# Eiropas Savienības C 306/2011

| | ISSN 1977-0952
  doi:10.3000/19770952.C_2011.306.lav |
| --- | --- |
| Eiropas Savienības
  Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 306 |
| | |
| Izdevums latviešu valodā | Informācija un paziņojumi | 54. sējums2011. gada 18. oktobris |

ISSN 1977-0952

doi:10.3000/19770952.C_2011.306.lav

Eiropas Savienības

Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 306

Izdevums latviešu valodā

Informācija un paziņojumi

54. sējums2011. gada 18. oktobris

---

| Paziņojums Nr. | Saturs | Lappuse |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Paziņojumi |
| | EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI |
| | Eiropas Komisija |
| 2011/C 306/01 | Euro maiņas kurss | 1 |
| | DALĪBVALSTU SNIEGTA INFORMĀCIJA |
| 2011/C 306/02 | Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija par valsts atbalstiem, kas piešķirti saskaņā ar Komisijas Regulu (EK) Nr. 1857/2006 par EK līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem, kas nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanu, un grozījumiem Regulā (EK) Nr. 70/2001 | 2 |
| 2011/C 306/03 | Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu | 4 |
| 2011/C 306/04 | Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu | 5 |
| 2011/C 306/05 | Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu | 6 |
| 2011/C 306/06 | Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu | 7 |
| 2011/C 306/07 | Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu | 8 |
| 2011/C 306/08 | Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu | 9 |

Paziņojums Nr.

Saturs

Lappuse

IV   Paziņojumi

EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI

Eiropas Komisija

2011/C 306/01

Euro maiņas kurss

1

DALĪBVALSTU SNIEGTA INFORMĀCIJA

2011/C 306/02

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija par valsts atbalstiem, kas piešķirti saskaņā ar Komisijas Regulu (EK) Nr. 1857/2006 par EK līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem, kas nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanu, un grozījumiem Regulā (EK) Nr. 70/2001

2

2011/C 306/03

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

4

2011/C 306/04

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

5

2011/C 306/05

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

6

2011/C 306/06

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

7

2011/C 306/07

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

8

2011/C 306/08

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

9

| | V   Atzinumi |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDŪRAS, KAS SAISTĪTAS AR KONKURENCES POLITIKAS ĪSTENOŠANU |
| | Eiropas Komisija |
| 2011/C 306/09 | Valsts atbalsts – Īrija – Valsts atbalsts SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) – Gaisa satiksme – Atbrīvojumi no aviopasažieru nodokļa – Uzaicinājums iesniegt piezīmes saskaņā ar LESD 108. panta 2. punktu (
  1
  ) | 10 |
| 2011/C 306/10 | Iepriekšējs paziņojums par koncentrāciju (Lieta COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV) – Lieta, kas pretendē uz vienkāršotu procedūru (
  1
  ) | 17 |
| | CITI TIESĪBU AKTI |
| | Eiropas Komisija |
| 2011/C 306/11 | Pieteikuma publikācija saskaņā ar 6. panta 2. punktu Padomes Regulā (EK) Nr. 510/2006 par lauksaimniecības produktu un pārtikas produktu ģeogrāfiskās izcelsmes norāžu un cilmes vietu nosaukumu aizsardzību | 18 |

V   Atzinumi

PROCEDŪRAS, KAS SAISTĪTAS AR KONKURENCES POLITIKAS ĪSTENOŠANU

Eiropas Komisija

2011/C 306/09

Valsts atbalsts – Īrija – Valsts atbalsts SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) – Gaisa satiksme – Atbrīvojumi no aviopasažieru nodokļa – Uzaicinājums iesniegt piezīmes saskaņā ar LESD 108. panta 2. punktu (
  1
  )

1

10

2011/C 306/10

Iepriekšējs paziņojums par koncentrāciju (Lieta COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV) – Lieta, kas pretendē uz vienkāršotu procedūru (
  1
  )

Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV

1

17

CITI TIESĪBU AKTI

Eiropas Komisija

2011/C 306/11

Pieteikuma publikācija saskaņā ar 6. panta 2. punktu Padomes Regulā (EK) Nr. 510/2006 par lauksaimniecības produktu un pārtikas produktu ģeogrāfiskās izcelsmes norāžu un cilmes vietu nosaukumu aizsardzību

18

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ |

---

(1)   Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ

1

| LV | |
| --- | --- |

LV

---

IV Paziņojumi

EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS IESTĀŽU UN STRUKTŪRU SNIEGTI PAZIŅOJUMI

Eiropas Komisija

| 18.10.2011 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 306/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 306/1

---

Euro maiņas kurss (1)

2011. gada 17. oktobris

2011/C 306/01

1 euro =

| | Valūta | Maiņas kurss |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | ASV dolārs | 1,3776 |
| JPY | Japānas jena | 106,43 |
| DKK | Dānijas krona | 7,4453 |
| GBP | Lielbritānijas mārciņa | 0,87400 |
| SEK | Zviedrijas krona | 9,1582 |
| CHF | Šveices franks | 1,2365 |
| ISK | Islandes krona | |
| NOK | Norvēģijas krona | 7,7320 |
| BGN | Bulgārijas leva | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Čehijas krona | 24,762 |
| HUF | Ungārijas forints | 293,94 |
| LTL | Lietuvas lits | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvijas lats | 0,7049 |
| PLN | Polijas zlots | 4,2927 |
| RON | Rumānijas leja | 4,3320 |
| TRY | Turcijas lira | 2,5514 |
| AUD | Austrālijas dolārs | 1,3406 |
| CAD | Kanādas dolārs | 1,3955 |
| HKD | Hongkongas dolārs | 10,7124 |
| NZD | Jaunzēlandes dolārs | 1,7225 |
| SGD | Singapūras dolārs | 1,7458 |
| KRW | Dienvidkorejas vona | 1 577,85 |
| ZAR | Dienvidāfrikas rands | 10,8856 |
| CNY | Ķīnas juaņa renminbi | 8,7746 |
| HRK | Horvātijas kuna | 7,4685 |
| IDR | Indonēzijas rūpija | 12 147,13 |
| MYR | Malaizijas ringits | 4,2707 |
| PHP | Filipīnu peso | 59,465 |
| RUB | Krievijas rublis | 42,4230 |
| THB | Taizemes bāts | 42,182 |
| BRL | Brazīlijas reāls | 2,4083 |
| MXN | Meksikas peso | 18,2857 |
| INR | Indijas rūpija | 67,4400 |

Valūta

Maiņas kurss

USD

ASV dolārs

1,3776

JPY

Japānas jena

106,43

DKK

Dānijas krona

7,4453

GBP

Lielbritānijas mārciņa

0,87400

SEK

Zviedrijas krona

9,1582

CHF

Šveices franks

1,2365

ISK

Islandes krona

NOK

Norvēģijas krona

7,7320

BGN

Bulgārijas leva

1,9558

CZK

Čehijas krona

24,762

HUF

Ungārijas forints

293,94

LTL

Lietuvas lits

3,4528

LVL

Latvijas lats

0,7049

PLN

Polijas zlots

4,2927

RON

Rumānijas leja

4,3320

TRY

Turcijas lira

2,5514

AUD

Austrālijas dolārs

1,3406

CAD

Kanādas dolārs

1,3955

HKD

Hongkongas dolārs

10,7124

NZD

Jaunzēlandes dolārs

1,7225

SGD

Singapūras dolārs

1,7458

KRW

Dienvidkorejas vona

1 577,85

ZAR

Dienvidāfrikas rands

10,8856

CNY

Ķīnas juaņa renminbi

8,7746

HRK

Horvātijas kuna

7,4685

IDR

Indonēzijas rūpija

12 147,13

MYR

Malaizijas ringits

4,2707

PHP

Filipīnu peso

59,465

RUB

Krievijas rublis

42,4230

THB

Taizemes bāts

42,182

BRL

Brazīlijas reāls

2,4083

MXN

Meksikas peso

18,2857

INR

Indijas rūpija

67,4400

---

(1)  Datu avots: atsauces maiņas kursu publicējusi ECB.

---

DALĪBVALSTU SNIEGTA INFORMĀCIJA

| 18.10.2011 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 306/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 306/2

---

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija par valsts atbalstiem, kas piešķirti saskaņā ar Komisijas Regulu (EK) Nr. 1857/2006 par EK līguma 87. un 88. panta piemērošanu attiecībā uz valsts atbalstu maziem un vidējiem uzņēmumiem, kas nodarbojas ar lauksaimniecības produktu ražošanu, un grozījumiem Regulā (EK) Nr. 70/2001

2011/C 306/02

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

Dalībvalsts: Francija

Reģions:

France

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums:

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

Juridiskais pamats:

| — | 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

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopsumma: Kopējais saskaņā ar shēmu ieplānotais gada budžets: EUR 3 (miljonos)

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: 100 %

Īstenošanas datums: —

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums: 2011. gada 24. oktobris–2015. gada 31. decembris

Atbalsta mērķis: Tehniskā atbalsta nodrošināšana (Regulas (EK) Nr. 1857/2006 15. pants).

Attiecīgā(-ās) nozare(-es): Augkopība un lopkopība, medniecība un saistītas palīgdarbības

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese: 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

Tīmekļa vietne:

| | 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

Papildu informācija: —

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

Dalībvalsts: Itālija

Reģions:

Emilia-Romagna

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums:

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

Juridiskais pamats: 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.

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopsumma: Kopējais saskaņā ar shēmu ieplānotais gada budžets: EUR 1 (miljonos)

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: 100 %

Īstenošanas datums: —

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums: 2011. gada 4. novembris–2013. gada 31. decembris

Atbalsta mērķis: Augu slimības – kaitēkļu invāzijas (Regulas (EK) Nr. 1857/2006 10. pants)

Attiecīgā(-ās) nozare(-es): Lauksaimniecība, mežsaimniecība un zivsaimniecība

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| 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

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

Papildu informācija: —

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

Dalībvalsts: Itālija

Reģions:

Basilicata

Atbalsta shēmas nosaukums vai individuālā atbalsta saņēmēja uzņēmuma nosaukums:

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

Juridiskais pamats: 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

Saskaņā ar atbalsta shēmu plānotie gada izdevumi vai uzņēmumam piešķirtā individuālā atbalsta kopsumma: Kopējais saskaņā ar shēmu ieplānotais gada budžets: EUR 0,30 (miljonos)

Atbalsta maksimālā intensitāte: 39,20 %

Īstenošanas datums: —

Atbalsta shēmas vai individuālā atbalsta ilgums: 2011. gada 13. oktobris–2012. gada 31. decembris

Atbalsta mērķis: Augu slimības – kaitēkļu invāzijas (Regulas (EK) Nr. 1857/2006 10. pants)

Attiecīgā(-ās) nozare(-es): Sēkleņu un kauleņu audzēšana

Piešķīrējas iestādes nosaukums un adrese:

| 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

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

Papildu informācija: —

---

| 18.10.2011 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 306/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 306/4

---

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

2011/C 306/03

Saskaņā ar 35. panta 3. punktu Padomes 2009. gada 20. novembra Regulā (EK) Nr. 1224/2009, ar ko izveido Kopienas kontroles sistēmu, lai nodrošinātu atbilstību kopējās zivsaimniecības politikas noteikumiem (1), ir pieņemts lēmums aizliegt zveju, kā noteikts tabulā.

| Aizlieguma datums un laiks | 5.9.2011. |
| --- | --- |
| Ilgums | 5.9.2011.–31.12.2011. |
| Dalībvalsts | Portugāle |
| Krājums vai krājumu grupa | WHM/ATLANT |
| Suga | Baltais marlīns (Tetrapturus albidus) |
| Zona | Atlantijas okeāns |
| Zvejas kuģu tips(-i) | — |
| Atsauces numurs | — |

Aizlieguma datums un laiks

5.9.2011.

Ilgums

5.9.2011.–31.12.2011.

Dalībvalsts

Portugāle

Krājums vai krājumu grupa

WHM/ATLANT

Suga

Baltais marlīns (Tetrapturus albidus)

Zona

Atlantijas okeāns

Zvejas kuģu tips(-i)

—

Atsauces numurs

—

Tīmekļa vietne, kurā ir pieejams dalībvalsts lēmums:

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

---

(1)  OV L 343, 22.12.2009., 1. lpp.

---

| 18.10.2011 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 306/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 306/5

---

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

2011/C 306/04

Saskaņā ar 35. panta 3. punktu Padomes 2009. gada 20. novembra Regulā (EK) Nr. 1224/2009, ar ko izveido Kopienas kontroles sistēmu, lai nodrošinātu atbilstību kopējās zivsaimniecības politikas noteikumiem (1), ir pieņemts lēmums aizliegt zveju, kā noteikts tabulā.

| Aizlieguma datums un laiks | 5.9.2011. |
| --- | --- |
| Ilgums | 5.9.2011.–31.12.2011. |
| Dalībvalsts | Portugāle |
| Krājums vai krājumu grupa | ALF/3X14- |
| Suga | Beriksas (Beryx spp.) |
| Zona | ES un starptautiskie ūdeņi III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII un XIV zonā |
| Zvejas kuģu tips(-i) | — |
| Atsauces numurs | — |

Aizlieguma datums un laiks

5.9.2011.

Ilgums

5.9.2011.–31.12.2011.

Dalībvalsts

Portugāle

Krājums vai krājumu grupa

ALF/3X14-

Suga

Beriksas (Beryx spp.)

Zona

ES un starptautiskie ūdeņi III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII un XIV zonā

Zvejas kuģu tips(-i)

—

Atsauces numurs

—

Tīmekļa vietne, kurā ir pieejams dalībvalsts lēmums:

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

---

(1)  OV L 343, 22.12.2009., 1. lpp.

---

| 18.10.2011 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 306/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 306/6

---

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

2011/C 306/05

Saskaņā ar 35. panta 3. punktu Padomes 2009. gada 20. novembra Regulā (EK) Nr. 1224/2009, ar ko izveido Kopienas kontroles sistēmu, lai nodrošinātu atbilstību kopējās zivsaimniecības politikas noteikumiem (1), ir pieņemts lēmums aizliegt zveju, kā noteikts tabulā.

| Aizlieguma datums un laiks | 25.6.2011. |
| --- | --- |
| Ilgums | 25.6.2011.–31.12.2011. |
| Dalībvalsts | Spānija |
| Krājums vai krājumu grupa | BSF/8910- |
| Suga | Lielacu diegspuru vēdzele (Phycis blennoides) |
| Zona | ES un starptautiskie ūdeņi VIII un IX zonā |
| Zvejas kuģu tips(-i) | — |
| Atsauces numurs | 887271 |

Aizlieguma datums un laiks

25.6.2011.

Ilgums

25.6.2011.–31.12.2011.

Dalībvalsts

Spānija

Krājums vai krājumu grupa

BSF/8910-

Suga

Lielacu diegspuru vēdzele (Phycis blennoides)

Zona

ES un starptautiskie ūdeņi VIII un IX zonā

Zvejas kuģu tips(-i)

—

Atsauces numurs

887271

Tīmekļa vietne, kurā ir pieejams dalībvalsts lēmums:

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

---

(1)  OV L 343, 22.12.2009., 1. lpp.

---

| 18.10.2011 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 306/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 306/7

---

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

2011/C 306/06

Saskaņā ar 35. panta 3. punktu Padomes 2009. gada 20. novembra Regulā (EK) Nr. 1224/2009, ar ko izveido Kopienas kontroles sistēmu, lai nodrošinātu atbilstību kopējās zivsaimniecības politikas noteikumiem (1), ir pieņemts lēmums aizliegt zveju, kā noteikts tabulā.

| Aizlieguma datums un laiks | 12.7.2011. |
| --- | --- |
| Ilgums | 12.7.2011.–31.12.2011. |
| Dalībvalsts | Spānija |
| Krājums vai krājumu grupa | BSF/8910- |
| Suga | Mataste (Aphanopus carbo) |
| Zona | ES un starptautiskie ūdeņi VIII, IX un X zonā |
| Zvejas kuģu tips(-i) | — |
| Atsauces numurs | 887293 |

Aizlieguma datums un laiks

12.7.2011.

Ilgums

12.7.2011.–31.12.2011.

Dalībvalsts

Spānija

Krājums vai krājumu grupa

BSF/8910-

Suga

Mataste (Aphanopus carbo)

Zona

ES un starptautiskie ūdeņi VIII, IX un X zonā

Zvejas kuģu tips(-i)

—

Atsauces numurs

887293

Tīmekļa vietne, kurā ir pieejams dalībvalsts lēmums:

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

---

(1)  OV L 343, 22.12.2009., 1. lpp.

---

| 18.10.2011 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 306/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 306/8

---

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

2011/C 306/07

Saskaņā ar 35. panta 3. punktu Padomes 2009. gada 20. novembra Regulā (EK) Nr. 1224/2009, ar ko izveido Kopienas kontroles sistēmu, lai nodrošinātu atbilstību kopējās zivsaimniecības politikas noteikumiem (1), ir pieņemts lēmums aizliegt zveju, kā noteikts turpmāk tabulā.

| Aizlieguma datums un laiks | 13.8.2011. |
| --- | --- |
| Ilgums | 13.8.2011.–31.12.2011. |
| Dalībvalsts | Beļģija |
| Krājums vai krājumu grupa | WHG/08. |
| Suga | Merlangs (Merlangius merlangus) |
| Zona | VIII |
| Zvejas kuģu tips(-i) | — |
| Atsauces numurs | 870462 |

Aizlieguma datums un laiks

13.8.2011.

Ilgums

13.8.2011.–31.12.2011.

Dalībvalsts

Beļģija

Krājums vai krājumu grupa

WHG/08.

Suga

Merlangs (Merlangius merlangus)

Zona

VIII

Zvejas kuģu tips(-i)

—

Atsauces numurs

870462

Tīmekļa vietne, kurā ir pieejams dalībvalsts lēmums:

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

---

(1)  OV L 343, 22.12.2009., 1. lpp.

---

| 18.10.2011 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 306/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 306/9

---

Dalībvalstu paziņotā informācija attiecībā uz zvejas aizliegumu noteikšanu

2011/C 306/08

Saskaņā ar 35. panta 3. punktu Padomes 2009. gada 20. novembra Regulā (EK) Nr. 1224/2009, ar ko izveido Kopienas kontroles sistēmu, lai nodrošinātu atbilstību kopējās zivsaimniecības politikas noteikumiem (1), ir pieņemts lēmums aizliegt zveju, kā noteikts turpmāk tabulā.

| Aizlieguma datums un laiks | 13.8.2011. |
| --- | --- |
| Ilgums | 13.8.2011.–31.12.2011. |
| Dalībvalsts | Beļģija |
| Krājums vai krājumu grupa | LEZ/8ABDE. |
| Suga | Megrimi (Lepidorhombus spp.) |
| Zona | VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId un VIIIe |
| Zvejas kuģu tips(-i) | — |
| Atsauces numurs | 870462 |

Aizlieguma datums un laiks

13.8.2011.

Ilgums

13.8.2011.–31.12.2011.

Dalībvalsts

Beļģija

Krājums vai krājumu grupa

LEZ/8ABDE.

Suga

Megrimi (Lepidorhombus spp.)

Zona

VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId un VIIIe

Zvejas kuģu tips(-i)

—

Atsauces numurs

870462

Tīmekļa vietne, kurā ir pieejams dalībvalsts lēmums:

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

---

(1)  OV L 343, 22.12.2009., 1. lpp.

---

V Atzinumi

PROCEDŪRAS, KAS SAISTĪTAS AR KONKURENCES POLITIKAS ĪSTENOŠANU

Eiropas Komisija

| 18.10.2011 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 306/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 306/10

---

VALSTS ATBALSTS – ĪRIJA

Valsts atbalsts SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) – Gaisa satiksme – Atbrīvojumi no aviopasažieru nodokļa

Uzaicinājums iesniegt piezīmes saskaņā ar LESD 108. panta 2. punktu

(Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ)

2011/C 306/09

Ar 2011. gada 13. jūlija vēstuli, kas autentiskā valodā ir pievienota šim kopsavilkumam, Komisija paziņoja Īrijai par savu lēmumu uzsākt LESD 108. panta 2. punktā paredzēto procedūru attiecībā uz iepriekšminēto pasākumu.

Viena mēneša laikā pēc šā kopsavilkuma un tam pievienotās vēstules publicēšanas ieinteresētās personas var iesniegt piezīmes par pasākumu, par kuru Komisija sāk procedūru, šādā adresē:

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

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

State aid Greffe

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Fakss +32 22961242

Šīs piezīmes paziņos Īrijai. Ieinteresētā persona, kas iesniedz piezīmes, var rakstveidā pieprasīt, lai tās identitāte netiktu atklāta, norādot šāda pieprasījuma iemeslus.

KOPSAVILKUMA TEKSTS

2009. gada 30. martā Īrijas iestādes noteica akcīzes nodokli aviopasažieru pārvadājumiem, kas bija jāietur attiecībā uz “katru pasažieri, kas izlido gaisa kuģī no lidostas.” Lai arī bija plānots, ka minēto nodokli in fine attiecinās uz pasažieriem, to pievienojot biļetes cenai, tieši aviosabiedrības bija atbildīgas par minētā nodokļa iekasēšanu un maksāšanu par pasažieriem, kuri devās ceļojumā attiecīgo aviosabiedrību gaisa kuģos. Šajā kontekstā definīcija “pasažieris” izslēdz transfēra pasažieru (pasažieri, kas turpina ceļojumu citā gaisa kuģī) un tranzīta pasažieru aplikšanu ar nodokli. Ieviešanas sākumposmā minēto nodokli iekasēja, pamatojoties uz attālumu no lidostas, kurā sāka ceļojumu, līdz galamērķa lidostai, piemērojot i) EUR 2 ceļojumam no lidostas uz galamērķi, kas atrodas tālākais 300 km no Dublinas lidostas, un ii) EUR 10 visos pārējos gadījumos. Pārkāpumu procedūras rezultātā no 2011. gada 1. marta visiem attālumiem piemēro vienotu likmi EUR 3 apmērā. Tā kā ar nodokli apliekamais notikums ir pasažiera lidojums gaisa kuģī, minētā nodokļa darbības jomā neietilpst kravas pārvadājumi un citi transporta veidi.

Saskaņā ar Komisijai iesniegto sūdzību minētā nodokļa nepiemērošana transfēra un tranzīta pasažieriem, kā arī kravas pārvadājumiem veido nelikumīgu un nesaderīgu valsts atbalstu, kas piešķirts aviosabiedrībai Aer Lingus un Aer Arann, kā arī lidostas operatoram Dublin Airport Authority (DAA), jo minētajiem uzņēmumiem bija salīdzinoši liela proporcija šādu pasažieru un lidojumu. Turklāt, nepiemērojot minēto nodokli jūras transporta pakalpojumiem un dzelzceļa transporta pakalpojumiem, iespējams, tiek sniegts valsts atbalsts operatoriem minētajās nozarēs. Sūdzības iesniedzējs arī norādīja faktu, ka nodokļa fiksētā summa veidoja lielāku daļu no pilnās cenas zemo cenu aviosabiedrībām nekā tradicionālajām aviosabiedrībām. Visbeidzot, sūdzības iesniedzējs apgalvo, ka zemāka nodokļa likme sniedza priekšrocības Aer Arann, jo 50 % no pasažieriem, kurus pārvadā minētā aviosabiedrība, ceļo uz galamērķiem, kuri atrodas 300 km rādiusā no Dublinas lidostas.

Īrijas iestādes uzskata, ka kravas aviopārvadājumiem un citiem transporta veidiem, kas nav gaisa transports, attiecīgo nodokli nepiemēro, jo tā piemērošana ir samērā vienkārša. Nodokļu politika nav paredzēta tam, lai to īstenotu kopā ar kādu konkrētu atsevišķu uzņēmējdarbības modeli. Jebkurš kravas pārvadājumu vai citu transporta veidu, kas nav gaisa transports, operators tiktu izslēgts no minētā nodokļa darbības jomas šādu pakalpojumu sniegšanas dēļ. Minēto nodokli nepiemēro transfēra un tranzīta pārvadājumiem neitrālu iemeslu dēļ: tika noteikts, ka minēto nodokli in fine maksātu pasažieri un ka viņi nebūtu jāsoda par to, ka pārsēšanās notiek Īrijā. Turklāt Īrijas iestādes norāda, ka šādi noteikumi novērš nodokļu iespējamu dubultu uzlikšanu, ja līdzīgu nodokli iekasē lidostā, kurā sākas ceļojums. Fiksētas nodokļa likmes izmantošana tā vietā, lai par nodokli noteiktu procentuālu apmēru no biļetes cenas, skaidrojama ar to, ka minētais nodoklis ir akcīzes nodoklis. Papildus tam, ka tādējādi tiek radīts administratīvais slogs, biļetes cenas procentuāla apmēra izmantošana pavērtu iespējas nodokļa apiešanai, jo aviosabiedrības censtos samazināt cenu, vienlaikus palielinot ienākumus ar papildu maksām. Attiecībā uz zemāku nodokļa likmi īsākiem maršrutiem (ko piemēroja līdz 2011. gada 1. martam) Īrijas iestādes paskaidroja, ka tās pamatā bija fakts, ka tuvākiem galamērķiem cenas parasti ir zemākas. Tās arī apšaubīja, vai Aer Arann guva priekšrocības no zemākas likmes, jo arī sūdzības iesniedzējs aktīvi veica būtisku daļu lidojumu maršrutos, uz kuriem attiecās zemāka likme. Tādēļ Īrijas iestādes neuzskata, ka fakts, ka īsākiem maršrutiem ir noteikta zemāka likme, veidotu valsts atbalstu Aer Arann un Aer Lingus.

Lai noteiktu, vai attiecīgais pasākums veido valsts atbalstu, šajā gadījumā galvenais ir noskaidrot, vai ir izpildīts selektivitātes kritērijs, tas ir, vai pasākumi rada priekšrocības konkrētiem uzņēmumiem, kuru juridiskā un faktiskā situācija ir salīdzināma, ņemot vērā attiecīgo pasākumu noteikto mērķi.

Uz citiem transporta veidiem, kas nav gaisa transports, attiecas atšķirīgas juridiskās, regulatīvās un nodokļu sistēmas. To operatori arī atrodas atšķirīgā faktiskajā situācijā nekā gaisa transporta operatori. Līdz ar to citu transporta veidu izslēgšana no attiecīgā nodokļa piemērošanas jomas nav selektīva.

Tā kā kravas pārvadājumu operatori darbojas atšķirīgā uzņēmējdarbības jomā ar atšķirīgiem klientiem un kravas pārvadājumi un pasažieru pārvadājumi nav aizstājami pakalpojumi, šādi operatori neatrodas tādā pašā faktiskajā situācijā kā gaisa pasažieru pārvadājumu operatori. Tādēļ kravas pārvadājumu izslēgšanu no attiecīgā nodokļa piemērošanas jomas nevar uzskatīt par selektīvu.

Nodokļa nepiemērošana transfēra un tranzīta pasažieriem pamatojas uz nodokļu sistēmas loģiku un raksturu, tādēļ nav selektīva. Mērķis ir iekasēt nodokli, pamatojoties uz attālumu starp ceļojuma sākuma un beigu punktu. Nodokļa nepiemērošana transfēra un tranzīta pasažieriem ir loģiska, jo tā rezultātā pasažieriem jāmaksā nodoklis tādā pašā veidā neatkarīgi no ceļojuma maršruta (tā vietā, lai maksātu nodokli par ceļojuma pirmo un otro posmu). Turklāt to, ka šo nodokli nepiemēro transfēra un tranzīta pasažieriem, pamato nodokļu dubultās uzlikšanas novēršana.

Attiecībā uz to, ka procentuāla apmēra vietā izmanto fiksētās nodokļa likmes, jānorāda, ka dalībvalstis ir tiesīgas izvēlēties starp fiksētajām un proporcionālajām likmēm. Akcīzes nodokļus, kāds ir aplūkojamais nodoklis, tipiski nosaka par vienu vienību, un līdz ar to tie nelīdzinās tirdzniecības nodokļiem, kuri tiek noteikti proporcionāli vērtībai. Pēc būtības fiksētas summas veido lielāku daļu no zemākām kopējām cenām. Tomēr netiek skarta starpība starp augstākām un zemākām cenām. Līdz ar to nešķiet, ka tradicionālās aviosabiedrības gūtu priekšrocības salīdzinājumā ar zemo cenu aviosabiedrībām. Turklāt nodoklis, kas ir proporcionāls biļetes cenai, varētu likt uzņēmumiem samazināt tarifu un vienlaikus palielināt darījumu vai papildu maksas.

Attiecībā uz atšķirīgajām nodokļu likmēm, kuras piemēroja no 2009. gada 30. marta līdz 2011. gada 1. martam, Komisija darba dienestu dokumentā norādīja, ka nevar pieļaut diskrimināciju starp valsts un Kopienas iekšējiem lidojumiem. Saskaņā ar Komisijas lēmumu pieņemšanas praksi šāda diferencēšana būtu jāuzskata par selektīvu, ja tai nav loģiska iemesla. Tāds nepārprotami ir bijis arī Tiesas uzskats. Īrijas iestāžu arguments par to, ka tālāku distanču lidojumi ir dārgāki un līdz ar to varētu paaugstināt maksu, nepadarot to nesamērīgu ar cenu, nav derīgs, jo iekšējo galamērķu biļešu cenas ne vienmēr (būtībā) ir zemākas par biļešu cenām uz citiem ES galamērķiem. Tādēļ šķiet, ka zemāka nodokļu likme sniedz selektīvu priekšrocību uzņēmumiem attiecīgajā atsauces sistēmā. Tā kā ir izpildīti arī citi LESD 107. panta 1. punktā minētie kritēriji, attiecīgais pasākums veido valsts atbalstu.

Noslēgumā jāsecina, ka ne kravas pārvadājumu un citu transporta veidu, kas nav gaisa transports, izslēgšana, ne nodokļa nepiemērošana transfēra un tranzīta pasažieriem, neveido valsts atbalstu LESD 107. panta 1. punkta nozīmē. Fiksētās likmes, nevis biļetes cenas procentuālā apmēra, izmantošana, arī neveido valsts atbalstu. Tomēr šķiet, ka valsts atbalstu veido zemākas iekšējās likmes piemērošana laikposmā no 2009. gada 30. marta līdz 2011. gada 1. martam, attiecībā uz kuru ir šaubas par tā saderību ar iekšējo tirgu.

Saskaņā ar Padomes Regulas (EK) Nr. 659/1999 14. pantu no saņēmēja var atgūt visu nelikumīgo atbalstu.

VĒSTULES TEKSTS

“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 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 306/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 306/17

---

Iepriekšējs paziņojums par koncentrāciju

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

Lieta, kas pretendē uz vienkāršotu procedūru

(Dokuments attiecas uz EEZ)

2011/C 306/10

| 1. | Komisija 2011. gada 11. oktobrī saņēma paziņojumu par ierosinātu koncentrāciju, ievērojot Padomes Regulas (EK) Nr. 139/2004 4. pantu (1), kuras rezultātā uzņēmums Alstom Holdings (Francija), kas pieder Francijas grupai Alstom, kā arī uzņēmumi Bouygues Immobilier SA (“Bouygues Immobilier”, Francija) un Exprimm SAS (“Exprimm”, Francija) – divas filiāles, kas pieder Francijas grupai Bouygues, iegūst Apvienošanās regulas 3. panta 1. punkta b) apakšpunkta izpratnē kopīgu kontroli pār uzņēmumu Embix SAS (“Embix”, Francija), iegādājoties akcijas jaunizveidotā kopuzņēmumā. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Komisija 2011. gada 11. oktobrī saņēma paziņojumu par ierosinātu koncentrāciju, ievērojot Padomes Regulas (EK) Nr. 139/2004 4. pantu (1), kuras rezultātā uzņēmums Alstom Holdings (Francija), kas pieder Francijas grupai Alstom, kā arī uzņēmumi Bouygues Immobilier SA (“Bouygues Immobilier”, Francija) un Exprimm SAS (“Exprimm”, Francija) – divas filiāles, kas pieder Francijas grupai Bouygues, iegūst Apvienošanās regulas 3. panta 1. punkta b) apakšpunkta izpratnē kopīgu kontroli pār uzņēmumu Embix SAS (“Embix”, Francija), iegādājoties akcijas jaunizveidotā kopuzņēmumā.

| 2. | Attiecīgie uzņēmumi veic šādu uzņēmējdarbību:






  — | Alstom Holdings: uzņēmumam pieder daļas Alstom grupas uzņēmumos, kas darbojas aprīkojuma ražošanas un transporta pakalpojumu sniegšanas jomā, kā arī enerģijas ražošanas un pārvades jomā, |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Attiecīgie uzņēmumi veic šādu uzņēmējdarbību:

—

Alstom Holdings: uzņēmumam pieder daļas Alstom grupas uzņēmumos, kas darbojas aprīkojuma ražošanas un transporta pakalpojumu sniegšanas jomā, kā arī enerģijas ražošanas un pārvades jomā,

| — | Bouygues Immobilier: nekustamo īpašumu attīstīšana un mājokļu piedāvājums, ekorajoni, tirdzniecības parki un pilsētplānošanas darbības, |
| --- | --- |

—

Bouygues Immobilier: nekustamo īpašumu attīstīšana un mājokļu piedāvājums, ekorajoni, tirdzniecības parki un pilsētplānošanas darbības,

| — | Exprimm: nekustamo īpašumu infrastruktūras pārvaldīšanas un dažādu tehniskās uzturēšanas pakalpojumu sniegšana, |
| --- | --- |

—

Exprimm: nekustamo īpašumu infrastruktūras pārvaldīšanas un dažādu tehniskās uzturēšanas pakalpojumu sniegšana,

| — | Embix: energotaupības pakalpojumu sniegšana lieliem tirdzniecības parkiem un ekorajoniem. |
| --- | --- |

—

Embix: energotaupības pakalpojumu sniegšana lieliem tirdzniecības parkiem un ekorajoniem.

| 3. | Iepriekšējā pārbaudē Komisija konstatē, ka uz paziņoto darījumu, iespējams, attiecas EK Apvienošanās regulas darbības joma. Tomēr galīgais lēmums šajā jautājumā netiek pieņemts. Ievērojot Komisijas paziņojumu par vienkāršotu procedūru noteiktu koncentrācijas procesu izskatīšanai saskaņā ar EK Apvienošanās regulu (2), jānorāda, ka šī lieta ir nododama izskatīšanai atbilstoši paziņojumā paredzētajai procedūrai. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Iepriekšējā pārbaudē Komisija konstatē, ka uz paziņoto darījumu, iespējams, attiecas EK Apvienošanās regulas darbības joma. Tomēr galīgais lēmums šajā jautājumā netiek pieņemts. Ievērojot Komisijas paziņojumu par vienkāršotu procedūru noteiktu koncentrācijas procesu izskatīšanai saskaņā ar EK Apvienošanās regulu (2), jānorāda, ka šī lieta ir nododama izskatīšanai atbilstoši paziņojumā paredzētajai procedūrai.

| 4. | Komisija aicina ieinteresētās trešās personas iesniegt tai savus iespējamos novērojumus par ierosināto darbību.
  Novērojumiem jānonāk Komisijā ne vēlāk kā 10 dienas pēc šīs publikācijas datuma. Novērojumus Komisijai var nosūtīt pa faksu (+32 22964301), pa e-pastu uz adresi COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu vai pa pastu ar atsauces numuru COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV uz šādu adresi:






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

4.

Komisija aicina ieinteresētās trešās personas iesniegt tai savus iespējamos novērojumus par ierosināto darbību.

Novērojumiem jānonāk Komisijā ne vēlāk kā 10 dienas pēc šīs publikācijas datuma. Novērojumus Komisijai var nosūtīt pa faksu (+32 22964301), pa e-pastu uz adresi COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu vai pa pastu ar atsauces numuru COMP/M.6289 – Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV uz šādu adresi:

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OV L 24, 29.1.2004., 1. lpp. (“EK Apvienošanās regula”).

(2)  OV C 56, 5.3.2005., 32. lpp. (“Paziņojums par vienkāršotu procedūru”).

---

CITI TIESĪBU AKTI

Eiropas Komisija

| 18.10.2011 | LV | Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis | C 306/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

LV

Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis

C 306/18

---

Pieteikuma publikācija saskaņā ar 6. panta 2. punktu Padomes Regulā (EK) Nr. 510/2006 par lauksaimniecības produktu un pārtikas produktu ģeogrāfiskās izcelsmes norāžu un cilmes vietu nosaukumu aizsardzību

2011/C 306/11

Šī publikācija dod tiesības izteikt iebildumus pret pieteikumu atbilstīgi Padomes Regulas (EK) Nr. 510/2006 (1) 7. pantam. Komisijai jāsaņem paziņojumi par iebildumiem sešu mēnešu laikā no šīs publikācijas dienas.

VIENOTS DOKUMENTS

PADOMES REGULA (EK) Nr. 510/2006

“VADEHAVSLAM”

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

AĢIN ( X ) ACVN ( )

1.   Nosaukums:

“Vadehavslam”

2.   Dalībvalsts vai trešā valsts:

Dānija

3.   Lauksaimniecības produkta vai pārtikas produkta apraksts:

3.1.   Produkta veids:

| 1.1. grupa. | Svaiga gaļa (un subprodukti) |
| --- | --- |

1.1. grupa.

Svaiga gaļa (un subprodukti)

3.2.   Produkta apraksts, uz kuru attiecas nosaukums 1. punktā:

“Vadehavslam” ir norādītajā ģeogrāfiskajā apgabalā dzimušu un audzētu jēru liemeņi un izcirtņi.

Jēru ieguvei izmanto Tekselas šķirnes aitas vai Tekselas un citas šķirnes krustojumus (reizumis Tekselas šķirnes māti pirmajam metienam lecina ar Safolkas vai Gotlandes vilnas aitu šķirnes teķi), ko tradicionāli audzē jūrmalas pļavās.

Ciltsdarba mērķis gadu gaitā ir bijis izveidot aitu šķirni, kas ne tikai ir piemērota vietējiem audzēšanas apstākļiem, bet arī dod lielus jērus ar labiem gaļīguma rādītājiem. Šādas īpašības un sasāļotās jūrmalas pļavas, kurās šie jēri ganās, padara tos atšķirīgus no citās valsts daļās audzētajiem jēriem.

Kvalitātes prasības

| Kautsvars | : | 19–25 kg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Forma | : | vismaz 6 |
| Krāsa | : | 3–4 |
| Aptaukojums | : | 1–2–3 |

Kautsvars

:

19–25 kg

Forma

:

vismaz 6

Krāsa

:

3–4

Aptaukojums

:

1–2–3

Kaušanas laiks (jēra vecums kaušanas brīdī) ir atkarīgs no jēra svara, kam jābūt robežās no 19 līdz 25 kg. Turklāt kaušanas uzņēmumam kautuvē vizuāli jānorāda tauku saturs. (Agrāk pietika, ka par jēriem izdarīja paziņojumu, līdzīgi kā “Danish Crown” dara ar liellopiem. Tagad tā vairs nav, un tāpēc kaušanas uzņēmumam ir kautuvē vizuāli jānorāda tauku saturs.)

3.3.   Izejvielas:

—

3.4.   Dzīvnieku barība (tikai dzīvnieku izcelsmes produktiem):

Ziemā vismaz 50 % dzīvnieku barības jābūt no norādītā ģeogrāfiskā apgabala. Ziemas mēnešos jērus baro ar zāli, kukurūzu, skābbarību un, ziemas perioda beigās, ar sienu, kam pievienoti mieži.

Vismaz 4,5 mēnešus gadā dzīvniekiem jābarojas norādītā ģeogrāfiskā apgabala jūrmalas pļavās un piekrastes zonā.

3.5.   Īpaši ražošanas posmi, kas jāveic noteiktajā ģeogrāfiskajā apgabalā:

| — | Jēriem jābūt dzimušiem un audzētiem norādītajā ģeogrāfiskajā apgabalā. |
| --- | --- |

—

Jēriem jābūt dzimušiem un audzētiem norādītajā ģeogrāfiskajā apgabalā.

3.6.   Īpaši noteikumi griešanai, rīvēšanai, iepakošanai, u. c.:

—

3.7.   Īpaši noteikumi marķēšanai:

Visus kautķermeņus apzīmogo ar “Vadehav, Marsk og Mad” zīmi (logotipu).

Lai nodrošinātu produkta izsekojamību, logotips jānorāda uz galaprodukta iepakojuma un – ar zīmoga nospiedumu – uz kautķermeņa.

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

Image

Image

4.   Precīza ģeogrāfiskā apgabala definīcija:

Ģeogrāfiskais apgabals ir Vatu jūras reģions (Vadehavsregionen) Dānijas dienvidrietumos. Vatu jūras reģionā ietilpst Rømø, Mandø un Fanø sala un arī tā cietzemes daļa, kur Vatu jūras reģiona Dānijas daļa dienvidos robežojas ar Vāciju. Apgabala ziemeļu robeža vienlaikus ir arī Vatu jūras nacionālā parka ziemeļu robeža. Apgabala austrumu robeža ir valsts nozīmes A11 autoceļš.

5.   Saikne ar ģeogrāfisko apgabalu:

5.1.   Ģeogrāfiskā apgabala specifika:

Ribe (Ribe), kas izveidojās par tirdzniecības pilsētu, dibināta 710. gadā; arheoloģiskajos izrakumos noskaidrots, kādas preces tur pārdotas. Jau izsenis tur tirgojušies ar aitām un jēriem. Šīs aitas un jēri bija no tuvējiem jūrmalciemiem, kas izkaisīti sasāļotajās Vatu jūras piekrastes pļavās, un tas nozīmē, ka vietējie lauksaimnieki aitas un jērus audzējuši jau dzelzs laikmetā.

“Vadehavslam” ražošanā mūslaiku izpausmi guvusi jūrmalas pļavās ganītu aitu un jēru audzēšanas senā tradīcija. Katru gadu vētru dēļ lauksaimnieciski izmantojamās zemes applūda. Atkāpjoties jūra atstāja aiz sevis auglīgas dūņas, radot bagātīgus, sasāļotu purvainu pļavu veidotus ganību apgabalus, kur vasarā ganījās dzīvnieki, bet ziemā to vajadzībām ieguva lopbarību.

Rakstā “Jordbundsundersøgelser i marsken” (Jūrmalas pļavu augsnes izpēte), kas 1968. gadā publicēts augkopības žurnālā “Tidskrift for planteavl”, autors Lorens Hansens (Lorens Hansen) apskata šajās pļavās ņemtus augsnes paraugus. Viņš apgalvo, ka jūrmalas pļavu augsne ir dabīgi bagāta ar kāliju gan augstā māla satura, gan arī augsnes veidošanās īpatnību dēļ. Nātrija saturu aramzemju augsnēs nosaka tikai retumis, jo tas ir tik zems, ka nekādi neietekmē augsnes struktūru. Taču jūrmalas pļavu augsne bieži vien satur ļoti daudz nātrija, kas tur nonācis, jūras sālij izgulsnējoties pļavu veidošanās laikā.

Jūrmalas pļavās lekni augošās savvaļas graudzāles nav sevišķi piemērotas tradicionālajai lauksaimniecībai, toties tās ir praktiski ideālas ganībām. Savvaļas graudzāles, kas labi pielāgojušās jūrmalas pļavu augsnes apstākļiem, ir barības vielām bagātas un izturīgas pret laikapstākļu maiņu. Faktiski tas, kas šīs ganības dara unikālas, ir Vatu jūras skarbums un jūras sāls. Piekrastē aug galvenokārt šādi augi un zālaugi:

| — | iekšpusē, aizsprosta tuvumā, aug smalka zāle, baltā āboliņa savvaļas pundurformas, vanagnadziņi, zvaguļi, gundegas un armērija, |
| --- | --- |

—

iekšpusē, aizsprosta tuvumā, aug smalka zāle, baltā āboliņa savvaļas pundurformas, vanagnadziņi, zvaguļi, gundegas un armērija,

| — | lejasdaļā – kermeks, jūrmalas āžloki un nedaudz rupjas zāles, |
| --- | --- |

—

lejasdaļā – kermeks, jūrmalas āžloki un nedaudz rupjas zāles,

| — | piekrastes ārējā/iekšējā daļā – sālsauzene un salikornija. |
| --- | --- |

—

piekrastes ārējā/iekšējā daļā – sālsauzene un salikornija.

5.2.   Produkta specifika:

Jēri tiek audzēti tā, lai tie varētu dzīvot skarbajos jūrmalas pļavu un piekrastes apstākļos. Ciltsdarbā iegūti par parastajiem lielāki un gaļīgāki jēri, turklāt to gaļa ir liesa. “Vadehavslam” garša ir izteikti sāļa.

5.3.   Saikne starp ģeogrāfisko apgabalu un produkta kvalitāti vai īpašībām vai produkta īpašo kvalitāti, reputāciju vai citām īpašībām:

Skarbā vide un īpašie audzēšanas apstākļi no Vatu jūras reģiona aitkopjiem prasa lielu darbu. Vietējo lauksaimnieku zinātība un pieredze dabīgajos Vatu jūras reģiona apstākļos ļauj izaudzēt stiprus, izturīgus jērus.

Jēri ir lieli un gaļīgi, un apgabala īpašo audzēšanas apstākļu dēļ to gaļai ir izteikti sāļa garša. Kad zemi applūdina jūras ūdens, augsnē izgulsnējas sāls un minerālvielas. Jēri ganās sasāļotajās jūrmalas pļavās, kurās augošo graudzāļu augstais kālija un nātrija saturs ietekmē šo jēru gaļas garšu un piešķir “Vadehavslam” tā raksturīgās īpašības un tipisko sāļo garšu.

Jau gadiem ilgi “Vadehavslam” ir visā Dānijā labi zināms produkts.

Vatu jūras reģionam un Vatu jūras nacionālajam parkam veltītajā tūrisma informācijā “Vadehavslam” ražošana aprakstīta kā šim apgabalam svarīga un raksturīga nodarbošanās.

Atsauce uz specifikācijas publikāciju:

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

---

(1)  OV L 93, 31.3.2006., 12. lpp.

---