natgillin/translations-raw huggingface dataset:
Vælges det at ændre den endelige beslutning, ville det blive muligt at lægge de nye EU-retningslinjer til grund for Frankrigs eksisterende ordning til fremme af oprettelsen af short-sea-shippingruter inden fristen den 30. juni 2005, som Kommissionen fastsatte i de nye EU-retningslinjer, så alle medlemsstaterne dermed træffer de nødvendige foranstaltninger for at bringe alle deres eksisterende ordninger i overensstemmelse med de nye fællesskabsregler.
The option of changing the final decision would make it possible to anticipate the application of the new Community guidelines to the scheme existing in France for the start-up of short sea shipping services before the deadline laid down by the Commission in the new Community guidelines, namely 30 June 2005, so that Member States can, through appropriate measures, bring all their existing schemes into line with the new Community guidelines.
Kommissionen konkluderer, at beslutning 2002/610/EF bør ændres.
In conclusion the Commission considers that Decision 2002/610/EC should be amended.
Med den foreslåede ændring kan Frankrig tilpasse sin ordning til bestemmelserne i de nye EU-retningslinjer, hvad angår søruter mellem en fransk havn og en havn i en anden medlemsstat, og ændringen vil ligeledes gøre det muligt at lade betingelserne i de nye EU-retningslinjer gælde for projekter vedrørende støtte til fordel for søruter mellem to franske havne.
The proposed amendment will enable France to bring its scheme into line with the provisions laid down in the new Community guidelines in respect of sea shipping services between a French port and a port of another Member State and will also enable projects granting aid to sea shipping services between two French ports to be made subject to the conditions laid down in the new Community guidelines.
Mere generelt vil denne ændring få til følge, at Frankrig gennemfører sin ordning på samme betingelser, som i henhold til de nævnte retningslinjer gælder i alle de øvrige medlemsstater —
More generally, this amendment will mean that France will be implementing its scheme under conditions identical to those prevailing in all the other Member States in pursuance of the said guidelines,
I artikel 1 i beslutning 2002/610/EF indsættes følgende tredje afsnit:
The following third subparagraph shall be added to Article 1 of Decision 2002/610/EC:
»Frankrig tildeler individuel støtte i medfør af denne ordning under overholdelse af alle bestemmelser i kapitel 10 i EU-retningslinjerne for statsstøtte til søtransportsektoren.Artikel 2
‘France shall make the granting of individual aid within the framework of this scheme subject to compliance with Chapter 10 of the Community guidelines on State aid to maritime transport.Article 2
EFT L 196 af 25.7.2002, s. 31.
OJ L 196, 25.7.2002, p. 31.
Det præciseres bl.a. i forordningens artikel 9, at »Ydelsen af EF-bistand til de i programmet definerede projekter udelukker ikke, at der til samme projekt ydes offentlig støtte på nationalt, regionalt eller lokalt niveau, for så vidt denne støtte er forenelig med de i traktaten fastsatte statsstøtteregler og ikke overskrider de grænser, der er fastsat for hver type projekt i henholdsvis artikel 5, stk. 2, artikel 6, stk. 4, og artikel 7, stk. 3«.
Specifically, Article 9 of the said Regulation provides that ‘Community financial assistance for the actions defined by the Programme shall not exclude those actions being granted State aid at national, regional or local level, insofar as such aid is compatible with the State-aid arrangements laid down in the Treaty and within the limits established for each type of action in Article 5(2), Article 6(4) and Article 7(3) respectively.’
I tilfælde af fællesskabsfinansiering eller kvalificering under forskellige støtteordninger gælder 30 % -loftet for den (det) kumulerede samlede støtte/tilskud.
For Community financing or eligibility under various aid schemes, the 30 % ceiling applies to the combined total of the aid and financial assistance.
Det bør bemærkes, at støtteprocenten er den samme som den, der er fastsat for trafikoverflytningsprojekter under Fællesskabets Marco Polo-program, jf. artikel 5, stk. 2, i forordning (EF) nr. 1382/2003.
It should be noted that the intensity of the aid is the same as for modal shift actions within the framework of the Marco Polo programme: see Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1382/2003.
EUT C 13 af 17.1.2004, s. 3.«
OJ C 13, 17.1.2004, p. 3.’
EUT L 196 af 2.8.2003, s. 1 Ved denne forordning indføres Marco Polo-programmet, som giver Kommissionen mulighed for at yde EF-tilskud til projekter vedrørende oprettelse af nye short-sea-shippingruter med henblik på at overflytte en del af godstransporten fra vej til vandveje.
OJ L 196, 2.8.2003, p. 1. This Regulation establishes the Marco Polo Programme which enables the Commission to grant a financial contribution from the Community to projects for the start-up of short sea shipping services to shift part of freight transport from road to maritime transport.
om Tysklands statsstøtteordning i form af fritagelse for afgifter på mineralolieprodukter til væksthuse
on State aid (Germany) exemption from mineral oil tax for greenhouse undertakings
(meddelt under nummer K(2008) 860)
(notified under document number C(2008) 860)
efter at have opfordret interesserede parter til at fremsætte deres bemærkninger i overensstemmelse med denne artikel, og under henvisning til disse bemærkninger [1], og
Having called on interested parties to submit their comments pursuant to the provision cited above and having regard to their comments [1],
Ved brev af 19. april 2005, der indgik 20. april 2005, gav Tyskland meddelelse om en afgiftsfritagelse for væksthuse for 2005 og 2006.
By letter of 19 April 2005, registered as received on 20 April 2005, Germany notified a measure granting a tax refund for greenhouses in 2005 and 2006.
Denne foranstaltning indeholder en suspensionsklausul, der gør gennemførelsen af foranstaltningen afhængig af, at Kommissionen godkender den.
The measure contains a suspensive clause making its implementation dependent on approval by the Commission.
Statsstøttesagen blev registreret under nr. N 189/05.
The State aid case was registered under the number N 189/05.
Denne foranstaltning er en forlængelse af en ikke anmeldt ordning (2001-2002), der allerede var blevet forlænget (2003-2004), og som heller ikke var anmeldt.
The measure is an extension of a non-notified scheme (2001-2002), which was already the subject of an extension (2003-2004), itself also non-notified.
De to uanmeldte foranstaltninger blev registreret under nr. NN 36/05.
Both those non-notified measures were entered in the register of non-notified aid under the number NN 36/2005.
Ved brev af 20. oktober 2005 indledte Kommissionen den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 88, stk. 2 [2].
By letter of 20 October 2005 the Commission opened the formal investigation procedure in accordance with Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty [2].
Tyskland fremsatte sine bemærkninger ved brev af 22. november 2005.
In response Germany commented by letter of 22 November 2005.
Kommissionen modtog flere bemærkninger fra interesserede parter.
The Commission received several observations from interested third parties.
Tyskland kommenterede disse bemærkninger ved brev af 14. juni 2006 og sendte yderligere oplysninger ved brev af 12. december 2007.
Germany commented on these by letter of 14 June 2006, and provided further information by letter of 12 December 2007.
Ved lov om ændring af mineralolieafgiftsloven indførte Tyskland den 16. august 2001 en toårig afgiftslempelse for brændstoffer (brændselsolie, naturgas og LPG) til anvendelse i væksthuse og i lukkede dyrkningsrum.
On 16 August 2001, by means of the Law amending the Mineral Oil Tax Law, Germany introduced a two-year tax reduction for fuels (heating oil, natural gas, liquid gas) for use in greenhouses and covered growing areas.
Støtten blev ydet i form af en afgiftsgodtgørelse.
The aid was granted in the form of a tax refund.
Ved den tyske lov om fortsættelse af miljøafgiftsreformen af 23. december 2002 blev den godtgørelse, der oprindeligt var blevet ydet for brændstoffer anvendt i perioden 1. januar 2001 til 31. december 2002, forlænget indtil 31. december 2004.
By means of the Law on the further development of the ecological tax reform of 23 December 2002, the tax refund, which had originally been granted for fuels used between 1 January 2001 and 31 December 2002, was extended until 31 December 2004.
Tyskland agter ved direktivgennemførelseslov af 9. december 2004 at bevare denne afgiftsgodtgørelse indtil udgangen af 2006 og har anmeldt forlængelsesforanstaltningen som statsstøtte N 189/05.
By means of the Law on the implementation of the guidelines of 9 December 2004, Germany intended to retain that tax refund until the end of 2006 and notified the extension measure as State aid N 189/05.
Tabellerne i bilag I giver en oversigt over afgiftsgodtgørelserne og deres finansielle virkninger for væksthusgartneri i forhold til den øvrige landbrugssektor.
The tables in Annex I show the refund rates and financial impact of the tax refund in favour of greenhouses, compared to the rest of the agricultural sector.
Kommissionen har indledt den formelle undersøgelsesprocedure af følgende årsager:
The Commission opened the formal investigation procedure for the following reasons:
Foranstaltningen betragtes som statsstøtte.
The measure constitutes State aid.
Tyskland gjorde gældende, at undtagelsen i Rådets direktiver om beskatning af energiprodukter (direktiv 92/81/EØF, som fra 2003 blev afløst af direktiv 2003/96/EF) finder anvendelse på denne sag.
The German authorities argued that this case was covered by the exemption contained in the Council Directives on the taxation of energy products (Directive 92/81/EEC, replaced from 2003 by Directive 2003/96/EC).
Ifølge disse direktiver kunne medlemsstaterne yde afgiftsgodtgørelser for mineralolieprodukter, der anvendes i gartnerisektoren.
Under those Directives, Member States could grant tax reductions on mineral oils used in horticulture.
Kommissionen betvivlede dette synspunkt.
The Commission expressed doubts in respect of this view.
Ifølge de nævnte direktiver, især direktiv 2003/96/EF, skal de afgiftsforanstaltninger, som medlemsstaterne kan vedtage, være forenelige med EF-retten, og undtagelsesbestemmelser skal gælde, uden at konkurrencereglerne tilsidesættes.
Under the Directives on energy products, and in particular Directive 2003/96/EC, the tax measures which Member States may adopt must be compatible with Community law and derogating provisions are to apply without affecting the rules on competition.
Foranstaltningerne må ikke være til hinder for, at det indre marked kan fungere, og ikke resultere i konkurrenceforvridning.
The measures must not impair the smooth operation of the internal market or lead to distortions of competition.
Desuden virkede støtten åbenlyst konkurrenceforvridende, da en lavere afgift på energiprodukter i en meget energiintensiv branche som væksthusgartneri havde direkte indflydelse på produktionsomkostningerne og dermed på konkurrenceevnen.
Moreover, this aid would appear to have distorted competition, since a reduced tax burden on energy products in a highly energy-intensive economic sector such as greenhouse cultivation had a direct effect on production costs and hence on competitiveness.
Det blev fremhævet, at godtgørelsen blev ydet selektivt, fordi der inden for samme sektor blev skelnet mellem frilands- og væksthusgartneri.
It was emphasised that this refund had been granted selectively since it differentiated between open-air and greenhouse cultivation within the horticultural sector.
Kommissionen påpegede, at medlemsstaterne havde mulighed for at give afgiftsgodtgørelser, men at det skulle ske i overensstemmelse med konkurrencereglerne.
The Commission emphasized that tax reductions could be granted, subject to the rules on competition.
På det stadium syntes statsstøtteordningen ikke at indeholde nogen bestemmelser om, at medlemsstaterne kan yde statsstøtte af denne art.
At that stage, there seemed to be no provisions under the State aid rules which would enable Member States to grant fiscal aid of that nature.
Kommissionen var på det stadium af den opfattelse, at denne foranstaltning måtte betragtes som driftsstøtte, der er uforenelig med fællesmarkedet.
The Commission at that stage considered that this measure constituted operating aid which was incompatible with the common market.
TYSKLANDS BEMÆRKNINGER
GERMANY’S COMMENTS
Tyskland fremsatte både bemærkninger til sagen og til proceduren.
Germany commented both on the matter itself and on the procedure.
Ifølge Tyskland var afgiftslempelsen ikke selektiv, fordi anvendelsen af brændstoffer til opvarmning ifølge sagens natur kun kommer på tale i lukkede rum.
Germany argued that the tax reduction was not selective, and that it was in the nature of the matter that heating materials would be used only in covered areas.
Skulle der være tale om selektivitet og dermed altså om støtte, ville støtten kunne retfærdiggøres i henhold til EF-traktatens artikel 87, stk. 3, litra c).
In Germany’s view, if there were selectivity, and therefore aid were being granted, that aid would be justified under Article 87(3)(c) of the EC Treaty.
Støtten kunne især retfærdiggøres i henhold til artikel 8, stk. 2, litra f), i direktiv 92/81/EØF og sidenhen i henhold til artikel 15, stk. 3, i direktiv 2003/96/EF.
Germany claimed that there was special justification for the aid under Article 8(2)(f) of Directive 92/81/EEC and under its successor provision, Article 15(3) of Directive 2003/96/EC.
Ifølge Tyskland drejede det sig om at »gennemføre den bemyndigelse, som medlemsstaterne havde fået [i henhold til disse direktiver]«.
Germany was of the opinion that the measure constituted ‘implementation of the authorisation granted to Member States (…) [by the above-mentioned Directives] (…)’.
Det var selvmodsigende, hvis Kommissionen, der trods alt havde foreslået disse direktiver, foreholdt Tyskland, at foranstaltningen udgjorde en fare for fællesmarkedet.
In Germany’s view, it would be contradictory for the Commission (which, after all, proposed those Directives) to put the counter argument to Germany that the measure posed a risk to the common market.
I øvrigt havde de pågældende direktivers konkurrenceretlige aspekter ikke forrang.
According to Germany, the competition-law aspects of the Directives in question did not have priority.
Ifølge Tysklands opfattelse skulle punkt 52 i EF-rammebestemmelserne for statsstøtte til miljøbeskyttelse [3] finde anvendelse, fordi en eksisterende afgift var blevet væsentligt forhøjet.
The German Government was of the opinion that point 52 of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection [3] was applicable because an existing tax had been increased significantly.
Mineralolieafgiftsloven og den energiafgiftslov, der har afløst den, skulle betragtes som en miljøafgift.
It argued that the Mineral Oil Tax Law, and the Energy Tax Law which had taken its place, should be seen as an existing environmental tax.
De deri fastsatte energiafgifter, var fra den 1. april 1999 blevet væsentligt forhøjet ved miljøafgiftsreformen, hvilket fremgår af vedlagte oversigt (bilag I).
They stated that the energy tax rates contained therein had been increased significantly as of 1 April 1999 through the ecological tax reform (as shown in the overview in Annex I).
Formålet med bestemmelserne var ved hjælp af energibeskatning at øge efterspørgslen efter energibesparende og ressourceskånende produkter og skabe incitament til udvikling af miljøvenlige metoder og teknologier.
The objective of those provisions had been to increase demand for energy-saving, resource-efficient products and drive the development of environmentally friendly procedures and technologies.
Energibeskatningsbestemmelserne havde dermed betragtelig indflydelse på miljøbeskyttelsen.
The German Government argued that the legislation relating to the taxation of energy had thus had a significant effect on environmental protection.
Tyskland henviser i den forbindelse til en undersøgelse af energieffektiviteten ved væksthusdyrkning foretaget af Zentrum für Betriebswirtschaft im Gartenbau eV ved Institut für biologische Produktionsbetriebe på Leibnitzuniversitetet i Hannover.
In this context, the German Government made reference to a study on energy efficiency in greenhouse cultivation which had been conducted by the Centre for Business Management in Horticulture at the Institute of Biological Production Systems at Hannover’s Leibnitz University.
Den højere energibeskatning belastede i særdeleshed virksomheder, der opvarmede væksthuse eller lukkede dyrkningsrum til planteproduktion på grund af deres energiintensive drift.
Higher taxation on energy, it was claimed, was a particular burden on undertakings which heated greenhouses or other covered areas, as the operations of those undertakings were energy-intensive.
Dette gav anledning til, at der blev indført en afgiftsnedsættelse for midlertidigt at aflaste disse virksomheder.
In view of this, it was argued, there had been cause to lessen the burden on those undertakings temporarily by introducing a fiscal incentive.
Også efter den 31. december 2002, hvor afgiftslempelsen oprindeligt skulle være udløbet, var der behov for denne foranstaltning.
It was also argued that there had still been a need for this measure after 31 December 2002 (the date on which the original tax reduction had been due to expire).
Lempelsen blev derfor forlænget med to år indtil den 31. december 2004 ved lov om fortsættelse af miljøafgiftsreformen.
For this reason, the Law on the further development of the ecological tax reform extended the validity of the tax reduction by two years until 31 December 2004.
For også i 2005 og 2006 at tage hensyn til den særligt vanskelige konkurrencesituation, som landbrugs- og skovbrugsvirksomheder, der opvarmede væksthuse eller lukkede dyrkningsrum til planteproduktion, befandt sig i, blev det fastsat, at afgiftslempelsen også skulle gælde i den periode.
In light of the particularly difficult competitive situation in 2005 and 2006 faced by agricultural and forestry undertakings which heated their greenhouses or covered areas for the purpose of cultivating plants, it had been decided to grant the tax reduction for that period also.
Ifølge Tysklands opfattelse er kravene i punkt 52 i EF-rammebestemmelserne opfyldt.
The German Government considered the requirements laid down in point 52 of the Community guidelines to have been satisfied.
Derfor kunne bestemmelserne i punkt 51, stk. 1, litra b), i EF-rammebestemmelserne bruges som begrundelse for afgiftslempelsen i perioden 2001-2006.
Consequently, it was argued that the provisions of point 51(1)(b) of the Community guidelines could be used as justification for having granted State aid in the form of a tax reduction for the period 2001-06.
Hvis afgiftslempelsen berørte en EU-afgift, som var blevet harmoniseret i henhold til direktiv 92/81/EØF eller direktiv 2003/96/EF, var nedsættelsen dermed forenelig med fællesmarkedet, i hvert fald såfremt den ikke var lavere end den gældende EU-minimumsafgift.
The German Government argued that, where the tax reduction affected a Community tax which had been harmonised in accordance with Directive 92/81/EEC or Directive 2003/96/EC, the tax reduction was compatible with the common market, at least in cases where it was not below the minimum Community tax rate.
Afgiftslempelsen var også forenelig med fællesmarkedet, hvis der ikke var involveret nogen EU-afgift, i hvert fald hvis lempelsen var på over 20 % af den indenlandske afgift.
The same applied to the tax reduction (i.e. compatibility with the common market) according to Germany, if a Community tax was not involved, at least in cases where the reduction was over 20 % of the domestic tax.
Tyskland erklærede endvidere, at spørgsmålet om at indføre en afgiftsnedsættelse for landbrugs- og skovbrugsvirksomheder, der opvarmede væksthuse eller lukkede dyrkningsrum til planteproduktion, var blevet drøftet allerede ved udarbejdelsen af lovforslaget om indførelse af miljøafgiftsreformen, fordi disse virksomheder blev ramt særligt hårdt af en højere beskatning på grund af deres energiintensive drift.
Germany also stated that, during consultations on the draft law introducing the ecological tax reform, the issue had arisen of reducing the burden on agricultural and forestry undertakings which heated their greenhouses or covered areas for the purpose of cultivating plants because those undertakings would have been affected significantly by higher taxation due to their energy-intensive operations.
Da den parlamentariske behandling af denne lovgivning foregik under stort tidspres, og loven oprindeligt skulle være trådt i kraft allerede den 1. januar 1999, blev det besluttet at inkludere landbrug og skovbrug i nedsættelsesmekanismen for produktionsvirksomheder.
Due to the enormous time pressure on passing this legislation through parliament, and the fact that the legislation had originally beens due to enter into force on 1 January 1999, it had been decided to include the agricultural and forestry sector in the tax reduction mechanism for the manufacturing sector.
Den pågældende afgiftslempelse blev indført i henhold til en særskilt ændring af mineralolieafgiftsloven, som var trådt i kraft den 1. januar 2001, mens den første forlængelse af lempelsen for perioden 2003-2004 skete i henhold til lov om fortsættelse af miljøafgiftsreformen.
The introduction of the tax reduction in question was the result of a separate amendment to the Law on mineral oil tax, which had entered into force on 1 January 2001. The first extension of the tax reduction (for the period 2003-2004) was adopted under the Law on the further development of the ecological tax reform.
Tyskland hævdede i kraft af tidligere kontakter til Kommissionen at have fået det indtryk, at den pågældende afgiftslempelse var lovlig.
Germany argued that it had been led to believe that the tax reduction in question was lawful during its communications with the Commission beforehand.
Tyskland henviste især til nogle mundtlige udtalelser fra Kommissionen under et møde i Arbejdsgruppen vedrørende landbrugets Konkurrencevilkår den 26. og 27. oktober 1999.
Germany referred in particular to verbal statements made by Commission officials during a meeting of the working group ‘Competition conditions in agriculture’ on 26 and 27 October 1999.
I hvert fald blev Kommissionen underrettet om sagens omstændigheder senest ved Tysklands meddelelse af 29. august 2001, således at den allerede dengang havde kunnet vurdere, om afgiftslempelsen var forenelig med fællesmarkedet.
In any event, the Commission had, at the latest, been made aware of the facts of the case by Germany’s communication of 29 August 2001, to such an extent that at that juncture the Commission would have been able to assess the compatibility of the tax reduction with the common market.
Tyskland påberåbte sig udtrykkeligt artikel 10, stk. 1, og artikel 14, stk. 1, andet punktum, i forordning (EF) nr. 659/1999 [4].
Germany expressly invoked Article 10(1) and the second sentence of Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 [4].
Hvis støtten eventuelt blev krævet tilbagebetalt, ville det hverken være i overensstemmelse med princippet om berettiget forventning og retssikkerhedsprincippet eller med principperne for korrekt forvaltning.
Any recovery of the aid could not, Germany argued, be compatible either with the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty or with the principles of proper administration.
Bemærkningerne fra interesserede parter viste ifølge Tysklands opfattelse, at deres forventninger havde været berettigede.
According to Germany the observations by interested third parties showed that their expectations were legitimate.
BEMÆRKNINGER FRA INTERESSEREDE PARTER
THIRD PARTY OBSERVATIONS
De interesserede parter fremførte i det væsentlige argumenter, som Tyskland allerede havde fremført.
The interested third parties essentially put forward arguments which Germany had already used.