# Uradni list C 306/2011

| | ISSN 1977-1045
  doi:10.3000/19771045.C_2011.306.slv |
| --- | --- |
| Uradni list
  Evropske unije | C 306 |
| | |
| Slovenska izdaja | Informacije in objave | Zvezek 5418. oktober 2011 |

ISSN 1977-1045

doi:10.3000/19771045.C_2011.306.slv

Uradni list

Evropske unije

C 306

Slovenska izdaja

Informacije in objave

Zvezek 5418. oktober 2011

---

| Obvestilo št. | Vsebina | Stran |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Informacije |
| | INFORMACIJE INSTITUCIJ, ORGANOV, URADOV IN AGENCIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE |
| | Evropska komisija |
| 2011/C 306/01 | Menjalni tečaji eura | 1 |
| | INFORMACIJE DRŽAV ČLANIC |
| 2011/C 306/02 | Podatki, ki so jih predložile države članice o državni pomoči, dodeljeni na podlagi Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1857/2006 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri državni pomoči za majhna in srednje velika podjetja, ki se ukvarjajo s proizvodnjo kmetijskih proizvodov, in o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 70/2001 | 2 |
| 2011/C 306/03 | Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova | 4 |
| 2011/C 306/04 | Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova | 5 |
| 2011/C 306/05 | Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova | 6 |
| 2011/C 306/06 | Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova | 7 |
| 2011/C 306/07 | Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova | 8 |
| 2011/C 306/08 | Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova | 9 |

Obvestilo št.

Vsebina

Stran

IV   Informacije

INFORMACIJE INSTITUCIJ, ORGANOV, URADOV IN AGENCIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE

Evropska komisija

2011/C 306/01

Menjalni tečaji eura

1

INFORMACIJE DRŽAV ČLANIC

2011/C 306/02

Podatki, ki so jih predložile države članice o državni pomoči, dodeljeni na podlagi Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1857/2006 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri državni pomoči za majhna in srednje velika podjetja, ki se ukvarjajo s proizvodnjo kmetijskih proizvodov, in o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 70/2001

2

2011/C 306/03

Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova

4

2011/C 306/04

Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova

5

2011/C 306/05

Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova

6

2011/C 306/06

Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova

7

2011/C 306/07

Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova

8

2011/C 306/08

Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova

9

| | V   Objave |
| --- | --- |
| | POSTOPKI V ZVEZI Z IZVAJANJEM POLITIKE KONKURENCE |
| | Evropska komisija |
| 2011/C 306/09 | Državne pomoči – Irska – Državna pomoč SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) – Zračni prevoz – Oprostitev potniške takse v letalskem prevozu – Poziv k predložitvi pripomb na podlagi člena 108(2) PDEU (
  1
  ) | 10 |
| 2011/C 306/10 | Predhodna priglasitev koncentracije (Zadeva COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV) – Zadeva, primerna za obravnavo po poenostavljenem postopku (
  1
  ) | 17 |
| | DRUGI AKTI |
| | Evropska komisija |
| 2011/C 306/11 | Objava vloge v skladu s členom 6(2) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 510/2006 o zaščiti geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila | 18 |

V   Objave

POSTOPKI V ZVEZI Z IZVAJANJEM POLITIKE KONKURENCE

Evropska komisija

2011/C 306/09

Državne pomoči – Irska – Državna pomoč SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) – Zračni prevoz – Oprostitev potniške takse v letalskem prevozu – Poziv k predložitvi pripomb na podlagi člena 108(2) PDEU (
  1
  )

1

10

2011/C 306/10

Predhodna priglasitev koncentracije (Zadeva COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV) – Zadeva, primerna za obravnavo po poenostavljenem postopku (
  1
  )

1

17

DRUGI AKTI

Evropska komisija

2011/C 306/11

Objava vloge v skladu s členom 6(2) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 510/2006 o zaščiti geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila

18

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Besedilo velja za EGP |

---

(1)   Besedilo velja za EGP

1

| SL | |
| --- | --- |

SL

---

IV Informacije

INFORMACIJE INSTITUCIJ, ORGANOV, URADOV IN AGENCIJ EVROPSKE UNIJE

Evropska komisija

| 18.10.2011 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | C 306/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

C 306/1

---

Menjalni tečaji eura (1)

17. oktobra 2011

2011/C 306/01

1 euro =

| | Valuta | Menjalni tečaj |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | ameriški dolar | 1,3776 |
| JPY | japonski jen | 106,43 |
| DKK | danska krona | 7,4453 |
| GBP | funt šterling | 0,87400 |
| SEK | švedska krona | 9,1582 |
| CHF | švicarski frank | 1,2365 |
| ISK | islandska krona | |
| NOK | norveška krona | 7,7320 |
| BGN | lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | češka krona | 24,762 |
| HUF | madžarski forint | 293,94 |
| LTL | litovski litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | latvijski lats | 0,7049 |
| PLN | poljski zlot | 4,2927 |
| RON | romunski leu | 4,3320 |
| TRY | turška lira | 2,5514 |
| AUD | avstralski dolar | 1,3406 |
| CAD | kanadski dolar | 1,3955 |
| HKD | hongkonški dolar | 10,7124 |
| NZD | novozelandski dolar | 1,7225 |
| SGD | singapurski dolar | 1,7458 |
| KRW | južnokorejski won | 1 577,85 |
| ZAR | južnoafriški rand | 10,8856 |
| CNY | kitajski juan | 8,7746 |
| HRK | hrvaška kuna | 7,4685 |
| IDR | indonezijska rupija | 12 147,13 |
| MYR | malezijski ringit | 4,2707 |
| PHP | filipinski peso | 59,465 |
| RUB | ruski rubelj | 42,4230 |
| THB | tajski bat | 42,182 |
| BRL | brazilski real | 2,4083 |
| MXN | mehiški peso | 18,2857 |
| INR | indijska rupija | 67,4400 |

Valuta

Menjalni tečaj

USD

ameriški dolar

1,3776

JPY

japonski jen

106,43

DKK

danska krona

7,4453

GBP

funt šterling

0,87400

SEK

švedska krona

9,1582

CHF

švicarski frank

1,2365

ISK

islandska krona

NOK

norveška krona

7,7320

BGN

lev

1,9558

CZK

češka krona

24,762

HUF

madžarski forint

293,94

LTL

litovski litas

3,4528

LVL

latvijski lats

0,7049

PLN

poljski zlot

4,2927

RON

romunski leu

4,3320

TRY

turška lira

2,5514

AUD

avstralski dolar

1,3406

CAD

kanadski dolar

1,3955

HKD

hongkonški dolar

10,7124

NZD

novozelandski dolar

1,7225

SGD

singapurski dolar

1,7458

KRW

južnokorejski won

1 577,85

ZAR

južnoafriški rand

10,8856

CNY

kitajski juan

8,7746

HRK

hrvaška kuna

7,4685

IDR

indonezijska rupija

12 147,13

MYR

malezijski ringit

4,2707

PHP

filipinski peso

59,465

RUB

ruski rubelj

42,4230

THB

tajski bat

42,182

BRL

brazilski real

2,4083

MXN

mehiški peso

18,2857

INR

indijska rupija

67,4400

---

(1)  Vir: referenčni menjalni tečaj, ki ga objavlja ECB.

---

INFORMACIJE DRŽAV ČLANIC

| 18.10.2011 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | C 306/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

C 306/2

---

Podatki, ki so jih predložile države članice o državni pomoči, dodeljeni na podlagi Uredbe Komisije (ES) št. 1857/2006 o uporabi členov 87 in 88 Pogodbe ES pri državni pomoči za majhna in srednje velika podjetja, ki se ukvarjajo s proizvodnjo kmetijskih proizvodov, in o spremembi Uredbe (ES) št. 70/2001

2011/C 306/02

Št. pomoči: SA.33657 (11/XA)

Država članica: Francija

Regija: France

Naziv sheme pomoči ali ime podjetja, ki prejme individualno pomoč: Assistance technique aux exploitations agricoles de huit baies bretonnes pour leur évolution vers des systèmes de production à très basses fuites d'azote

Pravna podlaga:

| — | 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

Načrtovani letni izdatki po shemi ali skupni znesek individualne pomoči, dodeljene podjetju: Letni skupni znesek načrtovanih proračunskih sredstev na podlagi sheme: 3 milijoni EUR

Največja intenzivnost pomoči: 100 %

Datum začetka izvajanja: —

Trajanje sheme ali individualne pomoči: 24. oktober 2011–31. december 2015

Cilj pomoči: Tehnična podpora (člen 15 Uredbe (ES) št. 1857/2006)

Zadevni gospodarski sektorji: Kmetijska proizvodnja in lov ter z njima povezane storitve

Naziv in naslov organa, ki dodeli pomoč: 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

Spletni naslov:

| | 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

Drugi podatki: —

Št. pomoči: SA.33729 (11/XA)

Država članica: Italija

Regija: Emilia-Romagna

Naziv sheme pomoči ali ime podjetja, ki prejme individualno pomoč: Prevenzione e l'eradicazione di fitopatie ed infestazioni parassitarie. Programma di intervento contributivo riferito alle estirpazioni di piante di drupacee e di actinidia

Pravna podlaga: 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.

Načrtovani letni izdatki po shemi ali skupni znesek individualne pomoči, dodeljene podjetju: Letni skupni znesek načrtovanih proračunskih sredstev na podlagi sheme: 1 milijon EUR

Največja intenzivnost pomoči: 100 %

Datum začetka izvajanja: —

Trajanje sheme ali individualne pomoči: 4. november 2011–31. december 2013

Cilj pomoči: Bolezni rastlin – napad škodljivcev (člen 10 Uredbe (ES) št. 1857/2006)

Zadevni gospodarski sektorji: Kmetijstvo in lov, gozdarstvo, ribištvo

Naziv in naslov organa, ki dodeli pomoč:

| 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

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

Drugi podatki: —

Št. pomoči: SA.33730 (11/XA)

Država članica: Italija

Regija: Basilicata

Naziv sheme pomoči ali ime podjetja, ki prejme individualno pomoč: Misure regionali di sostegno alle aziende frutticole colpite dalla Vaiolatura delle drupacee (Sharka), causata dall'agente Plum pox virus

Pravna podlaga: 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

Načrtovani letni izdatki po shemi ali skupni znesek individualne pomoči, dodeljene podjetju: Letni skupni znesek načrtovanih proračunskih sredstev na podlagi sheme: 0,30 EUR (v milijonih)

Največja intenzivnost pomoči: 39,20 %

Datum začetka izvajanja: —

Trajanje sheme ali individualne pomoči: 13. oktober 2011–31. december 2012

Cilj pomoči: Bolezni rastlin – napad škodljivcev (člen 10 Uredbe (ES) št. 1857/2006)

Zadevni gospodarski sektorji: Gojenje pečkatega in koščičastega sadja

Naziv in naslov organa, ki dodeli pomoč:

| 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

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

Drugi podatki: —

---

| 18.10.2011 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | C 306/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

C 306/4

---

Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova

2011/C 306/03

V skladu s členom 35(3) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1224/2009 z dne 20. novembra 2009 o vzpostavitvi nadzornega sistema Skupnosti za zagotavljanje skladnosti s pravili skupne ribiške politike (1) je bila sprejeta odločitev o zaprtju ribolova, kot prikazuje preglednica:

| Datum in čas zaprtja | 5.9.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Trajanje | 5.9.2011–31.12.2011 |
| Država članica | Portugalska |
| Stalež ali skupina staležev | WHM/ATLANT |
| Vrsta | bela jadrovnica (Tetrapturus albidus) |
| Območje | Atlantski ocean |
| Vrste ribiških plovil | — |
| Referenčna številka | — |

Datum in čas zaprtja

5.9.2011

Trajanje

5.9.2011–31.12.2011

Država članica

Portugalska

Stalež ali skupina staležev

WHM/ATLANT

Vrsta

bela jadrovnica (Tetrapturus albidus)

Območje

Atlantski ocean

Vrste ribiških plovil

—

Referenčna številka

—

Spletna povezava na odločitev države članice:

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

---

(1)  UL L 343, 22.12.2009, str. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | C 306/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

C 306/5

---

Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova

2011/C 306/04

V skladu s členom 35(3) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1224/2009 z dne 20. novembra 2009 o vzpostavitvi nadzornega sistema Skupnosti za zagotavljanje skladnosti s pravili skupne ribiške politike (1) je bila sprejeta odločitev o zaprtju ribolova, kot prikazuje preglednica:

| Datum in čas zaprtja | 5.9.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Trajanje | 5.9.2011–31.12.2011 |
| Država članica | Portugalska |
| Stalež ali skupina staležev | ALF/3X14- |
| Vrsta | sluzoglavke (Beryx spp.) |
| Območje | vode EU in mednarodne vode območij III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII in XIV |
| Vrste ribiških plovil | — |
| Referenčna številka | — |

Datum in čas zaprtja

5.9.2011

Trajanje

5.9.2011–31.12.2011

Država članica

Portugalska

Stalež ali skupina staležev

ALF/3X14-

Vrsta

sluzoglavke (Beryx spp.)

Območje

vode EU in mednarodne vode območij III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII in XIV

Vrste ribiških plovil

—

Referenčna številka

—

Spletna povezava na odločitev države članice:

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

---

(1)  UL L 343, 22.12.2009, str. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | C 306/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

C 306/6

---

Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova

2011/C 306/05

V skladu s členom 35(3) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1224/2009 z dne 20. novembra 2009 o vzpostavitvi nadzornega sistema Skupnosti za zagotavljanje skladnosti s pravili skupne ribiške politike (1) je bila sprejeta odločitev o zaprtju ribolova, kot prikazuje preglednica:

| Datum in čas zaprtja | 25.6.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Trajanje | 25.6.2011–31.12.2011 |
| Država članica | Španija |
| Stalež ali skupina staležev | BSF/8910- |
| Vrsta | tabinje (Phycis blennoides) |
| Območje | vode EU in mednarodne vode con VIII in IX |
| Vrste ribiških plovil | — |
| Referenčna številka | 887271 |

Datum in čas zaprtja

25.6.2011

Trajanje

25.6.2011–31.12.2011

Država članica

Španija

Stalež ali skupina staležev

BSF/8910-

Vrsta

tabinje (Phycis blennoides)

Območje

vode EU in mednarodne vode con VIII in IX

Vrste ribiških plovil

—

Referenčna številka

887271

Spletna povezava na odločitev države članice:

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

---

(1)  UL L 343, 22.12.2009, str. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | C 306/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

C 306/7

---

Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova

2011/C 306/06

V skladu s členom 35(3) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1224/2009 z dne 20. novembra 2009 o vzpostavitvi nadzornega sistema Skupnosti za zagotavljanje skladnosti s pravili skupne ribiške politike (1) je bila sprejeta odločitev o zaprtju ribolova, kot prikazuje preglednica:

| Datum in čas zaprtja | 12.7.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Trajanje | 12.7.2011–31.12.2011 |
| Država članica | Španija |
| Stalež ali skupina staležev | BSF/8910- |
| Vrsta | črni morski meč (Aphanopus carbo) |
| Območje | vode EU in mednarodne vode con VIII, IX in X |
| Vrste ribiških plovil | — |
| Referenčna številka | 887293 |

Datum in čas zaprtja

12.7.2011

Trajanje

12.7.2011–31.12.2011

Država članica

Španija

Stalež ali skupina staležev

BSF/8910-

Vrsta

črni morski meč (Aphanopus carbo)

Območje

vode EU in mednarodne vode con VIII, IX in X

Vrste ribiških plovil

—

Referenčna številka

887293

Spletna povezava na odločitev države članice:

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

---

(1)  UL L 343, 22.12.2009, str. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | C 306/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

C 306/8

---

Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova

2011/C 306/07

V skladu s členom 35(3) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1224/2009 z dne 20. novembra 2009 o vzpostavitvi nadzornega sistema Skupnosti za zagotavljanje skladnosti s pravili skupne ribiške politike (1) je bila sprejeta odločitev za zaprtje ribolova, kot prikazuje preglednica:

| Datum in čas zaprtja | 13.8.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Trajanje | 13.8.2011–31.12.2011 |
| Država članica | Belgija |
| Stalež ali skupina staležev | WHG/08. |
| Vrsta | mol (Merlangius merlangus) |
| Cona | VIII |
| Vrste ribiških plovil | — |
| Referenčna številka | 870462 |

Datum in čas zaprtja

13.8.2011

Trajanje

13.8.2011–31.12.2011

Država članica

Belgija

Stalež ali skupina staležev

WHG/08.

Vrsta

mol (Merlangius merlangus)

Cona

VIII

Vrste ribiških plovil

—

Referenčna številka

870462

Spletna povezava na odločitev države članice:

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

---

(1)  UL L 343, 22.12.2009, str. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | C 306/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

C 306/9

---

Informacije, ki jih sporočijo države članice glede zaprtja ribolova

2011/C 306/08

V skladu s členom 35(3) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1224/2009 z dne 20. novembra 2009 o vzpostavitvi nadzornega sistema Skupnosti za zagotavljanje skladnosti s pravili skupne ribiške politike (1) je bila sprejeta odločitev o zaprtju ribolova, kot prikazuje preglednica:

| Datum in čas zaprtja | 13.8.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Trajanje | 13.8.2011–31.12.2011 |
| Država članica | Belgija |
| Stalež ali skupina staležev | LEZ/8ABDE. |
| Vrsta | krilati rombi (Lepidorhombus spp.) |
| Cona | VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId in VIIIe |
| Vrste ribiških plovil | — |
| Referenčna številka | 870462 |

Datum in čas zaprtja

13.8.2011

Trajanje

13.8.2011–31.12.2011

Država članica

Belgija

Stalež ali skupina staležev

LEZ/8ABDE.

Vrsta

krilati rombi (Lepidorhombus spp.)

Cona

VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId in VIIIe

Vrste ribiških plovil

—

Referenčna številka

870462

Spletna povezava na odločitev države članice:

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

---

(1)  UL L 343, 22.12.2009, str. 1.

---

V Objave

POSTOPKI V ZVEZI Z IZVAJANJEM POLITIKE KONKURENCE

Evropska komisija

| 18.10.2011 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | C 306/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

C 306/10

---

DRŽAVNE POMOČI – IRSKA

Državna pomoč SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) – Zračni prevoz – Oprostitev potniške takse v letalskem prevozu

Poziv k predložitvi pripomb na podlagi člena 108(2) PDEU

(Besedilo velja za EGP)

2011/C 306/09

Z dopisom v verodostojnem jeziku z dne 13. julija 2011 na straneh, ki sledijo temu povzetku, je Komisija uradno obvestila Irsko o svoji odločitvi, da začne postopek na podlagi člena 108(2) PDEU v zvezi z zgoraj navedenim ukrepom.

Zainteresirane strani lahko v enem mesecu od dneva objave tega povzetka in dopisa, ki mu sledi, predložijo svoje pripombe o ukrepu, v zvezi s katerim Komisija začenja postopek, na naslov:

| 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

Te pripombe se posredujejo Irski. Zainteresirana stran, ki predloži pripombe, lahko pisno zaprosi za zaupno obravnavo svoje identitete in navede razloge za to.

BESEDILO POVZETKA

S 30. marcem 2009 so irski organi uvedli trošarino v letalskem potniškem prevozu, ki naj bi se pobirala v zvezi z „vsakim odhodom potnika na letalu z letališča“. Predvideno je bilo, da se taksa prek cene letalske vozovnice prevali na potnike, vendar so bili letalski prevozniki tisti, ki so bili odgovorni za pobiranje in plačilo takse v zvezi z odhodi potnikov na svojih letalih. Opredelitev „potnika“ v tem primeru iz takse izključuje transferne in tranzitne potnike. Ob uvedbi se je taksa določala na podlagi razdalje med letališčem začetka in letališčem konca potovanja, in sicer v višini (i) 2 EUR, če je bila razdalja od letališča Dublin do končne destinacije do 300 kilometrov, in v višini 10 EUR v vseh ostalih primerih. Kot posledica postopka za ugotavljanje kršitev se od 1. marca 2011 uporablja enotna taksa v višini 3 EUR ne glede na razdaljo. Ker je obdavčljiv dogodek odhod potnika na letalu, tovorni leti in drugi načini prevoza niso zajeti v področje uporabe takse.

V skladu s pritožbo, ki jo je prejela Komisija, neuporaba takse za transferne in tranzitne potnike ter tovorne lete pomeni nezakonito in nezdružljivo državno pomoč, dodeljeno letalskima prevoznikoma Aer Lingus in Aer Arann ter upravljavcu letališča Dublin Airport Authority, saj so imela ta podjetja razmeroma visok delež takih letalskih potnikov in letov. Poleg tega neuporaba takse za pomorske storitve in železniški prevoz domnevno pomeni državno pomoč izvajalcem v teh panogah. Pritožnik je prav tako navedel, da taksa predstavlja višji delež v ceni voznine nizkocenovnih letalskih prevoznikov kot pa tradicionalnih, saj gre za fiksni znesek. Pritožnik tudi trdi, da je nižja taksa v korist prevoznika Aer Arann, saj 50 % potnikov navedenega prevoznika potuje na destinacije, ki so od letališča Dublin oddaljene več kot 300 kilometrov.

Po navedbah irskih organov tovorni leti in drugi načini prevoza, kot je letalski prevoz, niso zajeti v področje uporabe takse zaradi razmeroma enostavne uporabe takse. Politika obdavčitve ni zasnovana tako, da bi bila prilagojena kateremu koli posameznemu poslovnemu modelu. Kateri koli izvajalec tovornih storitev ali drugih sredstev prevoza, ki niso letalski prevoz, zato ne bi bil zajet v področje uporabe davka za zagotavljanje tovrstnih storitev. Transferni in tranzitni promet je iz področja uporabe takse izvzet zaradi nevtralnosti: potniki so tisti, ki naj bi nosili stroške takse, in njih se ne bi smelo kaznovati zaradi dejstva, da je vmesni postanek letala na Irskem. Irski organi tudi menijo, da taka zasnova preprečuje morebitno dvojno obdavčitev, če se podobna taksa zaračunava na letališču, na katerem se je potovanje začelo. Uporaba fiksne takse in ne takse, izračunane kot delež cene vozovnice, pa izhaja iz dejstva, da gre pri taksi za trošarino. Določanje takse kot odstotka cene vozovnice bi pomenilo administrativno breme, poleg tega pa bi odprlo pot za izogibanje taksi, saj bi letalski prevozniki potem skušali znižati cene voznin in hkrati zvišati prihodke prek dodatnih pristojbin. Nižja taksa za krajše proge, ki se je uporabljala do 1. marca 2011, je po pojasnilih irskih organov temeljila na dejstvu, da so cene letalskih vozovnic običajno nižje za bližje destinacije. Poleg tega so dvomili, da bi imel prevoznik Aer Arann koristi od nižje takse, saj je bil tudi pritožnik dejaven na pomembnem delu prog, za katere se je uporabljala nižja taksa. Zato irski organi ne razumejo, kako bi obstoj nižje takse za krajše proge lahko pomenil državno pomoč za letalska prevoznika Aer Arann in Aer Lingus.

Pri ugotavljanju, ali domnevni ukrepi pomenijo državno pomoč, je treba v tej zadevi predvsem presoditi, ali je izpolnjeno merilo selektivnosti, tj. ali ukrepi dajejo prednost nekaterim podjetjem, ki so v primerljivem pravnem in dejanskem položaju glede na cilj, ki se želi doseči z zadevnimi ukrepi.

Za druge načine prevoza, in ne za letalski prevoz, veljajo drugačni pravni, regulativni in davčni sistemi. So tudi v drugačnem dejanskem položaju kot izvajalci letalskega prevoza. Zato izvzetje drugih načinov prevoza iz takse ni selektivno.

Ker izvajalci tovornega prevoza delujejo v drugačnem poslovnem okolju z drugačno vrsto strank in ker tovorni prevoz in potniški prevoz nista nadomestljivi storitvi, ti izvajalci niso v enakem dejanskem položaju kot izvajalci letalskega potniškega prevoza. Izvzetje tovornega prevoza iz takse se tako ne more šteti za selektivno.

Glede neuporabe takse za transferne in tranzitne potnike pa je to v naravi in logiki davčnega sistema, zato tu ne gre za selektivnost. Namen je obračunavanje takse na podlagi razdalje med krajem začetka potovanja in krajem njegovega konca. Neuporaba takse za transferne in tranzitne potnike je logična, saj se tako taksa potnikom zaračuna na enak način, neodvisno od proge, na kateri potujejo (namesto da se jim zaračuna za prvi in še enkrat za drugi del potovanja). Poleg tega izogibanje dvojni obdavčitvi utemeljuje izvzetje transfernih in tranzitnih potnikov iz takse.

V zvezi z uporabo fiksnih taks in ne odstotka pa je treba opozoriti, da lahko države članice same izberejo med fiksno takso in takso v odstotku. Za trošarine, kot je zadevna taksa, velja, da se zaračunavajo na enoto in ne kot odstotek vrednosti, kar je značilno za prometni davek. Fiksni zneski po svoji naravi predstavljajo višji delež v nižji skupni ceni. Vendar s tem razlika med višjimi in nižjimi cenami ostaja nespremenjena. Zato ni videti, da bi tradicionalni letalski prevozniki imeli prednost v primerjavi z nizkocenovnimi. Poleg tega bi taksa, ki se zaračuna kot odstotek cene vozovnice, lahko spodbudila podjetja, da znižajo voznine in hkrati zvišajo transakcijske ali dodatne stroške.

Glede različnih višin takse v obdobju med 30. marcem 2009 in 1. marcem 2011 je Komisija v delovnem dokumentu svojih služb poudarila, da ne sme biti diskriminacije med nacionalnimi leti in leti znotraj Unije. V skladu s prakso Komisije bi bilo treba takšno razlikovanje šteti za selektivno, če zanj ni logičnega razloga. To je jasno navedlo tudi Sodišče. Argument irskih organov, da so leti na daljše razdalje dražji in je zato višjo takso mogoče zaračunati, ne da bi bila nesorazmerna s ceno, ni utemeljen, saj cene letalskih vozovnic za notranje lete niso nujno (bistveno) nižje kot cene letalskih vozovnic za druge destinacije v EU. Zato se zdi, da nižja taksa daje selektivno prednost podjetjem znotraj referenčnega sistema. Ker so sicer izpolnjena tudi druga merila iz člena 107(1) PDEU, ukrep pomeni državno pomoč.

Če povzamemo, niti izvzetje tovornega prevoza in drugih načinov prevoza, ki niso letalski prevoz, niti neuporaba takse za transferne in tranzitne potnike ne pomeni državne pomoči v smislu člena 107(1) PDEU. Uporaba fiksne takse in ne v odstotku cene vozovnice tudi ne pomeni državne pomoči. Videti pa je, da uporaba nižje takse za notranje lete med 30. marcem 2009 in 1. marcem 2011 pomeni državno pomoč, za katero obstajajo dvomi o njeni združljivosti z notranjim trgom.

V skladu s členom 14 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 659/1999 se lahko vse nezakonite pomoči izterjajo od prejemnika.

BESEDILO DOPISA

„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 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | C 306/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

C 306/17

---

Predhodna priglasitev koncentracije

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

Zadeva, primerna za obravnavo po poenostavljenem postopku

(Besedilo velja za EGP)

2011/C 306/10

| 1. | Komisija je 11. oktobra 2011 prejela priglasitev predlagane koncentracije v skladu s členom 4 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 139/2004 (1), s katero podjetje Alstom Holdings (Francija), ki pripada francoski skupini Alstom, ter podjetji Bouygues Immobilier SA („Bouygues Immobilier“, Francija) in Exprimm SAS („Exprimm“, Francija), podružnici, ki pripadata francoski skupini Bouygues, z nakupom delnic v novoustanovljeni družbi, ki je skupno podjetje, pridobijo v smislu člena 3(1)(b) Uredbe o združitvah skupni nadzor nad podjetjem Embix SAS („Embix“, Francija). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Komisija je 11. oktobra 2011 prejela priglasitev predlagane koncentracije v skladu s členom 4 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 139/2004 (1), s katero podjetje Alstom Holdings (Francija), ki pripada francoski skupini Alstom, ter podjetji Bouygues Immobilier SA („Bouygues Immobilier“, Francija) in Exprimm SAS („Exprimm“, Francija), podružnici, ki pripadata francoski skupini Bouygues, z nakupom delnic v novoustanovljeni družbi, ki je skupno podjetje, pridobijo v smislu člena 3(1)(b) Uredbe o združitvah skupni nadzor nad podjetjem Embix SAS („Embix“, Francija).

| 2. | Poslovne dejavnosti zadevnih podjetij so:






  — | za Alstom Holdings: imetnik lastniških deležev v podjetjih skupine Alstom, ki proizvajajo opremo in ponujajo storitve na področju prevoza ter proizvodnje in distribucije energije, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Poslovne dejavnosti zadevnih podjetij so:

—

za Alstom Holdings: imetnik lastniških deležev v podjetjih skupine Alstom, ki proizvajajo opremo in ponujajo storitve na področju prevoza ter proizvodnje in distribucije energije,

| — | za Bouygues Immobilier: prodaja nepremičnin in zagotavljanje stanovanj, ekoloških sosesk, poslovnih parkov in dejavnosti urejanja naselij, |
| --- | --- |

—

za Bouygues Immobilier: prodaja nepremičnin in zagotavljanje stanovanj, ekoloških sosesk, poslovnih parkov in dejavnosti urejanja naselij,

| — | za Exprimm: ponujanje storitev upravljanja nepremičninske infrastrukture in tehničnega vzdrževanja, |
| --- | --- |

—

za Exprimm: ponujanje storitev upravljanja nepremičninske infrastrukture in tehničnega vzdrževanja,

| — | za Embix: ponujanje storitev pametnega upravljanja porabe energije v velikih poslovnih parkih in ekoloških soseskah. |
| --- | --- |

—

za Embix: ponujanje storitev pametnega upravljanja porabe energije v velikih poslovnih parkih in ekoloških soseskah.

| 3. | Po predhodnem pregledu Komisija ugotavlja, da bi priglašena transakcija lahko spadala v področje uporabe Uredbe ES o združitvah. Vendar končna odločitev o tej točki še ni sprejeta. Na podlagi Obvestila Komisije o poenostavljenem postopku obravnave določenih koncentracij v okviru Uredbe ES o združitvah (2) je treba opozoriti, da je ta zadeva primerna za obravnavo po postopku iz Obvestila. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Po predhodnem pregledu Komisija ugotavlja, da bi priglašena transakcija lahko spadala v področje uporabe Uredbe ES o združitvah. Vendar končna odločitev o tej točki še ni sprejeta. Na podlagi Obvestila Komisije o poenostavljenem postopku obravnave določenih koncentracij v okviru Uredbe ES o združitvah (2) je treba opozoriti, da je ta zadeva primerna za obravnavo po postopku iz Obvestila.

| 4. | Komisija zainteresirane tretje osebe poziva, naj ji predložijo svoje morebitne pripombe glede predlagane transakcije.
  Komisija mora prejeti pripombe najpozneje v 10 dneh po datumu te objave. Pripombe lahko pošljete Komisiji po telefaksu (+32 22964301), po elektronski pošti na naslov COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu ali po pošti z navedbo sklicne številke COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV na naslov:





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

4.

Komisija zainteresirane tretje osebe poziva, naj ji predložijo svoje morebitne pripombe glede predlagane transakcije.

Komisija mora prejeti pripombe najpozneje v 10 dneh po datumu te objave. Pripombe lahko pošljete Komisiji po telefaksu (+32 22964301), po elektronski pošti na naslov COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu ali po pošti z navedbo sklicne številke COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV na naslov:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  UL L 24, 29.1.2004, str. 1 (Uredba ES o združitvah).

(2)  UL C 56, 5.3.2005, str. 32 (Obvestilo o poenostavljenem postopku).

---

DRUGI AKTI

Evropska komisija

| 18.10.2011 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | C 306/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

C 306/18

---

Objava vloge v skladu s členom 6(2) Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 510/2006 o zaščiti geografskih označb in označb porekla za kmetijske proizvode in živila

2011/C 306/11

V skladu s členom 7 Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 510/2006 (1) je ta objava podlaga za uveljavljanje pravice do ugovora zoper vlogo. Izjave o ugovoru mora Komisija prejeti v šestih mesecih od dneva te objave.

ENOTNI DOKUMENT

UREDBA SVETA (ES) št. 510/2006

„VADEHAVSLAM“

ES št.: DK-PGI-0005-0771-25.03.2009

ZGO ( X ) ZOP ( )

1.   Ime:

„Vadehavslam“

2.   Država članica ali tretja država:

Danska

3.   Opis kmetijskega proizvoda ali živila:

3.1   Vrsta proizvoda:

| Skupina 1.1 | Sveže meso (in drobovina) |
| --- | --- |

Skupina 1.1

Sveže meso (in drobovina)

3.2   Opis proizvoda, za katerega se uporablja ime iz 1. točke:

Z imenom „Vadehavslam“ označujemo trupe in dele jagnjet, ki se skotijo in vzredijo na določenem geografskem območju.

Gre za ovce, ki so pasme Texel ali pa so križane z drugimi pasmami, ki jih tradicionalno vzrejajo na slanih travnikih (kar pomeni, da ob prvi jagnjitvi ovce Texel včasih parijo z ovni pasme Suffolk ali pasme Gotland, ki se uporablja za krzno).

S takšno vzrejo z leti vzredijo ovce, ki niso navajene samo na svoj življenjski prostor, ampak kotijo tudi velika, mesnata jagnjeta. Ta jagnjeta se od jagnjet, ki se vzrejajo v drugih delih države, razlikujejo tudi zaradi trave na slanih travnikih, na kateri se pasejo.

Zahteve za kakovost jagnjet:

| Teža za zakol | : | 19–25 kg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Oblika | : | najmanj 6 |
| Barva | : | 3–4 |
| Maščobe | : | 1–2–3 |

Teža za zakol

:

19–25 kg

Oblika

:

najmanj 6

Barva

:

3–4

Maščobe

:

1–2–3

Čas za zakol (starost jagnjeta ob zakolu) je odvisen od teže. Ta mora znašati od 19 do 25 kg. Podjetje, odgovorno za zakol, mora poleg tega v klavnici jagnje pregledati in mu vizualno določiti stopnjo zamaščenosti. (Včasih je pripravilo obvestilo, ki je bilo podobno obvestilu danskega združenja Danish Crown za govedo. Ker se to obvestilo za jagnjeta ne uporablja več, mora podjetje, odgovorno za zakol, v klavnici jagnjeta pregledati in jim določiti stopnjo zamaščenosti.)

3.3   Surovine:

—

3.4   Krma (samo za proizvode živalskega izvora):

Pozimi najmanj 50 % živalske krme pridelajo na določenem območju. Pozimi jagnjeta hranijo s travo, koruzo in silažo, v zadnji fazi pitanja pa s senom, ki mu dodajo ječmen.

Živali se morajo najmanj štiri mesece in pol v letu pasti na slanih travnikih ter nižinah določenega geografskega območja.

3.5   Posebni proizvodni postopki, ki jih je treba izvajati na opredeljenem geografskem območju:

| — | Jagnjeta se morajo skotiti in vzrediti na določenem geografskem območju. |
| --- | --- |

—

Jagnjeta se morajo skotiti in vzrediti na določenem geografskem območju.

3.6   Posebna pravila za rezanje, ribanje, pakiranje itn.:

—

3.7   Posebna pravila za označevanje:

Vse zaklane živali ožigosajo z logom „Vadehav, Marsk og Mad“.

Z logom označijo tudi embalažo končnega proizvoda ter ožigosajo zaklane živali, da zagotovijo sledljivost.

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

Image

Image

4.   Kratka opredelitev geografskega območja:

Geografsko območje je regija Wadden Sea na jugozahodu Danske. V to regijo spadajo trije otoki Romø, Mandø in Fanø ter kopno, kjer danska regija Wadden Sea na jugu meji na Nemčijo. Razmejitev na severu sovpada s severnimi mejami narodnega parka Wadden Sea. Na vzhodu območje meji na avtocesto A11.

5.   Povezanost z geografskim območjem:

5.1   Posebnosti geografskega območja:

Mesto Ribe je nastalo okrog leta 710 kot trgovsko središče. Arheologi so med najdami našli tudi blago, s katerim so v tistem času trgovali. Med izdelki, s katerimi so že zelo zgodaj trgovali, so bile ovce in jagnjeta. Te so vzredili kmetje iz vasi okrog slanih travnikov vzdolž morja Wadden Sea, kar dokazuje, da so ovce in jagnjeta vzrejali že v železni dobi.

Vzreja pasme „Vadehavslam“ temelji na dolgi tradiciji vzreje ovc in jagnjet na slanih travnikih. Območje so vsako leto prizadele viharne plime, ki so poplavile obdelovalno zemljo. Morje je naplavilo rodovitno morsko blato in na slanih nižinah tako ustvarilo bujne travnike, na katerih so se živali pasle poleti, pozimi pa se je pobirala zimska krma.

V članku o raziskavah tal na slanih travnikih, ki je izšel leta 1968 v reviji o rastlinski anatomiji, je Lorens Hansen preučeval vzorce zemlje, vključno iz slanih travnikov. V njem navaja, da so tla slanih travnikov naravno zelo bogata s kalijem, kar je pogojeno z veliko količino ilovice in načinom nastanka. V navadni zemlji se količina natrija zelo redko ugotavlja, saj je zelo nizka in ne vpliva na zgradbo tal. Veliko natrija vsebujejo pogosto slani travniki, saj je morsko sol naneslo ob njihovem nastajanju.

Odporna trava, ki raste na slanih travnikih, je bogata in zato ni posebej primerna za običajno kmetovanje, je pa odlična za pašo. Vsebuje tudi veliko hranilnih snovi ter je odporna na različne vremenske pogoje. Ravno zaradi surovega, slanega vpliva morja Wadden Sea je paša na tem območju enkratna. V nižinah uspevajo še zlasti naslednje rastline in vrste trav:

| — | v najbolj notranjih nižinah blizu nasipov fina trava, samosejalna plazeča detelja, triplat, škrobotec, zlatica in pečnik, |
| --- | --- |

—

v najbolj notranjih nižinah blizu nasipov fina trava, samosejalna plazeča detelja, triplat, škrobotec, zlatica in pečnik,

| — | v nižjih predelih morski bezeg, morska triroglja in bolj groba trava, |
| --- | --- |

—

v nižjih predelih morski bezeg, morska triroglja in bolj groba trava,

| — | v najbolj zunanjih in najnižjih nižinah slanovka in osočnik. |
| --- | --- |

—

v najbolj zunanjih in najnižjih nižinah slanovka in osočnik.

5.2   Posebnosti proizvoda:

Jagnjeta vzrejajo tako, da lahko živijo na surovih slanih travnikih in v nižinah. Z vzrejo so jagnjeta postala večja, bolj mesnata, količina maščobe pa se je zmanjšala. Meso te pasme je izrazito slanega okusa.

5.3   Vzročna povezanost geografskega območja z določeno kakovostjo, slovesom ali drugimi značilnostmi proizvoda:

Surovo okolje in posebni vzrejni pogoji otežujejo vzrejo jagnjet v regiji Wadden Sea. Lokalni kmetje s pomočjo svojega znanja in izkušenj vzrejajo močna, zdrava jagnjeta pod pogoji, ki jih narava ustvarja na tem območju.

Jagnjeta so velika in mesnata, zaradi pogojev na tem območju pa je njihovo meso izrazito slano. Ko morje naplavi vodo, v tleh odloži sol in mineralne snovi. Jagnjeta se pasejo na teh slanih travnikih, ki vsebujejo veliko kalija in natrija ter tako vplivajo na okus njihovega mesa, ki je posebej kakovosten in izrazito slan.

Meso „Vadehavslam“ je na Danskem že veliko let zelo znano.

Vzreja pasme „Vadehavslam“ je opisana v turističnih brošurah o regiji in narodnem parku Wadden Sea kot pomembna značilnost te regije.

Sklic na objavo specifikacije:

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

---

(1)  UL L 93, 31.3.2006, str. 12.

---