komisija

| 18.10.2011 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | C 306/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

C 306/1

---

Euro kursas (1)

2011 m. spalio 17 d.

2011/C 306/01

1 euro =

| | Valiuta | Valiutos kursas |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | JAV doleris | 1,3776 |
| JPY | Japonijos jena | 106,43 |
| DKK | Danijos krona | 7,4453 |
| GBP | Svaras sterlingas | 0,87400 |
| SEK | Švedijos krona | 9,1582 |
| CHF | Šveicarijos frankas | 1,2365 |
| ISK | Islandijos krona | |
| NOK | Norvegijos krona | 7,7320 |
| BGN | Bulgarijos levas | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Čekijos krona | 24,762 |
| HUF | Vengrijos forintas | 293,94 |
| LTL | Lietuvos litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvijos latas | 0,7049 |
| PLN | Lenkijos zlotas | 4,2927 |
| RON | Rumunijos lėja | 4,3320 |
| TRY | Turkijos lira | 2,5514 |
| AUD | Australijos doleris | 1,3406 |
| CAD | Kanados doleris | 1,3955 |
| HKD | Honkongo doleris | 10,7124 |
| NZD | Naujosios Zelandijos doleris | 1,7225 |
| SGD | Singapūro doleris | 1,7458 |
| KRW | Pietų Korėjos vonas | 1 577,85 |
| ZAR | Pietų Afrikos randas | 10,8856 |
| CNY | Kinijos ženminbi juanis | 8,7746 |
| HRK | Kroatijos kuna | 7,4685 |
| IDR | Indonezijos rupija | 12 147,13 |
| MYR | Malaizijos ringitas | 4,2707 |
| PHP | Filipinų pesas | 59,465 |
| RUB | Rusijos rublis | 42,4230 |
| THB | Tailando batas | 42,182 |
| BRL | Brazilijos realas | 2,4083 |
| MXN | Meksikos pesas | 18,2857 |
| INR | Indijos rupija | 67,4400 |

Valiuta

Valiutos kursas

USD

JAV doleris

1,3776

JPY

Japonijos jena

106,43

DKK

Danijos krona

7,4453

GBP

Svaras sterlingas

0,87400

SEK

Švedijos krona

9,1582

CHF

Šveicarijos frankas

1,2365

ISK

Islandijos krona

NOK

Norvegijos krona

7,7320

BGN

Bulgarijos levas

1,9558

CZK

Čekijos krona

24,762

HUF

Vengrijos forintas

293,94

LTL

Lietuvos litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvijos latas

0,7049

PLN

Lenkijos zlotas

4,2927

RON

Rumunijos lėja

4,3320

TRY

Turkijos lira

2,5514

AUD

Australijos doleris

1,3406

CAD

Kanados doleris

1,3955

HKD

Honkongo doleris

10,7124

NZD

Naujosios Zelandijos doleris

1,7225

SGD

Singapūro doleris

1,7458

KRW

Pietų Korėjos vonas

1 577,85

ZAR

Pietų Afrikos randas

10,8856

CNY

Kinijos ženminbi juanis

8,7746

HRK

Kroatijos kuna

7,4685

IDR

Indonezijos rupija

12 147,13

MYR

Malaizijos ringitas

4,2707

PHP

Filipinų pesas

59,465

RUB

Rusijos rublis

42,4230

THB

Tailando batas

42,182

BRL

Brazilijos realas

2,4083

MXN

Meksikos pesas

18,2857

INR

Indijos rupija

67,4400

---

(1)  Šaltinis: valiutų perskaičiavimo kursai paskelbti ECB.

---

VALSTYBIŲ NARIŲ PRANEŠIMAI

| 18.10.2011 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | C 306/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

C 306/2

---

Valstybių narių perduota informacija apie suteiktą valstybės pagalbą pagal Komisijos reglamentą (EB) Nr. 1857/2006 dėl Sutarties 87 ir 88 straipsnių taikymo valstybės pagalbai mažoms ir vidutinėms įmonėms, kurios verčiasi žemės ūkio produktų gamyba, iš dalies keičiantį Reglamentą (EB) Nr. 70/2001

2011/C 306/02

Pagalbos Nr.: SA.33657 (11/XA)

Valstybė narė: Prancūzija

Regionas: France

Pagalbos schemos arba įmonės, gaunančios individualią pagalbą, pavadinimas: Assistance technique aux exploitations agricoles de huit baies bretonnes pour leur évolution vers des systèmes de production à très basses fuites d'azote

Teisinis pagrindas:

| — | 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

Pagal pagalbos schemą numatomos metinės išlaidos arba bendra įmonei suteiktos individualios pagalbos suma: Pagal schemą planuojamo biudžeto bendra metinė suma: 3 mln. EUR

Didžiausias pagalbos intensyvumas: 100 %

Įgyvendinimo data: —

Pagalbos schemos arba individualios pagalbos trukmė: 2011 m. spalio 24 d.–2015 m. gruodžio 31 d.

Pagalbos tikslas: Techninė parama (Reglamento (EB) Nr. 1857/2006 15 str.)

Ekonomikos sektorius (-iai): Augalininkystė ir gyvulininkystė, medžioklė ir susijusių paslaugų veikla

Pagalbą teikiančios institucijos pavadinimas ir adresas: 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

Interneto svetainė:

| | 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

Kita informacija: —

Pagalbos Nr.: SA.33729 (11/XA)

Valstybė narė: Italija

Regionas: Emilia-Romagna

Pagalbos schemos arba įmonės, gaunančios individualią pagalbą, pavadinimas: Prevenzione e l'eradicazione di fitopatie ed infestazioni parassitarie. Programma di intervento contributivo riferito alle estirpazioni di piante di drupacee e di actinidia

Teisinis pagrindas: 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.

Pagal pagalbos schemą numatomos metinės išlaidos arba bendra įmonei suteiktos individualios pagalbos suma: Pagal schemą planuojamo biudžeto bendra metinė suma: 1 mln. EUR

Didžiausias pagalbos intensyvumas: 100 %

Įgyvendinimo data: —

Pagalbos schemos arba individualios pagalbos trukmė: 2011 m. lapkričio 4 d.–2013 m. gruodžio 31 d.

Pagalbos tikslas: Augalų ligos – užkrėtimas kenkėjais (Reglamento (EB) Nr. 1857/2006 10 str.)

Ekonomikos sektorius (-iai): Žemės ūkis, miškininkystė ir žuvininkystė

Pagalbą teikiančios institucijos pavadinimas ir adresas:

| 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

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

Kita informacija: —

Pagalbos Nr.: SA.33730 (11/XA)

Valstybė narė: Italija

Regionas: Basilicata

Pagalbos schemos arba įmonės, gaunančios individualią pagalbą, pavadinimas: Misure regionali di sostegno alle aziende frutticole colpite dalla Vaiolatura delle drupacee (Sharka), causata dall'agente Plum pox virus

Teisinis pagrindas: 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

Pagal pagalbos schemą numatomos metinės išlaidos arba bendra įmonei suteiktos individualios pagalbos suma: Pagal schemą planuojamo biudžeto bendra metinė suma: 0,30 mln. EUR

Didžiausias pagalbos intensyvumas: 39,20 %

Įgyvendinimo data: —

Pagalbos schemos arba individualios pagalbos trukmė: 2011 m. spalio 13 d.–2012 m. gruodžio 31 d.

Pagalbos tikslas: Augalų ligos – užkrėtimas kenkėjais (Reglamento (EB) Nr. 1857/2006 10 str.)

Ekonomikos sektorius (-iai): Sėklavaisių ir kaulavaisių auginimas

Pagalbą teikiančios institucijos pavadinimas ir adresas:

| 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

Interneto svetainė: http://www.regione.basilicata.it/giunta/files/docs/DOCUMENT_FILE_554194.pdf

Kita informacija: —

---

| 18.10.2011 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | C 306/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

C 306/4

---

Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą

2011/C 306/03

Pagal 2009 m. lapkričio 20 d. Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 1224/2009, nustatančio Bendrijos kontrolės sistemą, kuria užtikrinamas bendrosios žuvininkystės politikos taisyklių laikymasis (1), 35 straipsnio 3 dalį priimtas sprendimas uždrausti žvejybą, kaip nurodyta šioje lentelėje:

| Draudimo įsigaliojimo data ir laikas | 2011 9 5 |
| --- | --- |
| Trukmė | 2011 9 5–2011 12 31 |
| Valstybė narė | Portugalija |
| Ištekliai arba išteklių grupė | WHM/ATLANT |
| Rūšis | Atlantinis baltasis marlinas (Tetrapturus albidus) |
| Zona | Atlanto vandenynas |
| Žvejybos laivų tipas (-ai) | — |
| Nuorodos numeris | — |

Draudimo įsigaliojimo data ir laikas

2011 9 5

Trukmė

2011 9 5–2011 12 31

Valstybė narė

Portugalija

Ištekliai arba išteklių grupė

WHM/ATLANT

Rūšis

Atlantinis baltasis marlinas (Tetrapturus albidus)

Zona

Atlanto vandenynas

Žvejybos laivų tipas (-ai)

—

Nuorodos numeris

—

Interneto nuoroda į valstybės narės sprendimą:

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

---

(1)  OL L 343, 2009 12 22, p. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | C 306/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

C 306/5

---

Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą

2011/C 306/04

Pagal 2009 m. lapkričio 20 d. Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 1224/2009, nustatančio Bendrijos kontrolės sistemą, kuria užtikrinamas bendrosios žuvininkystės politikos taisyklių laikymasis (1), 35 straipsnio 3 dalį priimtas sprendimas uždrausti žvejybą, kaip nurodyta šioje lentelėje:

| Draudimo įsigaliojimo data ir laikas | 2011 9 5 |
| --- | --- |
| Trukmė | 2011 9 5–2011 12 31 |
| Valstybė narė | Portugalija |
| Ištekliai arba išteklių grupė | ALF/3X14- |
| Rūšis | Paprastieji beriksai (Beryx spp.) |
| Zona | III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII ir XIV zonų ES ir tarptautiniai vandenys |
| Žvejybos laivų tipas (-ai) | — |
| Nuorodos numeris | — |

Draudimo įsigaliojimo data ir laikas

2011 9 5

Trukmė

2011 9 5–2011 12 31

Valstybė narė

Portugalija

Ištekliai arba išteklių grupė

ALF/3X14-

Rūšis

Paprastieji beriksai (Beryx spp.)

Zona

III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII ir XIV zonų ES ir tarptautiniai vandenys

Žvejybos laivų tipas (-ai)

—

Nuorodos numeris

—

Interneto nuoroda į valstybės narės sprendimą:

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

---

(1)  OL L 343, 2009 12 22, p. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | C 306/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

C 306/6

---

Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą

2011/C 306/05

Pagal 2009 m. lapkričio 20 d. Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 1224/2009, nustatančio Bendrijos kontrolės sistemą, kuria užtikrinamas bendrosios žuvininkystės politikos taisyklių laikymasis (1), 35 straipsnio 3 dalį priimtas sprendimas uždrausti žvejybą, kaip nurodyta šioje lentelėje:

| Draudimo įsigaliojimo data ir laikas | 2011 6 25 |
| --- | --- |
| Trukmė | 2011 6 25–2011 12 31 |
| Valstybė narė | Ispanija |
| Ištekliai arba išteklių grupė | BSF/8910- |
| Rūšis | Didžiaakės siūlapelekės vėgėlės (Phycis blennoides) |
| Zona | VIII ir IX zonų ES ir tarptautiniai vandenys |
| Žvejybos laivų tipas (-ai) | — |
| Nuorodos numeris | 887271 |

Draudimo įsigaliojimo data ir laikas

2011 6 25

Trukmė

2011 6 25–2011 12 31

Valstybė narė

Ispanija

Ištekliai arba išteklių grupė

BSF/8910-

Rūšis

Didžiaakės siūlapelekės vėgėlės (Phycis blennoides)

Zona

VIII ir IX zonų ES ir tarptautiniai vandenys

Žvejybos laivų tipas (-ai)

—

Nuorodos numeris

887271

Interneto nuoroda į valstybės narės sprendimą:

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

---

(1)  OL L 343, 2009 12 22, p. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | C 306/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

C 306/7

---

Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą

2011/C 306/06

Pagal 2009 m. lapkričio 20 d. Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 1224/2009, nustatančio Bendrijos kontrolės sistemą, kuria užtikrinamas bendrosios žuvininkystės politikos taisyklių laikymasis (1), 35 straipsnio 3 dalį priimtas sprendimas uždrausti žvejybą, kaip nurodyta šioje lentelėje:

| Draudimo įsigaliojimo data ir laikas | 2011 7 12 |
| --- | --- |
| Trukmė | 2011 7 12–2011 12 31 |
| Valstybė narė | Ispanija |
| Ištekliai arba išteklių grupė | BSF/8910- |
| Rūšis | Juodoji kalavija (Aphanopus carbo) |
| Zona | VIII, IX ir X zonų ES ir tarptautiniai vandenys |
| Žvejybos laivų tipas (-ai) | — |
| Nuorodos numeris | 887293 |

Draudimo įsigaliojimo data ir laikas

2011 7 12

Trukmė

2011 7 12–2011 12 31

Valstybė narė

Ispanija

Ištekliai arba išteklių grupė

BSF/8910-

Rūšis

Juodoji kalavija (Aphanopus carbo)

Zona

VIII, IX ir X zonų ES ir tarptautiniai vandenys

Žvejybos laivų tipas (-ai)

—

Nuorodos numeris

887293

Interneto nuoroda į valstybės narės sprendimą:

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

---

(1)  OL L 343, 2009 12 22, p. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | C 306/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

C 306/8

---

Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą

2011/C 306/07

Pagal 2009 m. lapkričio 20 d. Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 1224/2009, nustatančio Bendrijos kontrolės sistemą, kuria užtikrinamas bendrosios žuvininkystės politikos taisyklių laikymasis (1), 35 straipsnio 3 dalį priimtas sprendimas uždrausti žvejybą, kaip nurodyta šioje lentelėje:

| Draudimo įsigaliojimo data ir laikas | 2011 8 13 |
| --- | --- |
| Trukmė | 2011 8 13–2011 12 31 |
| Valstybė narė | Belgija |
| Ištekliai arba išteklių grupė | WHG/08. |
| Rūšis | Paprastasis merlangas (Merlangius merlangus) |
| Zona | VIII zona |
| Žvejybos laivų tipas (-ai) | — |
| Nuorodos numeris | 870462 |

Draudimo įsigaliojimo data ir laikas

2011 8 13

Trukmė

2011 8 13–2011 12 31

Valstybė narė

Belgija

Ištekliai arba išteklių grupė

WHG/08.

Rūšis

Paprastasis merlangas (Merlangius merlangus)

Zona

VIII zona

Žvejybos laivų tipas (-ai)

—

Nuorodos numeris

870462

Interneto nuoroda į valstybės narės sprendimą:

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

---

(1)  OL L 343, 2009 12 22, p. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | C 306/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

C 306/9

---

Valstybių narių pateikta informacija apie žvejybos uždraudimą

2011/C 306/08

Pagal 2009 m. lapkričio 20 d. Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 1224/2009, nustatančio Bendrijos kontrolės sistemą, kuria užtikrinamas bendrosios žuvininkystės politikos taisyklių laikymasis (1), 35 straipsnio 3 dalį priimtas sprendimas uždrausti žvejybą, kaip nurodyta šioje lentelėje:

| Draudimo įsigaliojimo data ir laikas | 2011 8 13 |
| --- | --- |
| Trukmė | 2011 8 13–2011 12 31 |
| Valstybė narė | Belgija |
| Ištekliai arba išteklių grupė | LEZ/8ABDE. |
| Rūšis | Megrimai (Lepidorhombus spp.) |
| Zona | VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId ir VIIIe |
| Žvejybos laivų tipas (-ai) | — |
| Nuorodos numeris | 870462 |

Draudimo įsigaliojimo data ir laikas

2011 8 13

Trukmė

2011 8 13–2011 12 31

Valstybė narė

Belgija

Ištekliai arba išteklių grupė

LEZ/8ABDE.

Rūšis

Megrimai (Lepidorhombus spp.)

Zona

VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId ir VIIIe

Žvejybos laivų tipas (-ai)

—

Nuorodos numeris

870462

Interneto nuoroda į valstybės narės sprendimą:

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

---

(1)  OL L 343, 2009 12 22, p. 1.

---

V Nuomonės

PROCEDŪROS, SUSIJUSIOS SU KONKURENCIJOS POLITIKOS ĮGYVENDINIMU

Europos Komisija

| 18.10.2011 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | C 306/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

C 306/10

---

VALSTYBĖS PAGALBA – AIRIJA

Valstybės pagalba SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) – Oro transportas – atleidimas nuo orlaivio keleivio vežimo mokesčio

Kvietimas teikti pastabas pagal SESV 108 straipsnio 2 dalį

(Tekstas svarbus EEE)

2011/C 306/09

2011 m. liepos 13 d. raštu, pateiktu originalo kalba po šios santraukos, Komisija pranešė Airijai apie savo sprendimą pradėti SESV 108 straipsnio 2 dalyje nustatytą procedūrą dėl pirmiau minėtos priemonės.

Per vieną mėnesį nuo šios santraukos ir prie jos pridėto rašto paskelbimo dienos suinteresuotosios šalys gali pateikti pastabas apie priemonę, dėl kurios Komisija pradeda procedūrą, adresu:

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

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

State aid Greffe

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Faks. +32 22961242

Šios pastabos bus perduotos Airijai. Pastabas teikianti suinteresuotoji šalis gali pateikti pagrįstą raštišką prašymą neatskleisti jos tapatybės.

SANTRAUKOS TEKSTAS

Nuo 2009 m. kovo 30 d. Airijos valdžios institucijos įvedė keleivinio oro transporto akcizo mokestį, kuris turėjo būti taikomas „kiekvieno keleivio išvykimui orlaiviu iš oro uosto“. Mokestis turėjo būti perkeltas keleiviams, jį pridedant prie bilieto kainos, todėl už mokesčio surinkimą ir mokėjimą keleivių, išvykstančių jų orlaiviais, vardu buvo atsakingi oro linijų operatoriai. Šiuo atveju „keleivio“, kuriam taikomas mokestis, apibrėžtis neapima su persėdimu vykstančių ir tranzitu vykstančių keleivių. Mokesčio įvedimo metu jis buvo taikomas remiantis atstumu tarp oro uosto, kuriame pradėta kelionė, ir oro uosto, kuriame kelionė baigta, pagal tokį tarifą: i) 2 EUR, jei kelionės atstumas nuo Dublino oro uosto iki atvykimo oro uosto neviršija 300 km ir ii) 10 EUR visais kitais atvejais. Nuo 2011 m. kovo 1 d. po pažeidimo procedūros visiems atstumams taikomas bendras 3 EUR tarifas. Kadangi apmokestinamas keleivio išvykimas orlaiviu, krovininiams skrydžiams ir kitoms transporto rūšims mokestis netaikomas.

Remiantis Komisijos gautu skundu, mokesčio netaikymas su persėdimu vykstantiems ir tranzitu vykstantiems keleiviams bei krovininiams skrydžiams yra neteisėta ir nesuderinama valstybės pagalba, teikiama oro linijų operatoriams „Aer Lingus“ ir „Aer Arann“ ir oro uosto operatoriui „Dublin Airport Authority“ (toliau – DAA), kadangi šioms įmonėms tenka palyginti didelis tokių keleivių ir skrydžių skaičius. Be to, mokesčio netaikymas jūrų transporto ir geležinkelio transporto paslaugoms tariamai yra valstybės pagalba šių sektorių operatoriams. Skundo pateikėjas taip pat pažymėjo, kad fiksuota mokesčio suma, pridedama prie bilieto kainos, sudarė didesnę bilieto kainos dalį mažų kainų vežėjams nei tradicinėms oro linijoms. Galiausiai, skundo pateikėjas teigė, kad mažesni mokesčiai buvo naudingi „Aer Arann“, kadangi 50 % šių oro linijų paslaugomis besinaudojančių keleivių keliauja ne toliau nei 300 km nuo Dublino oro uosto.

Remiantis Airijos valdžios institucijų duomenimis, krovininiams skrydžiams ir kitoms transporto rūšims nei oro transportas netaikomas mokestis dėl palyginti paprastos mokesčio taikymo procedūros. Mokesčių politika nėra pritaikyta atskiriems verslo modeliams. Bet kokiam krovinių vežimo paslaugas teikiančiam operatoriui ar kitoms nei oro transportas transporto rūšims už tokių paslaugų teikimą mokestis netaikomas. Mokestis netaikomas vežimui su persėdimu ir tranzitiniam vežimui dėl neutralumo priežasčių, t. y. mokestį turėtų sumokėti keleiviai, tačiau jie neturėtų patirti papildomų išlaidų dėl sustojimo Airijoje. Be to, Airijos valdžios institucijos teigia, kad taip išvengiama galimo dvigubo apmokestinimo tais atvejais, kai panašus mokestis taikomas oro uoste, kuriame pradėta kelionė. Fiksuotas tarifas vietoje bilieto kainai proporcingo tarifo naudojamas dėl to, kad tai yra akcizo mokestis. Tai sudėtinga administraciniu požiūriu, be to, procentinės bilieto kainos dalies naudojimas sudarytų galimybes sukčiauti, nes oro linijos mažintų bilietų kainas, tačiau daugiau pajamų siektų gauti iš papildomų mokesčių. Tai, kad nuo 2011 m. kovo 1 d. trumpesniems maršrutams taikomas mažesnis mokestis, Airijos valdžios institucijos paaiškino tuo, kad šis sprendimas priimtas atsižvelgiant į tai, kad trumpesnių maršrutų skrydžių kainos paprastai yra mažesnės. Airijos valdžios institucijos taip pat abejoja, ar dėl mažesnio tarifo „Aer Arann“ būtų teikiamas pranašumas, nes ir skundo pateikėjas vykdo veiklą nemažoje maršrutų, kuriems taikomas mažesnis tarifas, dalyje. Taigi, Airijos valdžios institucijos nesutinka, kad mažesnis tarifas, taikomas trumpesniems atstumams, yra valstybės pagalba įmonėms „Aer Arann“ ir „Aer Lingus“.

Siekiant nustatyti, ar priemonės yra valstybės pagalba, svarbu tai, ar priemonės tenkina atrankumo kriterijų, t. y., ar priemonėmis teikiamas pranašumas tam tikroms įmonėms, kurių teisinė ir faktinė padėtis nagrinėjamų priemonių tikslo atžvilgiu yra panaši.

Kitoms transporto rūšims taikomos kitos teisinės, reguliavimo ir mokesčių sistemos nei oro transportui. Jų faktinė padėtis taip pat skiriasi nuo oro transporto operatorių. Taigi kitų transporto rūšių atleidimas nuo mokesčio nėra laikomas atrankiniu.

Kadangi krovinių vežimo paslaugas teikiantys operatoriai vykdo veiklą kitame verslo sektoriuje su kitokio tipo klientais, o krovinių ir keleivių vežimo paslaugos nėra tarpusavyje pakeičiamos, tokių operatorių faktinė padėtis nėra tokia pati, kaip keleivinio oro transporto operatorių. Taigi, krovinių vežimo atleidimas nuo mokesčio negali būti laikomas atrankiniu.

Mokesčio netaikymas su persėdimu vykstantiems ir tranzitu vykstantiems keleiviams yra pateisinamas mokesčių sistemos logika bei bendrąja jos schema, todėl negali būti laikomas atrankiniu. Siekiama taikyti mokestį remiantis atstumu tarp oro uosto, kuriame pradėta kelionė, ir tarp oro uosto, kuriame ji baigta. Mokesčio netaikymas su persėdimu vykstantiems arba tranzitu vykstantiems keleiviams yra logiškas, nes taip keleiviai vienodai apmokestinami nepriklausomai nuo maršruto (užuot apmokestinus ir pirmą, ir antrą kelionės etapus). Be to, su persėdimu vykstančių ir tranzitu vykstančių keleivių atleidimas nuo mokesčio pateisinamas tuo, kad taip išvengtume dvigubo apmokestinimo.

Dėl fiksuoto mokesčio tarifo taikymo, reikėtų pažymėti, kad valstybės narės turi teisę pasirinkti taikyti fiksuotą arba proporcingą tarifą. Akcizo mokesčio, tokio kaip nagrinėjamas mokestis, dydis paprastai yra konkretus už vienetą, skirtingai nuo apyvartos mokesčio, kurio dydis nustatomas proporcingai vertei. Apskritai fiksuoto mokesčio atveju mokesčio suma sudaro didesnę bendros kainos dalį, kai kaina yra mažesnė. Tačiau aukštesnių ir žemesnių kainų skirtumas išlieka nepakitęs. Todėl neatrodo, kad tradicinės oro linijos turėtų ekonominį pranašumą prieš žemų kainų vežėjus. Be to, mokestis, proporcingas bilieto kainai, galėtų paskatinti bendroves mažinti bilietų kainas ir padidinti sandorio arba papildomas išlaidas.

Atsižvelgdama į tai, kad nuo 2009 m. kovo 30 d. iki 2011 m. kovo 1 d. taikomi skirtingi mokesčių tarifai, Komisijos tarnybų darbiniame dokumente Komisija pažymi, kad negali būti diskriminuojama nacionalinių skrydžių ir skrydžių Bendrijos viduje atžvilgiu. Remiantis Komisijos sprendimų praktika, tokio pobūdžio diferenciacija, jei nėra logiškos priežasties, turėtų būti laikoma atrankine. Tai patvirtino ir Teismas. Airijos valdžios institucijų argumentas, kad ilgesnių maršrutų skrydžiai yra brangesni, todėl mokestis gali būti didinamas nedarant poveikio proporcingumui kainos atžvilgiu, nepagrįstas, nes skrydžių šalies viduje kaina nebūtinai (iš esmės) yra žemesnė nei skrydžių kitais ES maršrutais. Todėl Komisija mano, kad mažesnis mokesčio tarifas atitinkamoms įmonėms suteikia atrankinį pranašumą. Kadangi priemonė atitinka ir kitus SESV 107 straipsnio 1 dalyje nustatytus kriterijus, priemonė yra valstybės pagalba.

Taigi, krovinių vežimo ir kitų nei oro transportas transporto rūšių atleidimas nuo mokesčio ir mokesčio netaikymas tranzitu arba su persėdimu keliaujantiems keleiviams nėra valstybės pagalba pagal SESV 107 straipsnio 1 dalį. Fiksuoto mokesčio tarifo taikymas vietoje tam tikros procentinės bilieto kainos dalies taip pat nėra valstybės pagalba. Tačiau mažesnio tarifo šalies viduje taikymas nuo 2009 m. kovo 30 d. iki 2011 m. kovo 1 d. laikytinas valstybės pagalba ir Komisija abejoja, ar ši pagalba suderinama su vidaus rinka.

Pagal Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 659/1999 14 straipsnį bet kokia neteisėtai suteikta pagalba gali būti iš gavėjo susigrąžinta.

RAŠTO TEKSTAS

„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 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | C 306/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

C 306/17

---

Išankstinis pranešimas apie koncentraciją

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

Bylą numatoma nagrinėti supaprastinta tvarka

(Tekstas svarbus EEE)

2011/C 306/10

| 1. | 2011 m. spalio 11 d. pagal Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 139/2004 (1) 4 straipsnį Komisija gavo pranešimą apie siūlomą koncentraciją: įmonė „Alstom Holdings“ (Prancūzija), priklausanti prancūzų grupei „Alstom“, ir „Bouygues Immobilier SA“ (toliau – „Bouygues Immobilier“, Prancūzija) bei „Exprimm SAS“ (toliau – „Exprimm“, Prancūzija), dvi prancūzų grupės „Bouygues“ patronuojamosios įmonės, pirkdamos naujai įsteigtos bendros įmonės akcijas įgyja, kaip apibrėžta Susijungimų reglamento 3 straipsnio 1 dalies b punkte, bendrą įmonės „Embix SAS“ (toliau – „Embix“, Prancūzija) kontrolę. |
| --- | --- |

1.

2011 m. spalio 11 d. pagal Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 139/2004 (1) 4 straipsnį Komisija gavo pranešimą apie siūlomą koncentraciją: įmonė „Alstom Holdings“ (Prancūzija), priklausanti prancūzų grupei „Alstom“, ir „Bouygues Immobilier SA“ (toliau – „Bouygues Immobilier“, Prancūzija) bei „Exprimm SAS“ (toliau – „Exprimm“, Prancūzija), dvi prancūzų grupės „Bouygues“ patronuojamosios įmonės, pirkdamos naujai įsteigtos bendros įmonės akcijas įgyja, kaip apibrėžta Susijungimų reglamento 3 straipsnio 1 dalies b punkte, bendrą įmonės „Embix SAS“ (toliau – „Embix“, Prancūzija) kontrolę.

| 2. | Įmonių verslo veikla:






  — | „Alstom Holdings“: grupės „Alstom“ įmonių, gaminančių įrangą ir teikiančių su transportu ir su energijos gamyba bei perdavimu susijusias paslaugas, akcininkė, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Įmonių verslo veikla:

—

„Alstom Holdings“: grupės „Alstom“ įmonių, gaminančių įrangą ir teikiančių su transportu ir su energijos gamyba bei perdavimu susijusias paslaugas, akcininkė,

| — | „Bouygues Immobilier“: statybų plėtra, aprūpinimas būstu, ekologinių kvartalų ir verslo parkų statyba, miestų planavimas, |
| --- | --- |

—

„Bouygues Immobilier“: statybų plėtra, aprūpinimas būstu, ekologinių kvartalų ir verslo parkų statyba, miestų planavimas,

| — | „Exprimm“: pastatų infrastruktūros administravimo ir daugiatechnologinės priežiūros paslaugos, |
| --- | --- |

—

„Exprimm“: pastatų infrastruktūros administravimo ir daugiatechnologinės priežiūros paslaugos,

| — | „Embix“: pažangaus energijos valdymo paslaugos dideliems verslo parkams ir ekologiniams kvartalams. |
| --- | --- |

—

„Embix“: pažangaus energijos valdymo paslaugos dideliems verslo parkams ir ekologiniams kvartalams.

| 3. | Preliminariai išnagrinėjusi pranešimą Komisija mano, kad sandoriui, apie kurį pranešta, galėtų būti taikomas EB susijungimų reglamentas. Komisijai paliekama teisė priimti galutinį sprendimą šiuo klausimu. Remiantis Komisijos komunikatu dėl supaprastintos procedūros, taikomos tam tikroms koncentracijoms pagal EB susijungimų reglamentą (2), reikėtų pažymėti, kad šią bylą numatoma nagrinėti komunikate nurodyta tvarka. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Preliminariai išnagrinėjusi pranešimą Komisija mano, kad sandoriui, apie kurį pranešta, galėtų būti taikomas EB susijungimų reglamentas. Komisijai paliekama teisė priimti galutinį sprendimą šiuo klausimu. Remiantis Komisijos komunikatu dėl supaprastintos procedūros, taikomos tam tikroms koncentracijoms pagal EB susijungimų reglamentą (2), reikėtų pažymėti, kad šią bylą numatoma nagrinėti komunikate nurodyta tvarka.

| 4. | Komisija kviečia suinteresuotas trečiąsias šalis teikti savo pastabas dėl pasiūlyto veiksmo.
  Pastabos Komisijai turi būti pateiktos ne vėliau kaip per 10 dienų nuo šio pranešimo paskelbimo. Pastabas galima siųsti faksu (+32 22964301), e. paštu COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu arba paštu su nuoroda COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV adresu:





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

4.

Komisija kviečia suinteresuotas trečiąsias šalis teikti savo pastabas dėl pasiūlyto veiksmo.

Pastabos Komisijai turi būti pateiktos ne vėliau kaip per 10 dienų nuo šio pranešimo paskelbimo. Pastabas galima siųsti faksu (+32 22964301), e. paštu COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu arba paštu su nuoroda COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV adresu:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OL L 24, 2004 1 29, p. 1 (EB susijungimų reglamentas).

(2)  OL C 56, 2005 3 5, p. 32 (Komunikatas dėl supaprastintos procedūros).

---

KITI AKTAI

Europos Komisija

| 18.10.2011 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | C 306/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

C 306/18

---

Paraiškos paskelbimas pagal Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 510/2006 dėl žemės ūkio produktų ir maisto produktų geografinių nuorodų ir kilmės vietos nuorodų apsaugos 6 straipsnio 2 dalį

2011/C 306/11

Šiuo paskelbimu suteikiama teisė pareikšti prieštaravimą paraiškai pagal Tarybos reglamento (EB) Nr. 510/2006 (1) 7 straipsnį. Prieštaravimo pareiškimai Komisijai turi būti pateikti per šešis mėnesius nuo paraiškos paskelbimo.

BENDRASIS DOKUMENTAS

TARYBOS REGLAMENTAS (EB) Nr. 510/2006

„VADEHAVSLAM“

EB Nr.: DK-PGI-0005-0771-25.03.2009

SGN ( X ) SKVN ( )

1.   Pavadinimas:

„Vadehavslam“

2.   Valstybė narė arba trečioji šalis:

Danija

3.   Žemės ūkio produkto arba maisto produkto aprašymas:

3.1.   Produkto rūšis:

| Klasė 1.1. | Šviežia mėsa (ir subproduktai) |
| --- | --- |

Klasė 1.1.

Šviežia mėsa (ir subproduktai)

3.2.   Produkto, kuriam taikomas 1 punkte nurodytas pavadinimas, aprašymas:

„Vadehavslam“ – tai nurodytoje geografinėje teritorijoje išaugintų ėriukų skerdenos ir išpjovos.

Avys yra Texel veislės arba Texel ir kitų veislių (kitos veislės: kartais avies patelei vedant pirmą kartą, Texel veislė poruojama su Suffolk arba Gotland veislės patinais), tradiciškai auginamų pajūrio pievose, mišrūnai.

Daugelį metų augintojai siekė išvesti avis, kurios ne tik yra tinkamos minėtai buveinei, bet ir veda didelius, mėsingus ėriukus. Dėl minėtų aspektų ir dėl to, kad ėda pajūrio pievų žolę, šie ėriukai skiriasi nuo kituose šalies regionuose auginamų ėriukų.

Ėriukų kokybės reikalavimai:

| Masė skerdžiant | : | 19–25 kg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Forma | : | min 6 |
| Spalva | : | 3–4 |
| Riebumas | : | 1–2–3 |

Masė skerdžiant

:

19–25 kg

Forma

:

min 6

Spalva

:

3–4

Riebumas

:

1–2–3

Skerdimo laikas (ėriuko amžius skerdimo metu) priklauso nuo svorio – ėriuko masė turi būti 19–25 kg. Be to, už skerdimą atsakinga įmonė turi skerdykloje vizualiai nustatyti riebalų kiekį. (Anksčiau ėriukų atveju naudotas pranešimas, panašus į tą, kurį įmonė „Danish Crown“ naudoja galvijams. Minėtas pranešimas ėriukams nebenaudojamas, todėl už skerdimą atsakinga įmonė skerdykloje turi vizualiai nustatyti riebalų kiekį).

3.3.   Žaliavos:

—

3.4.   Pašarai (taikoma tik gyvūninės kilmės produktams):

Bent 50 % žieminio gyvūnų pašaro turi būti pagaminta nurodytoje vietovėje. Žiemos mėnesiais ėriukai šeriami žole, kukurūzais, silosu, o paskutinį šėrimo laikotarpį – šienu, papildytu miežiais.

Gyvūnai turi bent keturis su puse mėnesio per metus ganytis pajūrio pievose ir priekrantėje nurodytoje geografinėje teritorijoje.

3.5.   Specialūs gamybos veiksmai, atliktini nustatytoje geografinėje vietovėje:

| — | Ėriukai turi būti atsivesti ir užauginti nurodytoje geografinėje teritorijoje. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ėriukai turi būti atsivesti ir užauginti nurodytoje geografinėje teritorijoje.

3.6.   Specialios pjaustymo, trynimo, pakavimo ir kt. taisyklės:

—

3.7.   Specialios ženklinimo etiketėmis taisyklės:

Visos paskerstų gyvūnų skerdenos pažymimos „Vadehav, Marsk og Mad“ logotipu.

Siekiant užtikrinti atsekamumą, logotipu turi būti pažymėta ir galutinio produkto pakuotė, ir paskerstas gyvūnas.

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

Image

Image

4.   Glaustas geografinės vietovės apibūdinimas:

Geografinė teritorija – Vadehaveto regionas pietvakarių Danijoje. Vadehaveto regioną sudaro trys salos – Romė, Mandė bei Fanė ir žemyninė dalis, kur Vadahaveto regionas iš pietų pusės ribojasi su Vokietija. Šiaurėje teritorijos riba sutampa su Vadehaveto nacionalinio parko šiaurine riba. Rytinė teritorijos riba yra A11 greitkelis.

5.   Ryšys su geografine vietove:

5.1.   Geografinės vietovės ypatumai:

Ribės miestas įkurtas 710 m. kaip prekybos postas; atliekant archeologinius kasinėjimus toje vietoje rasta prekybos įvairiomis prekėmis įrodymų. Be kitų produktų, ankstyvuoju laikotarpiu prekiauta aviena ir ėriena. Avys ir ėriukai buvo tiekiami iš Vadehaveto pajūrio pievų kaimelių – tai reiškia, kad vietiniai ūkininkai avis ir ėriukus augino dar geležies amžiuje.

„Vadehavslam“ (Vadehaveto ėriena) gamyba yra pagrįsta giliomis avių ir ėriukų auginimo pajūrio pievose tradicijomis. Kasmet vietovę apsemdavo audros potvyniai, užtvindydavę ūkio žemę. Jūrai atsitraukus pievose likdavo derlingas dumblas, todėl gerai vešėjo pajūrio pievos, kuriose vasarą ganydavosi gyvuliai ir iš kurių buvo ruošiamas pašaras žiemai.

1968 m. leidinyje „Tidsskrift for planteavl“ (Augalininkystės žurnalas) paskelbtame straipsnyje „Jordbundsundersøgelser i marsken“ (Pajūrio pievų dirvožemio tyrimai) Lorencas Hansenas nagrinėjo pajūrio pievų dirvožemio mėginius. Straipsnyje teigiama, kad pajūrio pievų dirvožemyje gausu kalio, kuris siejamas su dideliu dirvožemio molingumu ir susiformavimo būdu. Įprastoje ariamoje žemėje retai tiriamas natrio kiekis, nes paprastai jis yra labai mažas ir dirvožemio struktūrai įtakos neturi. Tačiau pajūrio pievų dirvožemyje dažnai randama daug natrio, kurie ten patenka iš jūros druskos, nusėdusios formuojantis pievoms.

Pajūrio pievose auganti įvairių rūšių atspari žolė yra vešli ir nelabai tinkama tradicinei žemdirbystei, tačiau beveik idealiai tinkama gyvuliams ganyti. Pajūrio pievose auganti atspari žolė yra ne tik turtinga maistinėmis medžiagomis, bet ir atspari įvairioms oro sąlygoms. Iš tiesų, dėl augalų atsparumo ir druskos Vadehaveto ganyklos yra unikalios. Priekrantėje aptinkami tokie augalai ir žolės:

| — | Toliausiai prie pylimo auga plona žolė, savaime pasisėję baltieji dobilai, paprastieji garždeniai, mažieji barškučiai, vėdrynai ir gvaizdės. |
| --- | --- |

—

Toliausiai prie pylimo auga plona žolė, savaime pasisėję baltieji dobilai, paprastieji garždeniai, mažieji barškučiai, vėdrynai ir gvaizdės.

| — | Žemiau auga kermėkai, pajūrinės narytžolės ir žema šiurkšti žolė. |
| --- | --- |

—

Žemiau auga kermėkai, pajūrinės narytžolės ir žema šiurkšti žolė.

| — | Žemiausioje priekrantės vietoje auga žalvės ir europinės salikornijos. |
| --- | --- |

—

Žemiausioje priekrantės vietoje auga žalvės ir europinės salikornijos.

5.2.   Produkto ypatumai:

Ėriukai išveisti taip, kad galėtų gyventi atšiaurioje pajūrio pievų ir priekrantės aplinkoje. Avių augintojams taip pat pavyko išveisti didesnius, mėsingesnius ėriukus, kurių mėsoje mažiau riebalų. „Vadehavslam“ ėriena išsiskiria sūriu skoniu.

5.3.   Priežastinis geografinės vietovės ir kurios nors produkto savybės, gero vardo ar kitos ypatybės ryšys:

Dėl atšiaurios aplinkos ir ypatingų ūkininkavimo sąlygų Vadehaveto regiono ūkininkams auginti avis nėra lengva. Remdamiesi savo žiniomis ir patirtimi, vietos ūkininkai Vadehaveto pajūryje gamtos sukurtomis sąlygomis išaugina tvirtus, atsparius ėriukus.

Ėriukai yra stambūs ir mėsingi; jų mėsa pasižymi sūriu skoniu, kurį lemia ypatingos sąlygos. Jūros vandeniui užtvindžius žemę, į dirvožemį nusėda druska ir mineralai. Ėriukams ganantis pajūrio pievose didelis jose esantis kalio ir natrio kiekis paveikia ėrienos skonį ir lemia ypatingą „Vadehavslam“ kokybę bei šiai ėrienai būdingą sūrumą.

Jau daugelį metų „Vadehavslam“ yra visoje Danijoje gerai žinomas produktas.

„Vadehavslam“ gamyba aprašyta Vadehaveto regiono ir Vadehaveto nacionalinio parko turizmo brošiūrose kaip svarbi šios vietovės ypatybė.

Nuoroda į paskelbtą specifikaciją:

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

---

(1)  OL L 93, 2006 3 31, p. 12.

---