2000/116/EC: Commission Decision of 20 July 1999 concerning State aid, financed by parafiscal charges, which the Netherlands intends to grant for promoting ornamental plants (notified under document number C(1999) 3440) (Only the Dutch text is authentic)
Date: 1999-07-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Netherlands, State aid, advertising, horticulture, quasi-fiscal charge

L 34/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9. 2. 2000

II

(Acts whose publication is not obligatory)

COMMISSION

COMMISSION DECISION

of 20 July 1999

concerning State aid, financed by parafiscal charges, which the Netherlands intends to grant for
promoting ornamental plants

(notified under document number C(1999) 3440)

(Only the Dutch text is authentic)

(2000/116/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

(3)

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community, and in particular the first subparagraph of Article
88(2) thereof,

Having regard to Regulation (EEC) No 234/68 of the Council
of 27 February 1968 on the establishment of a common
organisation of the market in live trees and other plants, bulbs,
roots and the like, cut flowers and ornamental foliage (1), as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 3290/94 (2),

The parties concerned having been given notice, in accordance
with the first subparagraph of Article 88(2) of the Treaty, to
their comments (3), and having regard to those
submit
comments,

Whereas:

I. Procedure

(1)

(2)

the Treaty,

In accordance with Article 88(3) of
the
Dutch authorities notified the above aid measure to the
Commission by letter of 9 December 1996, registered
on 12 December 1996. Further
information was
supplied by letter of 4 March 1997, registered on 5
March 1997.

By letter SG(97) D/4124 of 30 May 1997 the Commis-
sion informed the Dutch Government of its decision to
initiate the procedure, under Article 88(2) of the Treaty,
in respect of the notified aid measure.

(1) OJ L 55, 2.3.1968, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 105.
(3) OJ C 227, 26.7.1997, p. 5.

(4)

(5)

(6)

The Commission's decision to initiate the procedure was
published in the Official Journal of the European Communi-
ties (4). The Commission asked the interested parties to
submit their comments on the aid in question. It passed
the comments received on to the Dutch authorities and
gave them the opportunity to react. The Netherlands
informed the Commission of its comments by letter of
22 June 1998.

Further information was supplied at a meeting between
representatives of
the Dutch Government and the
producer organisation on 23 November 1998.

II. Detailed description of the aid measure

The notification concerns altering a parafiscal charge
levied in order to finance an existing aid scheme for
promotional activities. The new provision would allow a
charge to be applied to products imported from other
Member States, but would ensure that
the resulting
revenue was channelled back to the representative
promotional organisations.

The existing aid is granted for sales promotion in the
ornamental plant sector (aid measure No 766/95). The
promotional activities are carried out by the Bloemen-
bureau Holland. The aid is financed from a parafiscal
charge which the former Productschap voor Sierge-
wassen (PVS) — now the Productschap Tuinbouw —
levies on sales, in the Netherlands, of ornamental plants
or their propagating material. The charge is based on the
value of the products sold and must be paid by all
growers and importers of ornamental plants. Products
imported from other Community Member States are
expressly exempt from the charge.

(4) See footnote 3.

9. 2. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 34/21

The Commission has always regarded revenue from a
charge imposed by national
law as State resources
within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty. Since
the revenue in question is used to promote certain
Dutch products (flowers and plants), and since it there-
fore ‘distorts or threatens to distort competition by
favouring certain undertakings or the production of
certain goods’, the Dutch measure is an aid measure
within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty.

Under the draft amendment, the exemption for products
imported from other Member States is to be abolished
and they are to be taxed in the same way as Dutch
products or products imported from third countries. All
revenue from the charge on products imported from
other Member States is to be used for promotion
campaigns in the Member States concerned, based on
close consultation between the Productschap and the
other Member States' representative organisations.

The Productschap will conclude contracts for carrying
out the promotional activities with the representative
organisations in all the Member States, stipulating how
the revenue is to be spent on generic promotion
campaigns for ornamental plants. The Dutch authorities
have submitted a model contract.

(7)

emphasised that

The Dutch authorities have
the
proposed contracts with representative promotional
organisations
in the other Member States will be
concluded on a voluntary basis, without any pressure
being exerted. In its contract offer letter to potential
partner organisations, the Productschap explains that the
purpose of the contract is to levy a charge on products
from the Member State concerned and to reimburse the
resulting revenue. The Dutch authorities point out that
one of the recitals preceding the contract provisions
states that the charge is to be levied on ‘products traded
in or via the Netherlands’. According to the Dutch
authorities, the contract can therefore be concluded only
if the other Member State's representative organisation
expressly agrees that its products traded in or via the
Netherlands are to be subject to the charge and that the
resulting revenue is to be channelled back.

The Dutch authorities guarantee that, if such a contract
cannot be concluded in respect of a particular Member
State, that Member State's products will not be subject to
the charge.

(8)

The main provision of the model contract proposed by
the Productschap is that the promotional activities are to
be determined and implemented in mutual consultation
between the Productschap and the Member State's
promotional organisation. The contract also stipulates
to
that all promotional activities are to be subject

approval by the Member State's promotional organ-
isation, which may veto any proposal at any time.
Where consultation does not result in agreement being
reached, a committee set up by both parties may issue a
binding recommendation. The committee is to be made
up of a member appointed by each side and an indepen-
dent third party appointed by the contracting organisa-
tions' representatives.

(9)

The Productschap applies three selection criteria in order
in the other
to ensure that partner organisations
Member States are representative. Such organisations
must:

(10)

(a) be able to carry out promotional activities;

(b) operate throughout

the Member State concerned;

(c) represent a broad cross-section of producers and

traders.

The Commission has noted from the information
provided by the Dutch authorities that, even where an
organisation which satisfies the three criteria has not
been found, a producer or trader organisation should be
sought which represents the sector and which is engaged
inter alia in promotional activities. Where several organ-
isations satisfy the selection criteria, they are all to be
consulted and either the contract is to be concluded with
them all or those with which no contract is concluded
are to recognise as representative the organisation with
which the contract is concluded. According to the Dutch
authorities, this makes it possible to avoid an arbitrary
choice of partner organisation.

(11)

The Dutch authorities have provided a detailed overview
of the partner organisations with which work will be
undertaken in the different Member States, other poten-
tial partner organisations, and the reasons why — in
accordance with the above criteria — each organisation
was chosen.

As regards the nature of the promotional aid, the Dutch
authorities have confirmed their previous statement that
the existing programme (aid measure No 766/95)
complies with the Commission framework for national
aids for the advertising of agricultural products (5) and
that the same applies to promotional activities carried
out in cooperation with partner organisations in other
Member States. The Commission therefore regards the
new programme's aid component as compatible with
the common market.

The Dutch authorities propose to introduce a charge on
products imported from other Member States. Based on
the judgment by the Court of Justice of the European
Communities in Case 47/69 France v Commission (6), the
Commission generally regards aid financed from paraf-
iscal charges which also apply to products imported
from other Member States as incompatible with the
common market.

The Commission considers the fact that other Member
States' partner organisations must
first agree to the
charge being levied on their products is an important
from usual parafiscal
factor which distinguishes
charges. That agreement appears to make the charge on
imported products voluntary in character, since the

it

(12)

(13)

(5) OJ C 302, 12.11.1987, p. 6.
(6) European Court Reports 1970, p. 487.

L 34/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9. 2. 2000

Productschap may levy charges on products imported
from other Member States only if the partner organ-
isations in the Member States concerned accept
the
scheme. The charge on imported products can therefore
be mandatory in character only if such agreement exists.

In the Commission's opinion, the fact that the revenue is
channelled back to the partner organisations is also a
factor which distinguishes the scheme from usual paraf-
iscal charges.

(14)

The Commission therefore concluded that, subject to the
conditions referred to under point 13, the proposed
scheme could be regarded as compatible with the
common market since it is based on voluntary agree-
ment by the representative partner organisations in the
Member States concerned and since, because the tax
revenue is channelled back to the Member States in

question, it could be assumed that the tax burden which
is coupled with the benefit resulting from the aid
measure is no greater for imported products than for
domestic products.

(15) Nevertheless,

the Commission very much doubts
whether the conditions referred to under point 13 have
been complied with when implementing the scheme in
practice.

(16)

Consequently, it has initiated the procedure in accord-
ance with Article 88(2) of the Treaty.

III. Possible economic impact of the charge

(17)

Based on the Productschap's data, the proposed charge
turns out to have the following economic effects:

Cut flowers and pot plants 1998

Country

Imports

(NLG × 1 000)

Revenue following introduction
of the parafiscal charge

France

Belgium

Germany

Italy

United Kingdom

Ireland

Denmark

Greece

Portugal

Spain

Austria

Finland

Sweden

29 300

79 600

34 500

9 600

7 800

4 000

10 800

1 700

2 100

103 800

600

200

400

274

745

322

90

73

37

101

16

20

970

6

2

3

TOTAL

284 400

2 659

(18)

The estimated and actual costs in respect of promotional activities financed from parafiscal charges
levied solely on Dutch growers' products are:

Year

Estimate

Actual costs

(NLG)

1993

1994

1995

1996

26 045 000

26 880 000

27 710 000

28 250 000

25 550 002

26 907 924

9. 2. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 34/23

(19)

(20)

The charge percentage amounted to 0.8 % (1995), 0.95 % (1996), 1.05 % (1997) and 1.15 % (1998).

The economic effects are also apparent when Dutch bulb exports are compared.

Dutch bulb exports (Eurostat data)

Value

1994

275 717

310 533

1994

85 848

84 430

Quantity

1995

286 589

279 217

1995

88 482

65 954

(EUR 1 000)

1996

293 790

253 598

(tonnes)

1996

93 726

65 674

within the Community

outside the Community

Source: Eurostat.

within the Community

outside the Community

Source: Eurostat.

IV. Comments by the other Member States and

interested parties

VLAM (the organisation responsible for promoting the
sale of agricultural products in the Flemish Region).

4.1 Belgium

(21)

(22)

(23)

(24)

The Belgian authorities submitted their comments on
the Dutch Government's proposed measures by letter of
22 August 1997.

imported from other
They disputed that products
Member States were now exempt from the parafiscal
charge.

The Belgian authorities also wondered what the differ-
ence was with the current situation. In their view, it was
not clear whether the charge applied to auctions or to all
imported products. The measure's
scope (products
subject to the charge) also seemed rather vague.

the charge applied to pot plants,

There was no guarantee whatsoever that revenue from
the charge would be used to promote the products on
which it was levied (for example, if a certain percentage
of
then the same
percentage of the resulting revenue should be spent on
promoting pot plants). Moreover, revenue from the
charge on Belgian products should also be distributed
according to the products' regional origin.

(25) As regards partner organisations being representative,
the Belgian authorities pointed out that promotion was a
regional matter in Belgium. Since the charges were
levied on the production sector, it should be involved in
the promotional activities in consultation and coopera-
tion with the sales sector.

(26)

By letter of 18 January 1999, the Belgian authorities
withdrew their reservations. They no longer needed to
be taken into account, because a cooperation agreement
had been concluded between the Productschap and

4.2 United Kingdom

(27)

The United Kingdom authorities
comments by letter of 29 August 1997.

submitted their

(28) According to the United Kingdom, there was a represen-
tation problem. The Productschap worked mainly with
two British organisations, neither of which were at all
representative of most producers and traders. Conse-
quently, there was a risk that certain traders would have
to pay the charge without being represented.

(29)

There was a threat of discrimination against products
from Member States not taking part in the scheme.

(30) Moreover, producers and traders from other Member
States would not necessarily derive equal benefit from
the Productschap's sales promotion. Nor was it clear
what would happen to revenue not used for promotion.
Rules should be introduced in order to ensure that the
charges received were channelled back.

(31)

(32)

Lastly, a number of practical aspects could give rise to
problems. The Productschap should of course ensure
that the origin of imported products was precisely deter-
mined. If it failed to do so, there was a risk that an
unfair system of permanent parafiscal charges would
develop.

The British authorities therefore took the view that the
Dutch proposal ran counter to the interests of producers
in other Member States. They opposed the charge on
imported products.

L 34/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9. 2. 2000

(33)

By letter of 5 January 1999, the Flowers and Plants
Association submitted its comments in favour of the
system proposed by the Productschap. The association
claimed to represent all major British exporters of
narcissi. The scheme proposed by the Productschap
would enable the association to carry out generic
promotional campaigns.

4.3 Denmark

(34)

The Danish authorities submitted their comments by
letter of 3 September 1997.

(35) Quite apart from anything else, the administrative diffi-
culties involved in collecting parafiscal charges on prod-
ucts imported from other Member States had to be
regarded as impeding smooth operation of the internal
market. Moreover, approval of the Dutch scheme could
create a precedent for other Member States.

(36)

(37)

The voluntary nature of the scheme was insufficient
justification for a change in Commission practice with
regard to parafiscal charges on imported products.

The proposed scheme would also result in a double
charge on Danish products which were exported to the
Netherlands and which were already taxed in Denmark.

4.4 Sweden

(38)

The Swedish authorities submitted their comments by
letter of 23 September 1997.

(39) Although the charges were voluntary and were chan-
nelled back to the exporting country,
the scheme
hampered trade within the internal market and entailed
extra administrative costs. The parafiscal charge could
also result in certain producers no longer selling their
products on the Dutch market, and this would benefit
Dutch producers.

(40)

Since domestic charges were already levied in a number
of countries, the scheme would result in double taxation.

(41) A voluntary charge could be collected — either indir-
ectly via a representative organisation, or directly —
only if all producers and traders agreed to it.

In the light of

proposal. Most European countries benefited from
Dutch promotional activities.
the
Community's efforts to boost flower and plant sales and
to compensate Community producers for the liberalisa-
tion of imports from third countries under the special
programme to promote sales, the Dutch promotion plan
could also play an important role. The plan could even
provide a basis for the Community programme.

(45)

The voluntary nature of the system would constitute
another aspect which would have to be taken into
account.

V. The Netherlands' comments

(46)

By letter of 22 June 1998 (which referred to the
Productschap's comments contained in a letter of 30
January 1998 annexed to the Dutch authorities' letter)
the Dutch authorities reacted as follows:

5.1 With regard to Belgium's comments

(47)

In accordance with the Productschap's rules, since 1
January 1996 the charge had no longer been applied to
products from other Member States. If auctions had still
applied charges after that date for technical reasons,
those charges would be reimbursed.

(48) Not only sales at auctions would be taxed, but also trade
around auctions. The system would be the same as the
one applying before 1999. The charge would apply only
to floricultural products. Specific rules applied to flori-
cultural products and flower bulbs.

(49) A distinction was already being made between pot
plants and other floricultural products. Consideration
should therefore be given to allocating the revenue to
each group of products taxed. Division of the revenue
originating in Belgium from the charge would depend
on the representative organisations.

(50)

The proposed scheme benefited the whole floricultural
sector (producers and traders alike).

5.2 With regard to the United Kingdom's comments

(42)

(43)

(44)

The Swedish authorities doubted whether market opera-
tors from the other Member States would derive as
much benefit from the scheme as those in the Nether-
lands.

(51)

The Trädgårdsnäringens Riksförbund (Swedish horticul-
tural producers' association) and the Blomstergrossis-
ternas Riksförbund (Swedish flower wholesalers' associa-
tion)
comments by letter of 22
December 1998.

submitted their

In its reply to the Commission, the Swedish Government
had drawn attention to the legal and competition
aspects. According to the two associations, in doing so it
had taken little account of the Swedish representative
organisations' much more favourable assessment. The
the Dutch
fully
Swedish

associations

supported

First a national organisation was selected. If that turned
out to be impossible, then the Productschap tried to
work with organisations which represented a large part
of the sectors concerned. To that end, discussions were
held with other organisations (such as the National
Farmers' Union). For as long as there was no grouping
Productschap
organisations,
of
proposed to continue to work with the two British
organisations with which it was currently working.
According to the Productschap, the promotional activi-
ties benefited the whole sector and so the problem of
representation had to be seen in
taxation without
perspective.

representative

the

(52)

It was pointed out that only three Member States had
not yet signed the contract. Those three accounted for
less than 1 % of the total amount collected.

9. 2. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 34/25

(53)

(54)

Consideration might be given to reimbursing Member
States revenue not used for promotion. Such a solution
however did not seem really necessary in view of the
contracts already concluded.

The Productschap regarded itself as able to determine
imported products' origin with a considerable degree of
certainty. An annual discussion would take place with
the Member States' relevant authorities in order to deter-
mine the amounts due to each country.

5.3 With regard to Denmark's comments

(55) According to the Productschap,

there would be no
double charge because the charges collected in the Neth-
erlands were channelled back to Denmark.

5.4 With regard to Sweden's comments

(56)

In the Productschap's opinion, Dutch market operators
were not placed at an advantage.

(57) According to the Productschap,

there would be no
double charge because the charges collected in the Neth-
erlands were reimbursed to Sweden.

(61)

VI. Assessment of the aid measure

(58)

The doubts which led the Commission to initiate the
procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty still remain.

(59)

6.1 Extent
entative

to which the partner organisations are repres-

Entirely voluntary contributions from the floricultural
sector which are intended to finance promotional activi-
ties are not
to be regarded as State aid within the
meaning of Article 87(1), since ‘aid granted by a
Member State or through State resources in any form
whatsoever’ is not involved. This is not so in the present
case. In order to guarantee that the charge is applied on
the basis of a voluntary contract, the agreement of all
ornamental plant producers and traders in the Member
State concerned is required. The organisations with
which contracts are concluded should therefore repre-
sent all the Member State's producers and traders, which
is not so in the case of the proposed Dutch scheme. A
charge ordinance provides the legal basis which will
allow the Productschap to levy a charge on imported
products. Based on the Court of Justice's case div. law (7),
the Commission has always held that revenue from a
contribution which the government makes mandatory
must be regarded as State resources within the meaning
of Article 87(1). Consequently, State aid within the
meaning of Article 87(1) is definitely involved. A paraf-

iscal charge which is levied on imports is incompatible
with the common market because it may adversely affect
trade between Member States.

(60) At the meeting on 23 November 1998 the Product-
schap's representatives pointed out the similarity to the
scheme introduced by Council Regulation (EC) No
2275/96 of 22 November 1996 introducing specific
measures for live plants and floricultural products (8) and
Commission Regulation (EC) No 803/98 of 16 April
1998 laying down detailed rules for 1998 for the
application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2275/96
introducing specific measures for live plants and floricul-
tural products (9).

it

should be pointed out

that
In this connection,
programmes to increase the consumption of live plants
and floricultural products are to be presented by repres-
entative groups of operators in one or more branches of
activity in the live plant and floricultural products sector
(Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 803/98).

The partner organisations with which the Productschap
has concluded contracts are the same as those which
operate within that European framework. The Product-
schap therefore assumes that the European authorities
have established that
the partner organisations are
representative and have accepted them as such.

This argument cannot be accepted, however. There is a
clear distinction between organisations which are desig-
nated to administer European budgets on the basis of a
Council regulation and under the supervision of the
Member States and the Commission, and the same
organisations which — in most cases without a legal
basis in their national legislation — would be designated
by the Productschap to attend both to the charge on
firms which may or may not be members of those
organisations and to flower and plant promotion
financed out of the revenue from such a charge. A
Community legal instrument (particularly a regulation)
which introduces horizontal approximation through
common criteria and seeks a degree of harmonisation in
the public interest does not necessarily justify a Member
State introducing tax obstacles at its own instigation.
There is also the risk that the charge will be applied
without representation.

(62) Moreover, the fact that promotional activities in other
Member States are to be carried out in consultation with
the Productschap gives the Productschap a certain say,
while other Member States' organisations do not enjoy
such control over promotional activities carried out in
for
the Netherlands. This
suspecting that the measure is geared to Dutch opera-
tors.

imbalance gives grounds

6.2 Allocation of the rechannelled funds

(63)

It is not clear whether producers and traders in each of
the other Member States would be able to derive as
much benefit from the promotional support measures
applied by the partner organisations there as would
Dutch producers and traders from the measures applied
by the Productschap.

(7) Judgment in Case 78/76, Steinike & Weinlig v Germany, ECR 1977,

p. 595.

(8) OJ L 308, 29.11.1996, p. 7.
(9) OJ L 115, 17.4.1998, p. 5.

L 34/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

9. 2. 2000

The Court of Justice has consistently ruled (10) that if the
advantages stemming from the use of the proceeds of
the charge in question fully offset the burden borne by
the domestic product when it is placed on the market,
that charge constitutes a charge having an effect equiva-
lent to customs duties, contrary to Articles 23 and 25. If
those advantages only partly offset the burden borne by
domestic products, the charge in question is subject to
Article 90 of the Treaty. In the latter case, the charge
would be incompatible with Article 90 and is therefore
prohibited to the extent to which it discriminates against
imported products, that is to say to the extent to which
it substantially offsets the burden borne by the taxed
domestic product compared with the imported product.

In the present case, it has not been established that there
is no discrimination against imported products, or that
the parafiscal charges and the resulting revenue do not
contravene Article 90 of the Treaty. The essential ques-
tion is whether imported products really can benefit
from the aid scheme in the same way as domestic
products: even if the rules guarantee equal treatment for
domestic and imported products, conditions in practice
inevitably favour domestic operators because promo-
tional activities are undertaken in response to domestic
specialisations, requirements and market opportunities
(seasonal
in the varieties
grown). Even assuming that imported products really are
able to benefit from the aid scheme in the same way as
domestic products, in practice there is no mechanism
whereby the Commission can actually verify whether
products from the other 14 Member States are bene-
fiting from the aid in the same way as domestic prod-
ucts — particularly since the Dutch authorities have
failed to state the identification system which would be
used to determine the origin of imported products (see
recital 31 above), apart from a vague assurance from the
Productschap that it regards itself as able to determine
the origin (see recital 54 above).

fluctuations and changes

(64) Moreover, the purpose of Articles 87 and 88 differs
from that of Article 90. The fact that a national measure
meets the requirements of Article 90 does not neces-
sarily mean that it complies with other provisions such
as Articles 87 and 88. Where an aid measure is financed
from a charge on certain firms or products,
the
Commission is required to examine not only whether
the method of financing complies with Article 90 of the
Treaty but also whether that method and the aid so
funded are compatible with Articles 87 and 88 (11).

(10) See particularly the judgments in Joined Case C-78 to C-83/90,
Compagnie Commerciale de l'Ouest and others v Receveur Principal des
Douanes de la Pallice Port ECR 1992, p. I-1847, paragraph 27, and
Case C-17/91, Georges Lornoy en Zanen NV and others v Belgian
State, ECR 1992, p. I-6523, paragraph 21.

(11) Judgment in Case 47/69, already referred to in footnote 6; see also
judgments
in Cases C-266/91, Celulose Beira GmbH v Fazenda
Pública, ECR 1993, p. I-4337, and C-72/92 Firma Herbert Scharbatke
GmbH v Federal Republic of Germany, ECR 1993, p. I-5509.

In so far as the charges are not voluntary (which is the
case, as set out at recital 59) and are channelled back to
the exporting country, there is a risk that the proposed
scheme will hamper trade within the single market and
will entail additional administrative costs.

The proposed scheme seems primarily designed to
restore the competitive position of Dutch products
which are themselves affected by the parafiscal charges.
Imported products, which would have become more
competitive because only domestic products are taxed,
lose that advantage when they are likewise taxed.
Spending the revenue from the charge for promoting
imported products does not necessarily offset the loss of
that competitive advantage, since equal treatment is not
assured in practice (see point recital 63 above).

scheme

threatens

The proposed
free
competition. The aid's adverse effect on trade between
Member States may be exacerbated by the method
through which the aid is financed, since that method
likewise imposes a burden on imported products.

to distort

(65)

It should be added that operators in other Member
States often bear the burden of granting aid to finance
comparable promotional activities. When producers in
other Member States export to countries which levy an
import charge, they are financing the same activity twice
over.

In view of this, the Dutch authorities have stated that
they are prepared to reintroduce a scheme such as that
which used to exist between Germany and the Nether-
lands, whereby operators were exempted from the
charge if they were able to demonstrate that they had
already paid a similar charge in the other country.

However, such a formality (submitting documents in
order to obtain exemption from the charge) could be
regarded as a measure having equivalent effect and
therefore be prohibited under Article 28 of the Treaty —
i.e. ‘all trading rules enacted by Member States which are
capable of hindering, directly or indirectly, actually or
potentially, intra-Community trade’ (12). Formalities (even
those entailing no more than the submission of docu-
ments) which are presumably accompanied by a control
system are capable of hindering intra-Community trade.
Furthermore, such border controls are justified only in a
limited number of special cases (13).

to be insufficient

(66) Moreover, the revenue from the parafiscal charges may
turn out
to launch a promotion
campaign. In that event, there are no corrective meas-
ures to provide equitable compensation for producers
and traders in other Member States and there is nothing
to prevent the partner organisation from retaining the
money.

(12) Judgment in Case 8/74, Dassonville, ECR 1974, p. 837.
(13) Judgment in Case 159/78, Commission v Italy, ECR 1979, p. 3247.

9. 2. 2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 34/27

(67)

VII. Conclusion

In the light of the above, the Commission considers that
there are insufficient grounds for departing from its
usual practice with regard to State aid financed from
parafiscal charges which are also levied on imported
products, namely that the scheme must be based on
voluntary agreement by operators or
representative
partner organisations in the Member States concerned
and that the resulting revenue must be channelled back
to those Member States.

The Commission therefore takes the view that the aid
measure in question, which is financed from parafiscal
charges which also apply to products imported from
other Member States, is incompatible with the common
market,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The aid which the Netherlands intends to grant for promoting
ornamental plants and which is financed from a parafiscal
charge on products imported from other Member States is

incompatible with the common market. The aid scheme must
therefore not be implemented.

Article 2

The Netherlands shall
inform the Commission, within two
months of notification of this Decision, of the measures taken
to comply with it.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Done at Brussels, 20 July 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission