# Den Europæiske Unions C 306/2011

| | ISSN 1977-0871
  doi:10.3000/19770871.C_2011.306.dan |
| --- | --- |
| Den Europæiske Unions
  Tidende | C 306 |
| | |
| Dansk udgave | Meddelelser og oplysninger | 54. årgang18. oktober 2011 |

ISSN 1977-0871

doi:10.3000/19770871.C_2011.306.dan

Den Europæiske Unions

Tidende

C 306

Dansk udgave

Meddelelser og oplysninger

54. årgang18. oktober 2011

---

| Informationsnummer | Indhold | Side |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Oplysninger |
| | OPLYSNINGER FRA DEN EUROPÆISKE UNIONS INSTITUTIONER, ORGANER, KONTORER OG AGENTURER |
| | Europa-Kommissionen |
| 2011/C 306/01 | Euroens vekselkurs | 1 |
| | OPLYSNINGER FRA MEDLEMSSTATERNE |
| 2011/C 306/02 | Medlemsstaternes oplysninger om statsstøtte, der ydes i henhold til Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1857/2006 om anvendelse af traktatens artikel 87 og 88 på statsstøtte til små og mellemstore virksomheder, der beskæftiger sig med produktion af landbrugsprodukter, og om ændring af forordning (EF) nr. 70/2001 | 2 |
| 2011/C 306/03 | Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri | 4 |
| 2011/C 306/04 | Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri | 5 |
| 2011/C 306/05 | Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri | 6 |
| 2011/C 306/06 | Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri | 7 |
| 2011/C 306/07 | Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri | 8 |
| 2011/C 306/08 | Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri | 9 |

Informationsnummer

Indhold

Side

IV   Oplysninger

OPLYSNINGER FRA DEN EUROPÆISKE UNIONS INSTITUTIONER, ORGANER, KONTORER OG AGENTURER

Europa-Kommissionen

2011/C 306/01

Euroens vekselkurs

1

OPLYSNINGER FRA MEDLEMSSTATERNE

2011/C 306/02

Medlemsstaternes oplysninger om statsstøtte, der ydes i henhold til Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1857/2006 om anvendelse af traktatens artikel 87 og 88 på statsstøtte til små og mellemstore virksomheder, der beskæftiger sig med produktion af landbrugsprodukter, og om ændring af forordning (EF) nr. 70/2001

2

2011/C 306/03

Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri

4

2011/C 306/04

Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri

5

2011/C 306/05

Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri

6

2011/C 306/06

Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri

7

2011/C 306/07

Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri

8

2011/C 306/08

Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri

9

| | V   Øvrige meddelelser |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURER VEDRØRENDE GENNEMFØRELSEN AF KONKURRENCEPOLITIKKEN |
| | Europa-Kommissionen |
| 2011/C 306/09 | Statsstøtte — Irland — Statsstøtte SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) — Lufttransport — Fritagelse for afgifter på flybilletter — Opfordring til at fremsætte bemærkninger efter EUF-traktatens artikel 108, stk. 2 (
  1
  ) | 10 |
| 2011/C 306/10 | Anmeldelse af en planlagt fusion (Sag COMP/M.6289 — Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV) — Behandles eventuelt efter den forenklede procedure (
  1
  ) | 17 |
| | ANDET |
| | Europa-Kommissionen |
| 2011/C 306/11 | Offentliggørelse af en ansøgning i henhold til artikel 6, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 510/2006 om beskyttelse af geografiske betegnelser og oprindelsesbetegnelser for landbrugsprodukter og fødevarer | 18 |

V   Øvrige meddelelser

PROCEDURER VEDRØRENDE GENNEMFØRELSEN AF KONKURRENCEPOLITIKKEN

Europa-Kommissionen

2011/C 306/09

Statsstøtte — Irland — Statsstøtte SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) — Lufttransport — Fritagelse for afgifter på flybilletter — Opfordring til at fremsætte bemærkninger efter EUF-traktatens artikel 108, stk. 2 (
  1
  )

1

10

2011/C 306/10

Anmeldelse af en planlagt fusion (Sag COMP/M.6289 — Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV) — Behandles eventuelt efter den forenklede procedure (
  1
  )

1

17

ANDET

Europa-Kommissionen

2011/C 306/11

Offentliggørelse af en ansøgning i henhold til artikel 6, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 510/2006 om beskyttelse af geografiske betegnelser og oprindelsesbetegnelser for landbrugsprodukter og fødevarer

18

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   EØS-relevant tekst |

---

(1)   EØS-relevant tekst

1

| DA | |
| --- | --- |

DA

---

IV Oplysninger

OPLYSNINGER FRA DEN EUROPÆISKE UNIONS INSTITUTIONER, ORGANER, KONTORER OG AGENTURER

Europa-Kommissionen

| 18.10.2011 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | C 306/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

C 306/1

---

Euroens vekselkurs (1)

17. oktober 2011

2011/C 306/01

1 euro =

| | Valuta | Kurs |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | amerikanske dollar | 1,3776 |
| JPY | japanske yen | 106,43 |
| DKK | danske kroner | 7,4453 |
| GBP | pund sterling | 0,87400 |
| SEK | svenske kroner | 9,1582 |
| CHF | schweiziske franc | 1,2365 |
| ISK | islandske kroner | |
| NOK | norske kroner | 7,7320 |
| BGN | bulgarske lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | tjekkiske koruna | 24,762 |
| HUF | ungarske forint | 293,94 |
| LTL | litauiske litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | lettiske lats | 0,7049 |
| PLN | polske zloty | 4,2927 |
| RON | rumænske leu | 4,3320 |
| TRY | tyrkiske lira | 2,5514 |
| AUD | australske dollar | 1,3406 |
| CAD | canadiske dollar | 1,3955 |
| HKD | hongkongske dollar | 10,7124 |
| NZD | newzealandske dollar | 1,7225 |
| SGD | singaporeanske dollar | 1,7458 |
| KRW | sydkoreanske won | 1 577,85 |
| ZAR | sydafrikanske rand | 10,8856 |
| CNY | kinesiske renminbi yuan | 8,7746 |
| HRK | kroatiske kuna | 7,4685 |
| IDR | indonesiske rupiah | 12 147,13 |
| MYR | malaysiske ringgit | 4,2707 |
| PHP | filippinske pesos | 59,465 |
| RUB | russiske rubler | 42,4230 |
| THB | thailandske bath | 42,182 |
| BRL | brasilianske real | 2,4083 |
| MXN | mexicanske pesos | 18,2857 |
| INR | indiske rupee | 67,4400 |

Valuta

Kurs

USD

amerikanske dollar

1,3776

JPY

japanske yen

106,43

DKK

danske kroner

7,4453

GBP

pund sterling

0,87400

SEK

svenske kroner

9,1582

CHF

schweiziske franc

1,2365

ISK

islandske kroner

NOK

norske kroner

7,7320

BGN

bulgarske lev

1,9558

CZK

tjekkiske koruna

24,762

HUF

ungarske forint

293,94

LTL

litauiske litas

3,4528

LVL

lettiske lats

0,7049

PLN

polske zloty

4,2927

RON

rumænske leu

4,3320

TRY

tyrkiske lira

2,5514

AUD

australske dollar

1,3406

CAD

canadiske dollar

1,3955

HKD

hongkongske dollar

10,7124

NZD

newzealandske dollar

1,7225

SGD

singaporeanske dollar

1,7458

KRW

sydkoreanske won

1 577,85

ZAR

sydafrikanske rand

10,8856

CNY

kinesiske renminbi yuan

8,7746

HRK

kroatiske kuna

7,4685

IDR

indonesiske rupiah

12 147,13

MYR

malaysiske ringgit

4,2707

PHP

filippinske pesos

59,465

RUB

russiske rubler

42,4230

THB

thailandske bath

42,182

BRL

brasilianske real

2,4083

MXN

mexicanske pesos

18,2857

INR

indiske rupee

67,4400

---

(1)  Kilde: Referencekurs offentliggjort af Den Europæiske Centralbank.

---

OPLYSNINGER FRA MEDLEMSSTATERNE

| 18.10.2011 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | C 306/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

C 306/2

---

Medlemsstaternes oplysninger om statsstøtte, der ydes i henhold til Kommissionens forordning (EF) nr. 1857/2006 om anvendelse af traktatens artikel 87 og 88 på statsstøtte til små og mellemstore virksomheder, der beskæftiger sig med produktion af landbrugsprodukter, og om ændring af forordning (EF) nr. 70/2001

2011/C 306/02

Støtte nr.: SA.33657 (11/XA)

Medlemsstat: Frankrig

Region: France

Støtteordningens betegnelse eller navnet på den virksomhed, der modtager individuel støtte: Assistance technique aux exploitations agricoles de huit baies bretonnes pour leur évolution vers des systèmes de production à très basses fuites d'azote

Retsgrundlag:

| — | 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

Forventede årlige udgifter til ordningen eller det samlede individuelle støttebeløb: Ordningens planlagte samlede årlige budget: 3 EUR (mio.)

Maksimal støtteintensitet: 100 %

Gennemførelsesdato: —

Ordningens eller det individuelle støtteprojekts varighed: 24. oktober 2011-31. december 2015

Målet med støtten: Teknisk bistand (art. 15 i forordning (EF) nr. 1857/2006)

Berørt(e) sektor(er): Plante- og husdyravl, jagt og serviceydelser i forbindelse hermed

Den støttetildelende myndigheds navn og adresse: 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

Websted:

| | 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

Andre oplysninger: —

Støtte nr.: SA.33729 (11/XA)

Medlemsstat: Italien

Region: Emilia-Romagna

Støtteordningens betegnelse eller navnet på den virksomhed, der modtager individuel støtte: Prevenzione e l'eradicazione di fitopatie ed infestazioni parassitarie. Programma di intervento contributivo riferito alle estirpazioni di piante di drupacee e di actinidia

Retsgrundlag: 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.

Forventede årlige udgifter til ordningen eller det samlede individuelle støttebeløb: Ordningens planlagte samlede årlige budget: 1 EUR (mio.)

Maksimal støtteintensitet: 100 %

Gennemførelsesdato: —

Ordningens eller det individuelle støtteprojekts varighed: 4. november 2011-31. december 2013

Målet med støtten: Plantesygdomme -skadedyrsangreb (art. 10 i forordning (EF) nr. 1857/2006)

Berørt(e) sektor(er): Landbrug, jagt, skovbrug og fiskeri

Den støttetildelende myndigheds navn og adresse:

| 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

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

Andre oplysninger: —

Støtte nr.: SA.33730 (11/XA)

Medlemsstat: Italien

Region: Basilicata

Støtteordningens betegnelse eller navnet på den virksomhed, der modtager individuel støtte: Misure regionali di sostegno alle aziende frutticole colpite dalla Vaiolatura delle drupacee (Sharka), causata dall'agente Plum pox virus

Retsgrundlag: 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

Forventede årlige udgifter til ordningen eller det samlede individuelle støttebeløb: Ordningens planlagte samlede årlige budget: 0,30 EUR (mio.)

Maksimal støtteintensitet: 39,20 %

Gennemførelsesdato: —

Ordningens eller det individuelle støtteprojekts varighed: 13. oktober 2011-31. december 2012

Målet med støtten: Plantesygdomme -skadedyrsangreb (art. 10 i forordning (EF) nr. 1857/2006)

Berørt(e) sektor(er): Dyrkning af kernefrugter og stenfrugter

Den støttetildelende myndigheds navn og adresse:

| 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

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

Andre oplysninger: —

---

| 18.10.2011 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | C 306/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

C 306/4

---

Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri

2011/C 306/03

I overensstemmelse med artikel 35, stk. 3, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1224/2009 af 20. november 2009 om oprettelse af en EF-kontrolordning med henblik på at sikre overholdelse af reglerne i den fælles fiskeripolitik (1) er der truffet beslutning om lukning af fiskeri, jf. nedenstående skema:

| Dato og klokkeslæt for lukning | 5.9.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Varighed | 5.9.2011-31.12.2011 |
| Medlemsstat | Portugal |
| Bestand eller bestandsgruppe | WHM/ATLANT |
| Art | Hvid marlin (Tetrapturus albidus) |
| Område | Atlanterhavet |
| Fiskerfartøjstype(r) | — |
| Løbenummer | — |

Dato og klokkeslæt for lukning

5.9.2011

Varighed

5.9.2011-31.12.2011

Medlemsstat

Portugal

Bestand eller bestandsgruppe

WHM/ATLANT

Art

Hvid marlin (Tetrapturus albidus)

Område

Atlanterhavet

Fiskerfartøjstype(r)

—

Løbenummer

—

Link til medlemsstatens beslutning:

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

---

(1)  EUT L 343 af 22.12.2009, s. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | C 306/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

C 306/5

---

Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri

2011/C 306/04

I overensstemmelse med artikel 35, stk. 3, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1224/2009 af 20. november 2009 om oprettelse af en EF-kontrolordning med henblik på at sikre overholdelse af reglerne i den fælles fiskeripolitik (1) er der truffet beslutning om lukning af fiskeri, jf. nedenstående skema:

| Dato og klokkeslæt for lukning | 5.9.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Varighed | 5.9.2011-31.12.2011 |
| Medlemsstat | Portugal |
| Bestand eller bestandsgruppe | ALF/3X14- |
| Art | Berycider (Beryx spp.) |
| Område | EU-farvande og internationale farvande i III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII og XIV |
| Fiskerfartøjstype(r) | — |
| Løbenummer | — |

Dato og klokkeslæt for lukning

5.9.2011

Varighed

5.9.2011-31.12.2011

Medlemsstat

Portugal

Bestand eller bestandsgruppe

ALF/3X14-

Art

Berycider (Beryx spp.)

Område

EU-farvande og internationale farvande i III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XII og XIV

Fiskerfartøjstype(r)

—

Løbenummer

—

Link til medlemsstatens beslutning:

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

---

(1)  EUT L 343 af 22.12.2009, s. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | C 306/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

C 306/6

---

Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri

2011/C 306/05

I overensstemmelse med artikel 35, stk. 3, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1224/2009 af 20. november 2009 om oprettelse af en EF-kontrolordning med henblik på at sikre overholdelse af reglerne i den fælles fiskeripolitik (1) er der truffet beslutning om lukning af fiskeri, jf. nedenstående skema:

| Dato og klokkeslæt for lukning | 25.6.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Varighed | 25.6.2011-31.12.2011 |
| Medlemsstat | Spanien |
| Bestand eller bestandsgruppe | BSF/8910- |
| Art | Skælbrosmearter (Phycis blennoides) |
| Område | EU-farvande og internationale farvande i VIII og IX |
| Fiskerfartøjstype(r) | — |
| Løbenummer | 887271 |

Dato og klokkeslæt for lukning

25.6.2011

Varighed

25.6.2011-31.12.2011

Medlemsstat

Spanien

Bestand eller bestandsgruppe

BSF/8910-

Art

Skælbrosmearter (Phycis blennoides)

Område

EU-farvande og internationale farvande i VIII og IX

Fiskerfartøjstype(r)

—

Løbenummer

887271

Link til medlemsstatens beslutning:

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

---

(1)  EUT L 343 af 22.12.2009, s. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | C 306/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

C 306/7

---

Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri

2011/C 306/06

I overensstemmelse med artikel 35, stk. 3, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1224/2009 af 20. november 2009 om oprettelse af en EF-kontrolordning med henblik på at sikre overholdelse af reglerne i den fælles fiskeripolitik (1) er der truffet beslutning om lukning af fiskeri, jf. nedenstående skema:

| Dato og klokkeslæt for lukning | 12.7.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Varighed | 12.7.2011-31.12.2011 |
| Medlemsstat | Spanien |
| Bestand eller bestandsgruppe | BSF/8910- |
| Art | Sort sabelfisk (Aphanopus carbo) |
| Område | EU-farvande og internationale farvande i VIII, IX og X |
| Fiskerfartøjstype(r) | — |
| Løbenummer | 887293 |

Dato og klokkeslæt for lukning

12.7.2011

Varighed

12.7.2011-31.12.2011

Medlemsstat

Spanien

Bestand eller bestandsgruppe

BSF/8910-

Art

Sort sabelfisk (Aphanopus carbo)

Område

EU-farvande og internationale farvande i VIII, IX og X

Fiskerfartøjstype(r)

—

Løbenummer

887293

Link til medlemsstatens beslutning:

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

---

(1)  EUT L 343 af 22.12.2009, s. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | C 306/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

C 306/8

---

Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri

2011/C 306/07

I overensstemmelse med artikel 35, stk. 3, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1224/2009 af 20. november 2009 om oprettelse af en EF-kontrolordning med henblik på at sikre overholdelse af reglerne i den fælles fiskeripolitik (1) er der truffet beslutning om lukning af fiskeri, jf. nedenstående skema:

| Dato og klokkeslæt for lukning | 13.8.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Varighed | 13.8.2011-31.12.2011 |
| Medlemsstat | Belgien |
| Bestand eller bestandsgruppe | WHG/08. |
| Art | Hvilling (Merlangius merlangus) |
| Område | VIII |
| Fiskerfartøjstype(r) | — |
| Løbenummer | 870462 |

Dato og klokkeslæt for lukning

13.8.2011

Varighed

13.8.2011-31.12.2011

Medlemsstat

Belgien

Bestand eller bestandsgruppe

WHG/08.

Art

Hvilling (Merlangius merlangus)

Område

VIII

Fiskerfartøjstype(r)

—

Løbenummer

870462

Link til medlemsstatens beslutning:

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

---

(1)  EUT L 343 af 22.12.2009, s. 1.

---

| 18.10.2011 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | C 306/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

C 306/9

---

Oplysninger fra medlemsstaterne om lukning af fiskeri

2011/C 306/08

I overensstemmelse med artikel 35, stk. 3, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1224/2009 af 20. november 2009 om oprettelse af en EF-kontrolordning med henblik på at sikre overholdelse af reglerne i den fælles fiskeripolitik (1) er der truffet beslutning om lukning af fiskeri, jf. nedenstående skema:

| Dato og klokkeslæt for lukning | 13.8.2011 |
| --- | --- |
| Varighed | 13.8.2011-31.12.2011 |
| Medlemsstat | Belgien |
| Bestand eller bestandsgruppe | LEZ/8ABDE. |
| Art | Glashvarrearter (Lepidorhombus spp.) |
| Område | VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId og VIIIe |
| Fiskerfartøjstype(r) | — |
| Løbenummer | 870462 |

Dato og klokkeslæt for lukning

13.8.2011

Varighed

13.8.2011-31.12.2011

Medlemsstat

Belgien

Bestand eller bestandsgruppe

LEZ/8ABDE.

Art

Glashvarrearter (Lepidorhombus spp.)

Område

VIIIa, VIIIb, VIIId og VIIIe

Fiskerfartøjstype(r)

—

Løbenummer

870462

Link til medlemsstatens beslutning:

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

---

(1)  EUT L 343 af 22.12.2009, s. 1.

---

V Øvrige meddelelser

PROCEDURER VEDRØRENDE GENNEMFØRELSEN AF KONKURRENCEPOLITIKKEN

Europa-Kommissionen

| 18.10.2011 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | C 306/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

C 306/10

---

STATSSTØTTE — IRLAND

Statsstøtte SA.29064 (11/C) (ex 11/NN) — Lufttransport — Fritagelse for afgifter på flybilletter

Opfordring til at fremsætte bemærkninger efter EUF-traktatens artikel 108, stk. 2

(EØS-relevant tekst)

2011/C 306/09

Ved brev af 13. juli 2011, der er gengivet på det autentiske sprog efter dette resumé, meddelte Kommissionen Irland, at den havde besluttet at indlede proceduren efter EUF-traktatens artikel 108, stk. 2, over for ovennævnte støtteforanstaltning.

Interesserede parter kan senest en måned efter offentliggørelsen af nærværende resumé og det efterfølgende brev sende eventuelle bemærkninger til den støtteforanstaltning, over for hvilken Kommissionen indleder proceduren, til:

| Europa-Kommissionen |
| --- |
| Generaldirektorat for Konkurrence |
| Registreringskontoret for statsstøtte |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Fax +32 22961242 |

Europa-Kommissionen

Generaldirektorat for Konkurrence

Registreringskontoret for statsstøtte

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Fax +32 22961242

Disse bemærkninger vil blive videresendt til Irland. Interesserede parter, der fremsætter bemærkninger til sagen, kan skriftligt anmode om at få deres navne hemmeligholdt. Anmodningen skal være begrundet.

RESUMÉ

De irske myndigheder indførte med virkning fra 30. marts 2009 en afgift på flybilletter, som skal opkræves på »enhver passagers afrejse med et fly fra en lufthavn«. Selv om det var hensigten, at afgiften i sidste instans skulle væltes over på passagererne via billetprisen, var det luftfartsoperatørerne, der skulle opkræve og betale afgiften for de passagerer, der rejser med deres respektive fly. Definitionen på »passager« omfatter i den forbindelse ikke transfer- og transitrejsende. Da afgiften blev indført, blev den beregnet på basis af afstanden mellem den lufthavn, hvor rejsen blev påbegyndt, og destinationslufthavnen, og androg (i) 2 EUR for rejser mellem lufthavne, der lå højst 300 km fra Dublin lufthavn, og (ii) 10 EUR i alle øvrige tilfælde. Efter en overtrædelsesprocedure gjaldt der fra 1. marts 2011 en fast afgift på 3 EUR for alle afstande. Da afgiftspligten er baseret på en passagers afgang med et fly, er fragtfly og andre transportformer ikke omfattet af afgiften.

Ifølge en klage, som Kommissionen har modtaget, medfører det forhold, at afgiften ikke gælder for transfer- og transitpassagerer og fragtfly, at der er tale om ulovlig og uforenelig statsstøtte til luftfartsselskaberne Aer Lingus og Aer Arann og lufthavnsoperatøren Dublin Airport Authority (DAA), da disse selskaber har en forholdsvis høj andel af disse passagerer og fly. Det forhold, at afgiften ikke gælder for sø- og jernbanetransport, indebærer angiveligt, at der ydes statsstøtte til operatører i disse sektorer. Klageren anførte også, at den faste afgiftssats repræsenterede en højere andel af lavprisselskabernes billetpris end de traditionelle luftfartsselskabers. Endelig påstod klageren, at den lavere afgiftssats begunstigede Aer Arann, da 50 % af de passagerer, der rejser med dette selskab, rejser til destinationer, der ligger højst 300 km fra Dublin lufthavn.

Ifølge de irske myndigheder er fragtfly og andre transportformer ikke omfattet af afgiften, da den er forholdsvis let at anvende. Skattepolitikken er ikke udformet, så den passer på enhver individuel forretningsmodel. Operatører inden for godstransport og andre transportformer end flytrafik med passagerer er derfor ikke omfattet af afgiften. Afgiften omfatter ikke transfer- og transittrafik som følge af neutralitetshensyn: Det skulle i sidste instans være passagererne, der skulle bære afgiften, og de skulle ikke straffes, fordi de mellemlander i Irland. De irske myndigheder antyder endvidere, at denne ordning forhindrer potentiel dobbeltbeskatning i tilfælde, hvor en tilsvarende afgift opkræves i den lufthavn, hvor rejsen påbegyndes. Der anvendes en fast afgift i stedet for en procentuel andel af billetprisen, fordi der er tale om en punktafgift. Bortset fra det administrativt byrdefulde aspekt giver en afgift baseret på en procentuel andel af billetprisen mulighed for omgåelse, fordi luftfartsselskaberne vil forsøge at sænke billetpriserne samtidig med, at de øger indtægterne via tillægsgebyrer. Forklaringen på den lavere afgift for kortere afstande (gældende indtil 1. marts 2011) var ifølge de irske myndigheder, at priserne normalt er lavere for kortere afstande. Irland betvivlede endvidere, at Aer Arann blev begunstiget af den lavere sats, da klageren også var aktiv på mange af de ruter, hvor den lavere sats var gældende. De irske myndigheder kan derfor ikke se, hvorledes en lavere afgift for kortere ruter skulle indebære statsstøtte til Aer Arann og Aer Lingus.

For at fastslå, om de påståede foranstaltninger udgør statsstøtte, skal det primært undersøges, om selektivitetskriteriet er opfyldt, dvs. om foranstaltningerne begunstiger bestemte virksomheder, som i retlig og faktuel henseende befinder sig i en situation, der er sammenlignelig i forhold til sigtet med de omhandlede foranstaltninger.

For andre transportformer end flytransport gælder der andre lovgivningsmæssige, administrative og afgiftsmæssige regler end for flytransport. De befinder sig også i en anden faktuel situation end luftfartsoperatører. Udelukkelse af andre transportformer er derfor ikke selektiv.

Da operatører inden for godstransport er aktive inden for et andet forretningsområde med en anden type kunder, og da godstransport og passagerbefordring ikke er substituerbare tjenester, befinder sådanne operatører sig ikke i den samme faktuelle situation som operatører inden for lufttransport af passagerer. Udelukkelse af godstransport kan derfor ikke betragtes som selektiv.

Det er i overensstemmelse med afgiftsystemets karakter og derfor ikke selektivt, at afgiften ikke gælder for transfer- og transitpassagerer. Sigtet med afgiften er at opkræve en afgift på basis af afstanden mellem det sted, hvor rejsen begynder, og hvor den slutter. Det er logisk, at afgiften ikke gælder for transfer- og transitpassagerer, da passagererne herved beskattes på samme måde uafhængigt af den valgte rejserute (i stedet for at blive beskattet af både første og anden del af rejsen). For at undgå dobbeltbeskatning er det desuden berettiget, at afgiften ikke gælder for transfer- og transitpassagerer.

Med hensyn til anvendelsen af en fast afgiftssats i stedet for en procentuel sats bemærkes det, at medlemsstaterne frit kan vælge mellem faste eller proportionelle satser. Punktafgifter som den her omhandlede fastsættes typisk specifikt pr. enhed og ikke som omsætningsafgifter der fastsættes som en procentsats i forhold til værdien. Faste afgiftssatser udgør i sagens natur en højere andel af en lavere samlet pris. Forskellen mellem højere og lavere priser berøres imidlertid ikke. Det ser derfor ikke ud til, at traditionelle luftfartsselskaber får en fordel i forhold til lavprisselskaberne. En afgift, der er proportional med billetprisen, vil desuden kunne tilskynde selskaberne til at sænke billetpriserne og samtidig forhøje ekspeditionsomkostningerne eller andre omkostninger i forbindelse med salget.

Med hensyn til de forskellige afgiftssatser, der har været gældende fra 30. marts 2009 til 1. marts 2011, understregede Kommissionen i et arbejdsdokument, at der ikke må ske forskelsbehandling mellem indenrigsflyvninger og flyvninger inden for Fællesskabet. Ifølge Kommissionens beslutningspraksis bør en sådan differentiering betragtes som selektiv, hvis den ikke er baseret på en logisk begrundelse. Det er også klart understreget af Domstolen. De irske myndigheders argument om, at flyvninger over længere distancer er dyrere, og at der derfor kan opkræves en højere afgift, uden at den bliver uforholdsmæssig stor i forhold til prisen, er ikke gyldigt, da billetpriserne på indenrigsruterne ikke nødvendigvis er (væsentligt) lavere en priserne på flyvninger til andre EU-destinationer. Det ser derfor ud til, at den lavere afgift giver en selektiv fordel til selskaber inden for referencesystemet. Da de øvrige kriterier i artikel 107, stk. 1, i EUF-traktaten også er opfyldt, er der tale om statsstøtte.

Det konkluderes, at det forhold, at afgiften ikke gælder for godstransport og andre transportformer samt for transfer- og transitpassagerer, ikke indebærer statsstøtte efter artikel 107, stk. 1 i EUF-traktaten. Anvendelse af faste satser i modsætning til en procentdel af billetprisen indebærer heller ikke statsstøtte. Men det ser ud til, at anvendelsen af en lavere indenrigssats mellem 30. marts 2009 og 1. marts 2011 indebærer statsstøtte, og der er derfor tvivl om foreneligheden med det indre marked.

Ifølge artikel 14 i forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999 kan enhver ulovlig støtte kræves tilbagebetalt.

BREVETS ORDLYD

»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 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | C 306/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

C 306/17

---

Anmeldelse af en planlagt fusion

(Sag COMP/M.6289 — Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV)

Behandles eventuelt efter den forenklede procedure

(EØS-relevant tekst)

2011/C 306/10

| 1. | Den 11. oktober 2011 modtog Kommissionen i overensstemmelse med artikel 4 i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 139/2004 (1) anmeldelse af en planlagt fusion, hvorved Alstom Holdings (Frankrig), der tilhører koncernen Alstom, sammen med Bouygues Immobilier SA (»Bouygues Immobilier«, Frankrig) og Exprimm SAS (»Exprimm«, Frankrig), der er to datterselskaber i Bouygue-koncernen, gennem opkøb af aktier i et nystiftet joint venture-selskab erhverver fælles kontrol over Embix SAS (»Embix«, Frankrig), jf. Fusionsforordningens artikel 3, stk. 1, litra b). |
| --- | --- |

1.

Den 11. oktober 2011 modtog Kommissionen i overensstemmelse med artikel 4 i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 139/2004 (1) anmeldelse af en planlagt fusion, hvorved Alstom Holdings (Frankrig), der tilhører koncernen Alstom, sammen med Bouygues Immobilier SA (»Bouygues Immobilier«, Frankrig) og Exprimm SAS (»Exprimm«, Frankrig), der er to datterselskaber i Bouygue-koncernen, gennem opkøb af aktier i et nystiftet joint venture-selskab erhverver fælles kontrol over Embix SAS (»Embix«, Frankrig), jf. Fusionsforordningens artikel 3, stk. 1, litra b).

| 2. | De deltagende virksomheder er aktive på følgende områder:






  — | Alstom Holdings: besidder andele i Alstom-koncernens selskaber, der bygger transportsystemer og leverer tjenesteydelser i forbindelse hermed, og selskaber, der fremstiller og overfører energi |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

De deltagende virksomheder er aktive på følgende områder:

—

Alstom Holdings: besidder andele i Alstom-koncernens selskaber, der bygger transportsystemer og leverer tjenesteydelser i forbindelse hermed, og selskaber, der fremstiller og overfører energi

| — | Bouygues Immobilier: byggeri og salg af bolig- og erhvervsejendomme, grønne kvarterer, erhvervscentre og byudvikling |
| --- | --- |

—

Bouygues Immobilier: byggeri og salg af bolig- og erhvervsejendomme, grønne kvarterer, erhvervscentre og byudvikling

| — | Exprimm: tjenesteydelser i forbindelse med forvaltning af ejendomme og multiteknisk vedligeholdelse |
| --- | --- |

—

Exprimm: tjenesteydelser i forbindelse med forvaltning af ejendomme og multiteknisk vedligeholdelse

| — | Embix: tjenesteydelser til intelligent energistyring i grønne kvarterer og store kontor- og erhvervsparker. |
| --- | --- |

—

Embix: tjenesteydelser til intelligent energistyring i grønne kvarterer og store kontor- og erhvervsparker.

| 3. | Efter en foreløbig gennemgang af sagen finder Kommissionen, at den anmeldte fusion muligvis falder ind under EF-fusionsforordningen. Den har dog endnu ikke taget endelig stilling hertil. Det bemærkes, at denne sag eventuelt vil blive behandlet efter den forenklede procedure i overensstemmelse med Kommissionens meddelelse om en forenklet procedure til behandling af visse fusioner efter EF-fusionsforordningen (2). |
| --- | --- |

3.

Efter en foreløbig gennemgang af sagen finder Kommissionen, at den anmeldte fusion muligvis falder ind under EF-fusionsforordningen. Den har dog endnu ikke taget endelig stilling hertil. Det bemærkes, at denne sag eventuelt vil blive behandlet efter den forenklede procedure i overensstemmelse med Kommissionens meddelelse om en forenklet procedure til behandling af visse fusioner efter EF-fusionsforordningen (2).

| 4. | Kommissionen opfordrer hermed alle interesserede til at fremsætte deres eventuelle bemærkninger til den planlagte fusion.
  Bemærkningerne skal være Kommissionen i hænde senest ti dage efter offentliggørelsen af denne meddelelse og kan med angivelse af sagsnummer COMP/M.6289 — Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV sendes til Kommissionen pr. fax (+32 22964301), pr. e-mail til COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu eller pr. brev til følgende adresse:





  Europa-Kommissionen |
| --- | --- |
| Generaldirektoratet for Konkurrence |
| Registreringskontoret for Fusioner |
| J-70 |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

4.

Kommissionen opfordrer hermed alle interesserede til at fremsætte deres eventuelle bemærkninger til den planlagte fusion.

Bemærkningerne skal være Kommissionen i hænde senest ti dage efter offentliggørelsen af denne meddelelse og kan med angivelse af sagsnummer COMP/M.6289 — Alstom/Bouygues Immobilier/Exprimm SAS/Embix JV sendes til Kommissionen pr. fax (+32 22964301), pr. e-mail til COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu eller pr. brev til følgende adresse:

Europa-Kommissionen

Generaldirektoratet for Konkurrence

Registreringskontoret for Fusioner

J-70

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  EUT L 24 af 29.1.2004, s. 1 (»EF-Fusionsforordningen«).

(2)  EUT C 56 af 5.3.2005, s. 32 (»Meddelelsen om en forenklet procedure«).

---

ANDET

Europa-Kommissionen

| 18.10.2011 | DA | Den Europæiske Unions Tidende | C 306/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2011

DA

Den Europæiske Unions Tidende

C 306/18

---

Offentliggørelse af en ansøgning i henhold til artikel 6, stk. 2, i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 510/2006 om beskyttelse af geografiske betegnelser og oprindelsesbetegnelser for landbrugsprodukter og fødevarer

2011/C 306/11

Denne offentliggørelse giver ret til at gøre indsigelse mod ansøgningen, jf. artikel 7 i Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 510/2006 (1). Eventuelle indsigelser skal være Kommissionen i hænde senest seks måneder efter datoen for offentliggørelsen

ENHEDSDOKUMENT

RÅDETS FORORDNING (EF) Nr. 510/2006

»VADEHAVSLAM«

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

BGB ( X ) BOB ( )

1.   Betegnelse:

»Vadehavslam«

2.   Medlemsstat eller tredjeland:

Danmark

3.   Beskrivelse af landbrugsproduktet eller fødevaren:

3.1.   Produkttype:

| Kategori 1.1. | Kød (og slagteaffald), fersk |
| --- | --- |

Kategori 1.1.

Kød (og slagteaffald), fersk

3.2.   Beskrivelse af produktet med betegnelsen i punkt 1:

»Vadehavslam« er slagtekroppe og udskårne stykker af lam, som er født og opvokset i det angivne geografiske område.

Fårene er af racen Texel eller krydsninger af Texel med andre racer (Andre racer: Sommetider — når et lam føder for første gang — er Texel-racen parret med væddere af racen suffolk eller Gotland pelsfår), der traditionelt har været anvendt i marsken.

Det har været hensigten gennem fortsat avlsarbejde at frembringe et får, som ikke blot er tilpasset til den natur, det lever i, men som også frembringer store og kødfulde lam. Sammen med det græs, lammene spiser på marsken, adskiller dette lammene fra lam produceret i andre områder af landet.

Kvalitetskrav lam:

| Slagtevægt | : | 19-25 kg |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Form | : | min 6 |
| Farve | : | 3-4 |
| Fedme | : | 1-2-3 |

Slagtevægt

:

19-25 kg

Form

:

min 6

Farve

:

3-4

Fedme

:

1-2-3

Slagtetidspunkt (lammets alder ved slagtning) afhænger af vægten, som skal være mellem 19 og 25 kg. Desuden skal virksomheden der er ansvarlig for slagtningen lave en visuel identifikation af fedtindholdet i slagtehuset. (Tidligere blev en notifikation for Lam brugt, som lignende den der bliver brugt af Danish Crown for kreaturer. Notifikationen for Lam bliver ikke længere brugt, hvilket er grunden til at den virksomhed som er ansvarlig for slagtningen skal foretage en visuel identifikation af fedtindholdet i slagtehuset).

3.3.   Råvarer:

—

3.4.   Foder (kun for produkter af animalsk oprindelse):

I vinterperioden skal foder, der er produceret i det afgrænsede område udgøre mindst 50 % af foderet. I vinterperioden bliver lammene fodret med græs, majs, ensilage og i den sidste del af fodringsperioden hø suppleret med byg.

Dyrene skal græsse på marsken og forland i det geografiske bestemte område i mindst 4,5 måned per år.

3.5.   Specifikke etaper af produktionen, som skal finde sted i det afgrænsede geografiske område:

| — | Lammene skal være født og opdrættet i det geografisk bestemte område. |
| --- | --- |

—

Lammene skal være født og opdrættet i det geografisk bestemte område.

3.6.   Særlige regler vedrørende udskæring, rivning eller emballering osv.:

—

3.7.   Specifikke mærkningsregler:

Alle slagtede dyr stemples med Vadehav, Marsk og Mad’s logo.

Logoet skal mærkes på emballagen for det endelige produkt og skal stemples på det slagtede dyr for at kunne sikre sporbarhed.

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

Image

Image

4.   Præcis afgrænsning af det geografiske område:

Det geografiske område er Vadehavsregionen i det sydvestlige Danmark. Til Vade-havsregionen hører de tre øer, Rømø, Mandø og Fanø. Desuden fastlandet hvor den danske vadehavsregion afgrænses i syd af grænsen til Tyskland. I nord er grænsen identisk med Nationalpark Vadehavets nordlige grænse. Mod øst afgrænses området af hovedvej A11.

5.   Tilknytning til det geografiske område:

5.1.   Det geografiske områdes egenart:

Ribe grundlagdes ca. 710 som handelsplads, og gennem arkæologiske udgravninger har man kunnet dokumentere, hvilke varer der solgtes herfra. Nogle af de produkter, som tidligt fandtes på markedet, var får og lam. Fårene og lammene stammede fra lands-byerne i marsken, så allerede i jernalderen opdrættede marskens bønder får og lam.

Produktion af vadehavslam bygger på den lange tradition for opdræt af får og lam i marsken. Hvert år blev området ramt af stormfloder, som oversvømmede landbrugsjorden. Havet efterlod frugtbart silt og skabte dermed frodige engarealer på marsken, hvor dyrene græssede om sommeren, og hvorfra vinterfoderet kunne indsamles.

I artiklen »Jordbundsundersøgelser i marsken« fra »Tidsskrift for planteavl« 1968 behandler Lorens Hansen jordprøver udelukkende fra marsken. Heri står: »Marskjor-dene er fra naturens side meget kaliumrige, hvilket hænger sammen med det store le-rindhold og med dannelsesmåden«. I almindelig agerjord bestemmes natriumtallet sjældent, da natriumindholdet der er meget lavt og uden betydning for jordstrukturen. I marskjord træffes ofte et meget højt natriumindhold, der stammer fra havsaltet og er afsat ved marskdannelsen.

De sejlivede græsarter, som trives i marsken er rige og ikke specielt egnede til traditionelt landbrug, men er næsten ideelle til græsningsformål. De sejlivede græsarter, som trives i marsken, er rige på næring og samtidig modstandsdygtige over for forskellige vejrtyper. Faktisk er det den barske, salte påvirkning fra Vadehavet, som gør området helt unikt til græsningsformål. Følgende urter og græsser findes især på forlandet:

| — | Fint græs, små selvsåede hvidkløver, kælling-tand, skjaller, ranunkel og engelskgræs trives længst inde mod digerne. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fint græs, små selvsåede hvidkløver, kælling-tand, skjaller, ranunkel og engelskgræs trives længst inde mod digerne.

| — | I det lavereliggende område gror hindebæger, strandtrehage og lidt groft græs. |
| --- | --- |

—

I det lavereliggende område gror hindebæger, strandtrehage og lidt groft græs.

| — | I det yderste/laveste del af forlandet gror annelgræs og salturt. |
| --- | --- |

—

I det yderste/laveste del af forlandet gror annelgræs og salturt.

5.2.   Produktets egenart:

Lammene er avlet til at kunne leve i den barske natur i marskengene og på forlandet. Avlsarbejdet har ligeledes frembragt store og kødfulde lam med en fedtfattig kødstruktur. Vadehavslam har en særpræget saltet smag.

5.3.   Årsagssammenhængen mellem det geografiske område og produktets særlige egenskaber, omdømme eller andre kendetegn:

Den barske natur og de særlige jordbundsforhold stiller store krav til de landmænd, som producerer lam i vadehavsregionen. Landmændene i området udnytter deres vi-den og erfaring til at producere stærke og levedygtige lam på de vilkår, som naturen langs Vadehavet skaber.

Lammene er store og kødfulde dyr, hvor kødet har en særlig salt smag, der skyldes områdets specielle opvækstbetingelser. Når jorden er oversvømmet med havvand bliver salt og mineraler tilført jorden. Lammene grasser på marsken, hvor det høje indhold af kalium og natrium i græsset påvirker smagen af lammenes kød og giver vadehavslammet dets specielle kvalitet og særprægede salte smag.

Vadehavslam har igennem mange år været et kendt produkt over hele Danmark.

I turistorganisationers markedsføring af Vadehavsregionen og Nationalpark Vadeha-vet beskrives produktionen af vadehavslam som et vigtigt karakteristika for området.

Henvisning til offentliggørelsen af varespecifikationen:

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

---

(1)  EUT L 93 af 31.3.2006, s. 12.

---