(28)

In addition to the doubts as to whether the notified event qualified as an ‘exceptional occurrence’ the Commission also expressed, in its decision to initiate the procedure, its doubts regarding other aspects of the aid, namely: (a) the beneficiaries of the aid, (b) certain detailed rules for calculating the harm suffered, (c) the products covered by the aid and (d) the possibility that the measure might constitute indirect aid to the striking transporters. The reasons for these doubts are set out below. (a) The beneficiaries of the aid measure. According to Article 1 of the notified Law and the standard form, the beneficiaries of the aid are: ‘individual or associated enterprises engaged in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products’. However the explanations provided by the competent authorities regarding the detailed rules for calculating the harm suffered and the compensation appear to refer only to harm suffered by individual primary producers of agricultural products. In the absence of clarification from the competent authorities, the Commission has doubts as to who the beneficiaries of the aid measure are and, if the aid is granted also to operators engaged in processing and marketing, as to the type of harm suffered by each of these two categories of operators and the detailed rules for calculating and evaluating it. (b) Certain detailed rules for calculating harm suffered. The competent authorities provided examples of how the harm suffered by farmers would be calculated where products were delivered which were inferior, in quality or quantity, to those originally agreed in the contract. In these cases the harm suffered is the difference between the agreed price for the agreed merchandise, as established in the contract, and the price actually paid to the farmer after goods were delivered which were of lower quantity and/or quality (owing to overripeness). The competent authorities intend, however, to compensate also farmers who, as a result of the strike and the roadblocks, could not collect/harvest their produce and whose production was therefore lost. In this case the harm suffered by the farmers will be calculated on the basis of ‘expert reports by qualified agronomists concerning the value of the production on the plants/trees’ which were to accompany the contracts. In the absence of clarification from the competent authorities, the Commission expressed doubts regarding the detailed rules for calculating the harm suffered and the aid applicable in this specific case, and why the detailed rules applicable to this case would differ from those applicable in other cases mentioned above. Moreover the Commission expressed doubts regarding the nature and purpose of the expert reports, when and how they would be drafted, and the type of products in respect of which the said expert reports would be used to evaluate the harm suffered. (c) The products covered by the aid measure. The competent authorities had indicated that the aid would concern products that, because of their nature (perishability, harvesting period, etc), needed to be delivered or collected/harvested rapidly over the period concerned (30 September to 8 October 2000) and for which no alternative form of storage (freezing for example) could be envisaged. In order to evaluate this aspect the Commission departments concerned asked the competent authorities to provide a list of the products. The competent authorities did not provide such a list, but undertook to supply one at a later stage, before the payment of the aid. Since such a list was deemed necessary for the possible purpose of authorising the aid measure, the Commission expressed doubts regarding the nature of the products for which the competent authorities intend to grant aid. (d) The possibility that the measure might constitute indirect aid to the striking transporters. Since the aid measure aims to make good the harm suffered by agricultural undertakings because of the road hauliers’ demonstration, strike and roadblocks, the Commission could not exclude that, should the road hauliers be required under national law to pay compensation to agricultural undertakings for (contractual and non contractual) harm caused by their demonstration, the aid measure could be regarded as an indirect operating aid to the striking road hauliers. Since in order to avoid any duplication of compensation due to contractual harm or penalties paid to them by the striking transporters, the beneficiaries would have to declare that they have not initiated proceedings against the road hauliers concerned, and since the explanation provided by the competent authorities — i.e. that the road hauliers would be liable as private individuals and not as undertakings — did not appear convincing and did not appear to exclude that under national law the striking road hauliers might indeed be liable for harm to the farmers, the Commission expressed doubts regarding the nature of the actual recipients of the aid, which could therefore also be seen as operating aid to the road hauliers themselves or to some of them.