# Euroopa Liidu C 306/2011

| | ISSN 1977-0898
  doi:10.3000/19770898.C_2011.306.est |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopa Liidu
  Teataja | C 306 |
| | |
| Eestikeelne väljaanne | Teave ja teatised | 54. köide18. oktoober 2011 |

ISSN 1977-0898

doi:10.3000/19770898.C_2011.306.est

Euroopa Liidu

Teataja

C 306

Eestikeelne väljaanne

Teave ja teatised

54. köide18. oktoober 2011

---

| Teatis nr | Sisukord | Lehekülg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Teave |
| | TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT |
| | Euroopa Komisjon |
| 2011/C 306/01 | Euro vahetuskurss | 1 |
| | TEAVE LIIKMESRIIKIDELT |
| 2011/C 306/02 | Liikmesriikide edastatud kokkuvõtlik teave riigiabi kohta, mida antakse kooskõlas komisjoni määrusega (EÜ) nr 1857/2006, mis käsitleb asutamislepingu artiklite 87 ja 88 kohaldamist põllumajandustoodete tootmisega tegelevatele väikestele ja keskmise suurusega ettevõtetele antava riigiabi suhtes ning millega muudetakse määrust (EÜ) nr 70/2001 | 2 |
| 2011/C 306/03 | Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta | 4 |
| 2011/C 306/04 | Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta | 5 |
| 2011/C 306/05 | Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta | 6 |
| 2011/C 306/06 | Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta | 7 |
| 2011/C 306/07 | Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta | 8 |
| 2011/C 306/08 | Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta | 9 |

Teatis nr

Sisukord

Lehekülg

IV   Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa Komisjon

2011/C 306/01

Euro vahetuskurss

1

TEAVE LIIKMESRIIKIDELT

2011/C 306/02

Liikmesriikide edastatud kokkuvõtlik teave riigiabi kohta, mida antakse kooskõlas komisjoni määrusega (EÜ) nr 1857/2006, mis käsitleb asutamislepingu artiklite 87 ja 88 kohaldamist põllumajandustoodete tootmisega tegelevatele väikestele ja keskmise suurusega ettevõtetele antava riigiabi suhtes ning millega muudetakse määrust (EÜ) nr 70/2001

2

2011/C 306/03

Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta

4

2011/C 306/04

Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta

5

2011/C 306/05

Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta

6

2011/C 306/06

Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta

7

2011/C 306/07

Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta

8

2011/C 306/08

Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta

9

| | V   Teated |
| --- | --- |
| | KONKURENTSIPOLIITIKA RAKENDAMISEGA SEOTUD MENETLUSED |
| | Euroopa Komisjon |
| 2011/C 306/09 | Riigiabi – Iirimaa – Riigiabi SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) – Lennutransport – Erandid lennureisijatasust – Kutse märkuste esitamiseks ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 108 lõike 2 kohaselt (
  1
  ) | 10 |
| 2011/C 306/10 | Eelteatis koondumise kohta (Juhtum COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV) – Võimalik lihtsustatud korras menetlemine (
  1
  ) | 17 |
| | MUUD AKTID |
| | Euroopa Komisjon |
| 2011/C 306/11 | Nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 510/2006 (põllumajandustoodete ja toidu geograafiliste tähiste ja päritolunimetuste kaitse kohta) artikli 6 lõike 2 kohase taotluse avaldamine | 18 |

V   Teated

KONKURENTSIPOLIITIKA RAKENDAMISEGA SEOTUD MENETLUSED

Euroopa Komisjon

2011/C 306/09

Riigiabi – Iirimaa – Riigiabi SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) – Lennutransport – Erandid lennureisijatasust – Kutse märkuste esitamiseks ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 108 lõike 2 kohaselt (
  1
  )

1

10

2011/C 306/10

Eelteatis koondumise kohta (Juhtum COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV) – Võimalik lihtsustatud korras menetlemine (
  1
  )

1

17

MUUD AKTID

Euroopa Komisjon

2011/C 306/11

Nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 510/2006 (põllumajandustoodete ja toidu geograafiliste tähiste ja päritolunimetuste kaitse kohta) artikli 6 lõike 2 kohase taotluse avaldamine

18

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   EMPs kohaldatav tekst |

---

(1)   EMPs kohaldatav tekst

1

| ET | |
| --- | --- |

ET

---

IV Teave

TEAVE EUROOPA LIIDU INSTITUTSIOONIDELT, ORGANITELT JA ASUTUSTELT

Euroopa Komisjon

| 18.10.2011 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 306/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 306/1

---

Euro vahetuskurss (1)

17. oktoober 2011

2011/C 306/01

1 euro =

| | Valuuta | Kurss |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | USA dollar | 1,3776 |
| JPY | Jaapani jeen | 106,43 |
| DKK | Taani kroon | 7,4453 |
| GBP | Inglise nael | 0,87400 |
| SEK | Rootsi kroon | 9,1582 |
| CHF | Šveitsi frank | 1,2365 |
| ISK | Islandi kroon | |
| NOK | Norra kroon | 7,7320 |
| BGN | Bulgaaria lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Tšehhi kroon | 24,762 |
| HUF | Ungari forint | 293,94 |
| LTL | Leedu litt | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Läti latt | 0,7049 |
| PLN | Poola zlott | 4,2927 |
| RON | Rumeenia leu | 4,3320 |
| TRY | Türgi liir | 2,5514 |
| AUD | Austraalia dollar | 1,3406 |
| CAD | Kanada dollar | 1,3955 |
| HKD | Hongkongi dollar | 10,7124 |
| NZD | Uus-Meremaa dollar | 1,7225 |
| SGD | Singapuri dollar | 1,7458 |
| KRW | Korea won | 1 577,85 |
| ZAR | Lõuna-Aafrika rand | 10,8856 |
| CNY | Hiina jüaan | 8,7746 |
| HRK | Horvaatia kuna | 7,4685 |
| IDR | Indoneesia ruupia | 12 147,13 |
| MYR | Malaisia ringit | 4,2707 |
| PHP | Filipiini peeso | 59,465 |
| RUB | Vene rubla | 42,4230 |
| THB | Tai baht | 42,182 |
| BRL | Brasiilia reaal | 2,4083 |
| MXN | Mehhiko peeso | 18,2857 |
| INR | India ruupia | 67,4400 |

Valuuta

Kurss

USD

USA dollar

1,3776

JPY

Jaapani jeen

106,43

DKK

Taani kroon

7,4453

GBP

Inglise nael

0,87400

SEK

Rootsi kroon

9,1582

CHF

Šveitsi frank

1,2365

ISK

Islandi kroon

NOK

Norra kroon

7,7320

BGN

Bulgaaria lev

1,9558

CZK

Tšehhi kroon

24,762

HUF

Ungari forint

293,94

LTL

Leedu litt

3,4528

LVL

Läti latt

0,7049

PLN

Poola zlott

4,2927

RON

Rumeenia leu

4,3320

TRY

Türgi liir

2,5514

AUD

Austraalia dollar

1,3406

CAD

Kanada dollar

1,3955

HKD

Hongkongi dollar

10,7124

NZD

Uus-Meremaa dollar

1,7225

SGD

Singapuri dollar

1,7458

KRW

Korea won

1 577,85

ZAR

Lõuna-Aafrika rand

10,8856

CNY

Hiina jüaan

8,7746

HRK

Horvaatia kuna

7,4685

IDR

Indoneesia ruupia

12 147,13

MYR

Malaisia ringit

4,2707

PHP

Filipiini peeso

59,465

RUB

Vene rubla

42,4230

THB

Tai baht

42,182

BRL

Brasiilia reaal

2,4083

MXN

Mehhiko peeso

18,2857

INR

India ruupia

67,4400

---

(1)  Allikas: EKP avaldatud viitekurss.

---

TEAVE LIIKMESRIIKIDELT

| 18.10.2011 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 306/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 306/2

---

Liikmesriikide edastatud kokkuvõtlik teave riigiabi kohta, mida antakse kooskõlas komisjoni määrusega (EÜ) nr 1857/2006, mis käsitleb asutamislepingu artiklite 87 ja 88 kohaldamist põllumajandustoodete tootmisega tegelevatele väikestele ja keskmise suurusega ettevõtetele antava riigiabi suhtes ning millega muudetakse määrust (EÜ) nr 70/2001

2011/C 306/02

Abi nr: SA.33657 (11/XA)

Liikmesriik: Prantsusmaa

Piirkond: France

Abikava nimetus või üksiktoetust saava äriühingu nimi:

Assistance technique aux exploitations agricoles de huit baies bretonnes pour leur évolution vers des systèmes de production à très basse fuites d'azote

Õiguslik alus:

| — | 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

Abikavaga ettenähtud aastased kulud või ettevõtjale antava üksikabi üldsumma: Abikavaga ettenähtud eelarve aastane üldsumma: 3 EUR (miljonites)

Abi suurim osatähtsus: 100 %

Rakendamise kuupäev: —

Abikava või üksiktoetuse kestus: 24. oktoobrist 2011–31. detsembrini 2015

Abi eesmärk: Tehniline abi (määruse (EÜ) nr 1857/2006 artikkel 15)

Asjaomane sektor/asjaomased sektorid: Taime- ja loomakasvatus, jahindus ja neid teenindavad tegevusalad

Abi andva ametiasutuse nimi ja aadress: 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

Veebileht:

| | 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

Muu teave:

—

Abi nr: SA.33729 (11/XA)

Liikmesriik: Itaalia

Piirkond: Emilia-Romagna

Abikava nimetus või üksiktoetust saava äriühingu nimi:

Prevenzione e l'eradicazione di fitopatie ed infestazioni parassitarie. Programma di intervento contributivo riferito alle estirpazioni di piante di drupacee e di actinidia

Õiguslik alus: 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.

Abikavaga ettenähtud aastased kulud või ettevõtjale antava üksikabi üldsumma: Abikavaga ettenähtud eelarve aastane üldsumma: 1 EUR (miljonites)

Abi suurim osatähtsus: 100 %

Rakendamise kuupäev: —

Abikava või üksiktoetuse kestus: 4. novembrist 2011–31. detsembrini 2013

Abi eesmärk: Taimehaigused – kahjurite järsk levik (määruse (EÜ) nr 1857/2006 artikkel 10)

Asjaomane sektor/asjaomased sektorid: Põllumajandus, metsamajandus ja kalapüük

Abi andva ametiasutuse nimi ja aadress:

| 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

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

Muu teave: —

Abi nr: SA.33730 (11/XA)

Liikmesriik: Itaalia

Piirkond: Basilicata

Abikava nimetus või üksiktoetust saava äriühingu nimi:

Misure regionali di sostegno alle aziende frutticole colpite dalla Vaiolatura delle drupacee (Sharka), causata dall'agente Plum pox virus

Õiguslik alus: 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

Abikavaga ettenähtud aastased kulud või ettevõtjale antava üksikabi üldsumma: Abikavaga ettenähtud eelarve aastane üldsumma: 0,30 EUR (miljonites)

Abi suurim osatähtsus: 39,20 %

Rakendamise kuupäev: —

Abikava või üksiktoetuse kestus: 13. oktoobrist 2011–31. detsembrini 2012

Abi eesmärk: Taimehaigused – kahjurite järsk levik (määruse (EÜ) nr 1857/2006 artikkel 10)

Asjaomane sektor/asjaomased sektorid: Õunviljaliste ja luuviljaliste puuviljade kasvatus

Abi andva ametiasutuse nimi ja aadress:

| 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

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

Muu teave: —

---

| 18.10.2011 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 306/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 306/4

---

Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta

2011/C 306/03

Kooskõlas nõukogu 20. novembri 2009. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 1224/2009, millega luuakse ühenduse kontrollisüsteem ühise kalanduspoliitika eeskirjade järgimise tagamiseks, (1) artikli 35 lõikega 3 on vastu võetud otsus kehtestada püügikeeld vastavalt järgmisele tabelile:

| Püügikeelu kehtestamise kuupäev ja kellaaeg | 5.9.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Kestus | 5.9.2011–31.12.2011 |
| Liikmesriik | Portugal |
| Kalavaru või kalavarude rühm | WHM/ATLANT |
| Liik | Valge odanina (Tetrapturus albidus) |
| Piirkond | Atlandi ookean |
| Kalalaevade tüüp/tüübid | — |
| Viitenumber | — |

Püügikeelu kehtestamise kuupäev ja kellaaeg

5.9.2011

Kestus

5.9.2011–31.12.2011

Liikmesriik

Portugal

Kalavaru või kalavarude rühm

WHM/ATLANT

Liik

Valge odanina (Tetrapturus albidus)

Piirkond

Atlandi ookean

Kalalaevade tüüp/tüübid

—

Viitenumber

—

Veebilink asjaomase liikmesriigi otsuse juurde:

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

---

(1)  ELT L 343, 22.12.2009, lk 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 306/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 306/5

---

Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta

2011/C 306/04

Kooskõlas nõukogu 20. novembri 2009. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 1224/2009, millega luuakse ühenduse kontrollisüsteem ühise kalanduspoliitika eeskirjade järgimise tagamiseks, (1) artikli 35 lõikega 3 on vastu võetud otsus kehtestada püügikeeld vastavalt järgmisele tabelile:

| Püügikeelu kehtestamise kuupäev ja kellaaeg | 5.9.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Kestus | 5.9.2011–31.12.2011 |
| Liikmesriik | Portugal |
| Kalavaru või kalavarude rühm | ALF/3X14- |
| Liik | Limapead (Beryx spp.) |
| Piirkond | III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII ja XIV püügipiirkonna ELi ja rahvusvahelised veed |
| Kalalaevade tüüp/tüübid | — |
| Viitenumber | — |

Püügikeelu kehtestamise kuupäev ja kellaaeg

5.9.2011

Kestus

5.9.2011–31.12.2011

Liikmesriik

Portugal

Kalavaru või kalavarude rühm

ALF/3X14-

Liik

Limapead (Beryx spp.)

Piirkond

III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII ja XIV püügipiirkonna ELi ja rahvusvahelised veed

Kalalaevade tüüp/tüübid

—

Viitenumber

—

Veebilink asjaomase liikmesriigi otsuse juurde:

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

---

(1)  ELT L 343, 22.12.2009, lk 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 306/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 306/6

---

Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta

2011/C 306/05

Kooskõlas nõukogu 20. novembri 2009. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 1224/2009, millega luuakse ühenduse kontrollisüsteem ühise kalanduspoliitika eeskirjade järgimise tagamiseks, (1) artikli 35 lõikega 3 on vastu võetud otsus kehtestada püügikeeld vastavalt järgmisele tabelile:

| Püügikeelu kehtestamise kuupäev ja kellaaeg | 25.6.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Kestus | 25.6.2011–31.12.2011 |
| Liikmesriik | Hispaania |
| Kalavaru või kalavarude rühm | BSF/8910- |
| Liik | Lima-niituimluts (Phycis blennoides) |
| Piirkond | VIII ja IX püügipiirkonna ELi ja rahvusvahelised veed |
| Kalalaevade tüüp/tüübid | — |
| Viitenumber | 887271 |

Püügikeelu kehtestamise kuupäev ja kellaaeg

25.6.2011

Kestus

25.6.2011–31.12.2011

Liikmesriik

Hispaania

Kalavaru või kalavarude rühm

BSF/8910-

Liik

Lima-niituimluts (Phycis blennoides)

Piirkond

VIII ja IX püügipiirkonna ELi ja rahvusvahelised veed

Kalalaevade tüüp/tüübid

—

Viitenumber

887271

Veebilink asjaomase liikmesriigi otsuse juurde:

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

---

(1)  ELT L 343, 22.12.2009, lk 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 306/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 306/7

---

Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta

2011/C 306/06

Kooskõlas nõukogu 20. novembri 2009. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 1224/2009, millega luuakse ühenduse kontrollisüsteem ühise kalanduspoliitika eeskirjade järgimise tagamiseks, (1) artikli 35 lõikega 3 on vastu võetud otsus kehtestada püügikeeld vastavalt järgmisele tabelile:

| Püügikeelu kehtestamise kuupäev ja kellaaeg | 12.7.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Kestus | 12.7.2011–31.12.2011 |
| Liikmesriik | Hispaania |
| Kalavaru või kalavarude rühm | BSF/8910- |
| Liik | Süsisaba (Aphanopus carbo) |
| Piirkond | VIII, IX ja X püügipiirkonna ELi ja rahvusvahelised veed |
| Kalalaevade tüüp/tüübid | — |
| Viitenumber | 887293 |

Püügikeelu kehtestamise kuupäev ja kellaaeg

12.7.2011

Kestus

12.7.2011–31.12.2011

Liikmesriik

Hispaania

Kalavaru või kalavarude rühm

BSF/8910-

Liik

Süsisaba (Aphanopus carbo)

Piirkond

VIII, IX ja X püügipiirkonna ELi ja rahvusvahelised veed

Kalalaevade tüüp/tüübid

—

Viitenumber

887293

Veebilink asjaomase liikmesriigi otsuse juurde:

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

---

(1)  ELT L 343, 22.12.2009, lk 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 306/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 306/8

---

Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta

2011/C 306/07

Kooskõlas nõukogu 20. novembri 2009. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 1224/2009, millega luuakse ühenduse kontrollisüsteem ühise kalanduspoliitika eeskirjade järgimise tagamiseks, (1) artikli 35 lõikega 3 on vastu võetud otsus kehtestada püügikeeld vastavalt järgmisele tabelile:

| Püügikeelu kehtestamise kuupäev ja kellaaeg | 13.8.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Kestus | 13.8.2011–31.12.2011 |
| Liikmesriik | Belgia |
| Kalavaru või kalavarude rühm | WHG/08. |
| Liik | Merlang (Merlangius merlangus) |
| Piirkond | VIII |
| Kalalaevade tüüp/tüübid | — |
| Viitenumber | 870462 |

Püügikeelu kehtestamise kuupäev ja kellaaeg

13.8.2011

Kestus

13.8.2011–31.12.2011

Liikmesriik

Belgia

Kalavaru või kalavarude rühm

WHG/08.

Liik

Merlang (Merlangius merlangus)

Piirkond

VIII

Kalalaevade tüüp/tüübid

—

Viitenumber

870462

Veebilink asjaomase liikmesriigi otsuse juurde:

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

---

(1)  ELT L 343, 22.12.2009, lk 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 306/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 306/9

---

Liikmesriikide edastatud teave püügikeelu kehtestamise kohta

2011/C 306/08

Kooskõlas nõukogu 20. novembri 2009. aasta määruse (EÜ) nr 1224/2009, millega luuakse ühenduse kontrollisüsteem ühise kalanduspoliitika eeskirjade järgimise tagamiseks, (1) artikli 35 lõikega 3 on vastu võetud otsus kehtestada püügikeeld vastavalt järgmisele tabelile:

| Püügikeelu kehtestamise kuupäev ja kellaaeg | 13.8.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Kestus | 13.8.2011–31.12.2011 |
| Liikmesriik | Belgia |
| Kalavaru või kalavarude rühm | LEZ/8ABDE. |
| Liik | Megrimid (Lepidorhombus spp.) |
| Piirkond | VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId ja VIIIe |
| Kalalaevade tüüp/tüübid | — |
| Viitenumber | 870462 |

Püügikeelu kehtestamise kuupäev ja kellaaeg

13.8.2011

Kestus

13.8.2011–31.12.2011

Liikmesriik

Belgia

Kalavaru või kalavarude rühm

LEZ/8ABDE.

Liik

Megrimid (Lepidorhombus spp.)

Piirkond

VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId ja VIIIe

Kalalaevade tüüp/tüübid

—

Viitenumber

870462

Veebilink asjaomase liikmesriigi otsuse juurde:

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

---

(1)  ELT L 343, 22.12.2009, lk 1.

---

V Teated

KONKURENTSIPOLIITIKA RAKENDAMISEGA SEOTUD MENETLUSED

Euroopa Komisjon

| 18.10.2011 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 306/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 306/10

---

RIIGIABI – IIRIMAA

Riigiabi SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) – Lennutransport – Erandid lennureisijatasust

Kutse märkuste esitamiseks ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 108 lõike 2 kohaselt

(EMPs kohaldatav tekst)

2011/C 306/09

Käesoleva kokkuvõtte järel autentses keeles 13. juulil 2011 esitatud kirjas teatas komisjon Iirimaale oma otsusest algatada Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 108 lõikega 2 ette nähtud menetlus seoses eespool nimetatud meetmega.

Märkused meetme kohta, mille suhtes komisjon menetlust alustab, võivad huvitatud isikud esitada ühe kuu jooksul pärast käesoleva kokkuvõtte ja sellele järgneva kirja avaldamist järgmisel aadressil:

| 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

Märkused edastatakse Iirimaale. Märkusi esitavad huvitatud isikud võivad kirjalikult taotleda neid käsitlevate andmete konfidentsiaalsust, täpsustades taotluse põhjused.

KOKKUVÕTE

Alates 30. märtsist 2009 võtsid Iiri ametiasutused kasutusele lennureisijate transpordiaktsiisi, millega maksustati „iga reisija lahkumine lennujaamast lennuki pardal”. Kuigi tasu pidid maksma reisijad osana piletihinnast, olid lennuettevõtjad need, kes vastutasid oma lennukite reisijate pealt makstava tasu kogumise ja tasumise eest. Mõiste „reisija” definitsiooni kohaselt ei pea käesoleval juhul maksma tasu ümberistuvad ja transiitreisijad. Kasutusele võtmise ajal arvestati tasu reisi lähte- ja sihtlennujaama vahelise kauguse põhjal määraga i) 2 eurot, kui sihtlennujaam oli Dublini lennujaamast mitte enam kui 300 km kaugusel, ja ii) 10 eurot kõigil muudel juhtudel. Pärast rikkumismenetlust kohaldatakse alates 1. märtsist 2011 kõigi distantside suhtes ühtset määra 3 eurot. Kuna maksustatav on reisija lahkumine lennuki pardal, ei kohaldata tasu kaubalendude ja muude transpordiviiside suhtes.

Komisjonile esitatud kaebuse kohaselt kujutab tasu kohaldamata jätmine ümberistuvate ja transiitreisijate ning kaubalendude suhtes endast ebaseaduslikku ja siseturuga kokkusobimatut riigiabi lennuettevõtjatele Aer Lingus ja Aer Arann ning lennujaama käitajale Dublin Airport Authority (edaspidi „DAA”), kuna nimetatud ettevõtjad käitlesid võrdlemisi suurt hulka selliseid reisijaid ja lende. Lisaks kujutab tasu kohaldamata jätmine mere- ja raudteetranspordi suhtes endast väidetavat riigiabi nimetatud sektorites tegutsevatele ettevõtjatele. Kaebuses osutati ka asjaolule, et tasu kindel summa moodustas odavlennuettevõtjate piletihinnast suurema osa kui traditsiooniliste lennuettevõtjate puhul. Kaebuses väideti ka, et väiksema tasu suurusega soositi lennuettevõtjat Aer Arann, kuna 50 % nimetatud ettevõtja reisijatest reisivad sihtkohtadesse, mis asuvad kõige enam 300 km kaugusel Dublini lennujaamast.

Iiri ametiasutuste väitel ei kuulu kaubalennud ja muud transpordiviisid peale lennutranspordi tasu kohaldamisalasse tasu suhteliselt lihtsa kohaldatavuse tõttu. Maksupoliitika ei ole välja töötatud selleks, et kohanduda mingi konkreetse ärimudeliga. Iga ettevõtja, kes pakub kaubaveoteenust või muud transpordiviisi peale lennutranspordi, jääks väljapoole tasu kohaldamisala. Ümberistumisega ja transiitlennud jäeti tasu kohaldamisalast välja neutraalsuse kaalutlustel: reisijad on need, kes peavad tasuga seotud kulud tasuma, ja neid ei tohiks karistada seetõttu, et vahemaandumine leiab aset Iirimaal. Iiri ametiasutused viitavad ka sellele, et nimetatud korraldus takistab potentsiaalset kahekordset maksustamist juhtudel, kui samasugust tasu kohaldatakse reisi lähtelennujaamas. Kindlaksmääratud tasu suuruse kasutamine protsendi asemel piletihinnast tuleneb sellest, et tasu näol on tegu aktsiisiga. Peale halduskoormuse, mida tekitaks protsendi kasutamine piletihinnast, tekitaks see võimaluse tasu maksmisest kõrvale hoidmiseks, kuna lennuettevõtjad püüaksid siis vähendada hindu, tõstes samal ajal lisatasusid. Lühemate distantside suhtes kehtestatud väiksem tasu suurus (kohaldati 1. märtsini 2011) tugines Iiri ametiasutuste sõnul asjaolule, et lähemal asuvate sihtpunktide teenindamine on tavaliselt odavam. Samuti seati kahtluse alla, et väiksema tasu suurusega soositakse ettevõtjat Aer Arann, kuna ka kaebuse esitaja oli tegev olulisel osal liinidest, mille suhtes väiksemat tasu suurust kohaldati. Seepärast ei mõista Iiri ametiasutused, kuidas asjaolu, et lühemate liinide suhtes kohaldati väiksemat tasu suurust, võiks endast kujutada riigiabi ettevõtjatele Aer Arann ja Aer Lingus.

Selle kindlaks määramisel, kas väidetavad meetmed kujutavad endast riigiabi, on eelkõige vaja vastata küsimusele, kas täidetud on valikulisuse kriteeriumid, st kas meetmetega soositakse teatavaid ettevõtjaid, kes on kõnealuste meetmete eesmärkide valguses õiguslikult ja faktiliselt võrdses olukorras.

Muud transpordiviisid peale lennutranspordi kuuluvad lennutranspordist erinevatesse õigus-, regulatiiv- ja maksusüsteemidesse. Ka faktiliselt on need ettevõtjad lennuettevõtjatest erinevas olukorras. Seepärast ei ole muude transpordiviiside tasu kohaldamisalast välja jätmine valikuline.

Kuna kaubaveoteenuseid pakkuvad ettevõtjad tegutsevad erineval ettevõtlussuunal ja tegelevad erinevate klientidega ning kaubaveoteenused ja reisijateveoteenused ei ole omavahel asendatavad, siis ei ole nimetatud ettevõtjad samas faktilises olukorras kui reisijate veoga tegelevad ettevõtjad. Kaubaveo maksustamisest välja jätmist ei saa seega pidada valikuliseks.

Et ümberistuvate ja transiitreisijate suhtes tasu ei kohaldatud, tuleneb maksusüsteemi loogikast ja laadist ning seepärast ei ole see valikuline. Eesmärk on arvestada tasu reisi lähte- ja sihtpunkti vahelise kauguse põhjal. Tasu kohaldamata jätmine ümberistuvate ja transiitreisijate suhtes on loogiline, sest selle tulemusena maksustatakse reisijaid ühtmoodi sõltumata nende reisi pikkusest (selle asemel, et neid maksustataks nii reisi esimese kui ka teise etapi eest). Lisaks õigustab kahekordse maksustamise vältimine ümberistuvate ja transiitreisijate maksustamata jätmise.

Seoses kindlaksmääratud tasu suuruste kasutamisega protsendi asemel tuleks märkida, et liikmesriikidel on õigus valida kindlaksmääratud ja protsentuaalsete tasu suuruste vahel. Aktsiis, nagu käesolev tasu, on tavaliselt kehtestatud ühiku suhtes ja ei ole erinevalt näiteks müügimaksudest kehtestatud väärtuse protsendi suhtes. Laadist lähtuvalt moodustavad kindalaksmääratud summad suurema osa väiksemast kogumaksumusest. Siiski jääb puutumata erinevus kõrgemate ja madalamate hindade vahel. Seepärast ei tundu, et traditsioonilised lennuettevõtjad saaksid sellest suuremat kasu kui odavlennuettevõtjad. Lisaks võib piletihinna suhtes proportsionaalne tasu julgustada ettevõtjaid vähendama piletihindu ja suurendama samas tehingu- või lisatasusid.

Seoses erinevate tasu suurustega, mida kohaldati ajavahemikus 30. märtsist 2009 kuni 1. märtsini 2011, osutas komisjon oma töödokumendis, et riiklike ja ühendusesiseste lendude vahel ei tohi esineda diskrimineerimist. Komisjoni otsustamistavast lähtudes võiks sellist eristust pidada valikuliseks, kui sellel puudub loogiline põhjendus. Seda on sõnaselgelt sätestanud ka kohus. Iiri ametiasutuste väide, et kaugemale suunduvad lennud on kallimad ja nende eest võib küsida kõrgemat tasu, ilma et see muutuks ebaproportsionaalseks hinna suhtes, on vale, sest riigisiseste lendude hind ei ole tingimata (põhimõtteliselt) madalam kui muudesse ELi sihtkohtadesse toimuvate lendude hind. Seepärast tundub, et väiksem tasu suurus annab valikulise eelise võrdlussüsteemi kuuluvatele ettevõtjatele. Kuna kõik muud Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 kriteeriumid on täidetud, kujutab meede endast riigiabi.

Järeldusena ei kujuta endast ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 107 lõike 1 tähenduses riigiabi see, et tasu kohaldamisalast jäeti välja kaubaveod ja muud transpordiviisid peale lennutranspordi, samuti ümberistuvad ja transiitreisijad. Kindlaksmääratud tasu suuruste kasutamine protsendi asemel piletihinnast ei ole samuti riigiabi. Siiski paistab, et väiksema tasu suuruse kohaldamine riigisiseste lendude suhtes ajavahemikus 30. märtsist 2009 kuni 1. märtsini 2011 kujutab endast riigiabi, mille kokkusobivus siseturuga on kaheldav.

Vastavalt nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 659/1999 artiklile 14 võib ebaseaduslikult antud abi selle saajalt tagasi nõuda.

KIRJA TEKST

„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 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 306/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 306/17

---

Eelteatis koondumise kohta

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

Võimalik lihtsustatud korras menetlemine

(EMPs kohaldatav tekst)

2011/C 306/10

| 1. | 11. oktoobril 2011 sai komisjon nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 139/2004 (1) artiklile 4 vastava teatise kavandatava koondumise kohta, mille raames Prantsusmaa ettevõtja Alstom Holdings, mis kuulub Prantsusmaa kontserni Alstom, ning Prantsusmaa ettevõtjad Bouygues Immobilier SA („Bouygues Immobilier”) ja Exprimm SAS („Exprimm”), mis kuuluvad Prantsusmaa kontserni Bouygues, omandavad aktsiate või osade ostu teel ühiskontrolli ühinemismääruse artikli 3 lõike 1 punkti b tähenduses ühisettevõtjana käsitatava uue Prantsusmaa ettevõtja Embix SAS („Embix”) üle. |
| --- | --- |

1.

11. oktoobril 2011 sai komisjon nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 139/2004 (1) artiklile 4 vastava teatise kavandatava koondumise kohta, mille raames Prantsusmaa ettevõtja Alstom Holdings, mis kuulub Prantsusmaa kontserni Alstom, ning Prantsusmaa ettevõtjad Bouygues Immobilier SA („Bouygues Immobilier”) ja Exprimm SAS („Exprimm”), mis kuuluvad Prantsusmaa kontserni Bouygues, omandavad aktsiate või osade ostu teel ühiskontrolli ühinemismääruse artikli 3 lõike 1 punkti b tähenduses ühisettevõtjana käsitatava uue Prantsusmaa ettevõtja Embix SAS („Embix”) üle.

| 2. | Asjaomaste ettevõtjate majandustegevus hõlmab järgmist:






  — | Alstom Holdings: osaluste valdamine kontserni Alstom kuuluvates ettevõtjates, kes toodavad transpordi ning energia tootmise ja edastamisega seotud varustust ja osutavad teenuseid nimetatud valdkondades; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Asjaomaste ettevõtjate majandustegevus hõlmab järgmist:

—

Alstom Holdings: osaluste valdamine kontserni Alstom kuuluvates ettevõtjates, kes toodavad transpordi ning energia tootmise ja edastamisega seotud varustust ja osutavad teenuseid nimetatud valdkondades;

| — | Bouygues Immobilier: kinnisvaraarendus, elamute, ökolinnaosade ja ettevõtlusparkide rajamine ning linnaplaneerimine; |
| --- | --- |

—

Bouygues Immobilier: kinnisvaraarendus, elamute, ökolinnaosade ja ettevõtlusparkide rajamine ning linnaplaneerimine;

| — | Exprimm: kinnisvarainfrastruktuuride haldamise teenuste ja mitmesuguste tehniliste hooldusteenuste osutamine; |
| --- | --- |

—

Exprimm: kinnisvarainfrastruktuuride haldamise teenuste ja mitmesuguste tehniliste hooldusteenuste osutamine;

| — | Embix: aruka energiakasutuse teenuste osatamine suurtele teenindusparkidele ja ökolinnaosadele. |
| --- | --- |

—

Embix: aruka energiakasutuse teenuste osatamine suurtele teenindusparkidele ja ökolinnaosadele.

| 3. | Komisjon leiab pärast teatise esialgset läbivaatamist, et tehing, millest teatatakse, võib kuuluda EÜ ühinemismääruse reguleerimisalasse, kuid lõplikku otsust selle kohta ei ole veel tehtud. Vastavalt komisjoni teatisele lihtsustatud korra kohta teatavate ettevõtjate koondumiste käsitlemiseks kooskõlas EÜ ühinemismäärusega (2) tuleks märkida, et käesolevat juhtumit on võimalik käsitleda teatises ettenähtud korra kohaselt. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Komisjon leiab pärast teatise esialgset läbivaatamist, et tehing, millest teatatakse, võib kuuluda EÜ ühinemismääruse reguleerimisalasse, kuid lõplikku otsust selle kohta ei ole veel tehtud. Vastavalt komisjoni teatisele lihtsustatud korra kohta teatavate ettevõtjate koondumiste käsitlemiseks kooskõlas EÜ ühinemismäärusega (2) tuleks märkida, et käesolevat juhtumit on võimalik käsitleda teatises ettenähtud korra kohaselt.

| 4. | Komisjon kutsub asjast huvitatud kolmandaid isikuid esitama komisjonile oma võimalikke märkusi kavandatava toimingu kohta.
  Komisjon peab märkused kätte saama hiljemalt kümne päeva jooksul pärast käesoleva dokumendi avaldamist. Märkusi võib saata komisjonile faksi (+32 22964301), elektronposti (COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu) või postiga järgmisel aadressil (lisada viitenumber COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV):





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

4.

Komisjon kutsub asjast huvitatud kolmandaid isikuid esitama komisjonile oma võimalikke märkusi kavandatava toimingu kohta.

Komisjon peab märkused kätte saama hiljemalt kümne päeva jooksul pärast käesoleva dokumendi avaldamist. Märkusi võib saata komisjonile faksi (+32 22964301), elektronposti (COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu) või postiga järgmisel aadressil (lisada viitenumber COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV):

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  ELT L 24, 29.1.2004, lk 1 („EÜ ühinemismäärus”).

(2)  ELT C 56, 5.3.2005, lk 32 („lihtsustatud korda käsitlev teatis”).

---

MUUD AKTID

Euroopa Komisjon

| 18.10.2011 | ET | Euroopa Liidu Teataja | C 306/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

ET

Euroopa Liidu Teataja

C 306/18

---

Nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 510/2006 (põllumajandustoodete ja toidu geograafiliste tähiste ja päritolunimetuste kaitse kohta) artikli 6 lõike 2 kohase taotluse avaldamine

2011/C 306/11

Käesoleva dokumendi avaldamine annab õiguse esitada vastuväiteid vastavalt nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 510/2006 (1) artiklile 7. Komisjon peab vastuväited kätte saama kuue kuu jooksul alates käesoleva dokumendi avaldamise kuupäevast.

KOONDDOKUMENT

NÕUKOGU MÄÄRUS (EÜ) nr 510/2006

„VADEHAVSLAM”

EÜ nr: DK-PGI-0005-0771-25.03.2009

KGT ( X ) KPN ( )

1.   Nimetus:

„Vadehavslam”

2.   Liikmesriik või kolmas riik:

Taani

3.   Põllumajandustoote või toidu kirjeldus:

3.1.   Toote liik:

| Klass 1.1. | Värske liha ja rups |
| --- | --- |

Klass 1.1.

Värske liha ja rups

3.2.   Toote kirjeldus, mida punktis 1 esitatud nimetus tähistab:

Nimetusega „Vadehavslam” (Wattenmeeri lambatall) tähistatakse määratletud geograafilises piirkonnas sündinud ja kasvanud lambatallede rümpasid ja jaotustükke.

Lambad on Tekseli tõugu või Tekseli ja muude sooldunud niitudel traditsionaalselt kasvatatud tõugude ristandid (mõnikord, kui utel sünnib esimene tall, paaritatakse Tekseli tõugu loom Suffolki või Gotlandi tõugu jääraga).

Tõuaretuse eesmärk on olnud aretada välja lammas, kes sobib oma kasvukeskkonda ning toob suuri, lihakaid järglasi. Koos rohuga, mida lambad sooldunud niitudel söövad, eristab see neid lambaid Taani muudes piirkondades kasvatatavatest lammastest.

Lambatalle suhtes kehtivad kvaliteedinõuded:

| tapakaal | : | 19–25 kg, |
| --- | --- | --- |
| kuju | : | vähemalt 6, |
| värvus | : | 3–4, |
| rasvasus | : | 1–2–3. |

tapakaal

:

19–25 kg,

kuju

:

vähemalt 6,

värvus

:

3–4,

rasvasus

:

1–2–3.

Tapaaeg (lamba vanus tapmise ajal) sõltub kaalust, mis peab olema 19–25 kg. Lisaks tuleb tapamajas visuaalselt määrata rasvasisaldus. (Varem kasutati lammaste puhul samasugust klassifitseerimissüsteemi, nagu toiduettevõte Danish Crown kasutab veiste puhul. Lammaste puhul seda klassifitseerimissüsteemi enam ei kasutata, mistõttu tuleb rasvasisaldus tapamajas visuaalselt määrata.)

3.3.   Tooraine:

—

3.4.   Sööt (üksnes loomse päritoluga toodete puhul):

Vähemalt 50 % talvisest söödast peab olema toodetud määratletud piirkonnas. Talvekuudel söövad lambad rohtu, maisi, silo ja söödaperioodi lõpupoole heina, millele on lisatud otra.

Loomi tuleb karjatada määratletud geograafilise piirkonna sooldunud niitudel ja rannikualadel vähemalt 4 ja pool kuud aastas.

3.5.   Tootmise erietapid, mis peavad toimuma määratletud geograafilises piirkonnas:

| — | Lambad peavad olema sündinud ja kasvanud määratletud geograafilises piirkonnas. |
| --- | --- |

—

Lambad peavad olema sündinud ja kasvanud määratletud geograafilises piirkonnas.

3.6.   Erieeskirjad viilutamise, riivimise, pakendamise jm kohta:

—

3.7.   Erieeskirjad märgistamise kohta:

Kõigile rümpadele vajutatakse logo „Vadehav, Marsk og Mad”.

Logo peab olema lõpptoote pakendil ja rümbal, et oleks võimalik kindlaks teha selle päritolu.

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

Image

Image

4.   Geograafilise piirkonna täpne määratlus:

Kõnealune geograafiline piirkond on Wattenmeeri piirkond Edela-Taanis. Piirkond hõlmab kolme saart: Romø, Mandø ja Fanø. Taani Wattenmeeri piirkonna maismaaosa lõunapiiriks on Saksamaa piir. Põhjapiir kulgeb mööda Wattenmeeri rahvuspargi piiri. Idapiiriks on A11 kiirtee.

5.   Seos geograafilise piirkonnaga:

5.1.   Geograafilise piirkonna eripära:

Ribe linn asutati 710. aasta paiku kauplemiskohana ja arheoloogilised väljakaevamised on aidanud välja selgitada, milliseid kaupu seal müüdi. Juba varasest ajast pakuti turul müügiks lamba- ja talleliha. Loomad olid kasvatatud Wattenmeeri äärsetel sooldunud niitudel asuvates külades, mis tähendab, et kohalikud põllumehed kasvatasid lambaid juba rauaajal.

Liha „Vadehavslam” tootmise aluseks on see pikk lammaste sooldunud niitudel kasvatamise traditsioon. Igal aastal tabasid piirkonda äkktulvad, mis ujutasid karjamaa üle. Vee kahanedes jäi üleujutatud aladele maha viljakas muda, mis soodustas lopsakate niitude tekkimist, kus karjatati suvel loomi ja varuti talvesööta.

Taimekasvatusajakirjas „Tidsskrift for planteavl” 1968. aastal ilmunud artiklis „Jordbundsundersøgelser i marsken” (sooldunud niitude põllumajandusuuringud) uuris Lorens Hansen üksnes sooldunud niitudelt võetud mullaproove. Ta jõudis järeldusele, et sooldunud niitude muld on tänu suurele savisisaldusele ja oma tekkeloole looduslikult väga kaaliumirikas. Tavalisel põllumaal määratakse naatriumi sisaldust harva, sest see on väga madal ega mõjuta mullastruktuuri. Seevastu sooldunud niitude puhul on naatriumisisaldus sageli väga kõrge tänu meresoolale, mis on niidu tekkimisel ladestunud.

Sooldunud niitudel kasvavad tugevad toitainerikkad heintaimed ei ole väga sobilikud tavapärase põllumajanduse jaoks, kuid sobivad pea ideaalselt loomasöödaks. Lisaks toitainerikkusele on need heintaimed vastupidavad igasugustele ilmastikutingimustele. Just Wattenmeeri karm kliima ja soolasus teevad karjatamise selles piirkonnas ainulaadseks. Eeskätt rannikualal kasvavad järgmised rohu- ja heintaimed:

| — | kallaste lähedal peenike rohi, isekülvanud väike valge ristik, harilik nõiahammas, robirohi, tulikalised ja merikannid; |
| --- | --- |

—

kallaste lähedal peenike rohi, isekülvanud väike valge ristik, harilik nõiahammas, robirohi, tulikalised ja merikannid;

| — | madalamatel aladel laialehine parkjuur, rand-õisluht ja jämedam rohi; |
| --- | --- |

—

madalamatel aladel laialehine parkjuur, rand-õisluht ja jämedam rohi;

| — | kaugemal/madalamal rannikualal meri-nadahein ja soolarohi. |
| --- | --- |

—

kaugemal/madalamal rannikualal meri-nadahein ja soolarohi.

5.2.   Toote eripära:

Lambaid aretatakse nii, et nad peaksid vastu sooldunud niitude ja rannikualade karmides tingimustes. Aretamise tulemusel saadud loomad on suuremad, lihakamad ja nende liha on taine. Lihal „Vadehavslam” on iseloomulik soolane maitse.

5.3.   Põhjuslik seos geograafilise piirkonna ja toote erilise kvaliteedi, maine või muude omaduste vahel:

Karmid loodusolud ja erilised karjakasvatustingimused nõuavad Wattenmeeri piirkonna lambakasvatajatelt suurt vastupidavust. Kohalikud loomakasvatajad kasvatavad sealse piirkonna loodusoludes oma teadmistele ja kogemustele tuginedes tugevaid ja vastupidavaid lambaid.

Lambad on suured ja lihakad ning nende lihal on tänu piirkonnale omastele kasvutingimustele iseloomulik soolane maitse. Kui merevesi ujutab maa üle, ladestuvad sool ja mineraalid maapinda. Loomi karjatatakse sooldunud niitudel, kus kõrge kaaliumi- ja naatriumisisaldusega rohi mõjutab liha maitset ja annab lihale „Vadehavslam” erilise kvaliteedi ja iseloomuliku soolase maitse.

„Vadehavslam” on juba palju aastaid olnud kogu Taanis tuntud toode.

Selle tootmine on esitatud Wattenmeeri piirkonna ja Wattenmeeri rahvuspargi turismibrošüürides olulise piirkonda iseloomustava tunnusena.

Viide spetsifikaadi avaldamisele:

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

---

(1)  ELT L 93, 31.3.2006, lk 12.

---